I must confess that this is the First Time in My Life I have Heard the Claim that "Democracy Killed Christ. I personally want to thank You for that Perspective. My soon to be Jewish Son in Law should get a kick out of it.
What Constitutes a "Right?"
- Thread starter Kevin_Kennedy
- Start date
While I went down this path with Care I won't repeat it all for the sake of clogging up the thread. However, as a Constitutional Republic the basic principle is to protect the Minority from the Majority however sometimes that might fail, our Republic uses the democratic process to elects its representatives, but prior to the 1930's it's a bit of a leap to suggest that this nation is a democracy. I do appreciate your posting and understand what you are trying to say as well. Natural Rights are only rights up and until a Govt. or person(s) takes them away from you.
I must confess that this is the First Time in My Life I have Heard the Claim that "Democracy Killed Christ. I personally want to thank You for that Perspective. My soon to be Jewish Son in Law should get a kick out of it.
Here is something Intense that is often times never thought of when people think advocate that majority rules thing...
On August 19, about 95 percent of registered voters in Germany went to the poles and gave Hitler 38 million votes of approval (90 percent of the vote). Thus Adolf Hitler could claim he was Führer of the German nation by direct will of the people. Hitler now wielded absolute power in Germany, beyond that of any previous traditional head of state. He had become, in effect, the law unto himself.
You see, those that founded this nation understood that tryanny can come even in the guise of the will of the majority. While our form of Govt. may not be the best there is a Constitutional Republic such as our's is the best we have. What I have suggested though that during the FDR Administration the Supreme Court empowered congress through a series of decisions on the General Welfare Clause to basically do anything they wished thus undermining the concept of limited Govt. as seen by the Father of the constitution Madison.
Diuretic
Permanently confused
I'll lay off the democracy discussion too. Republicanism is an interesting form of government, fairly intricate and bound up with its own particular philosophy. I'll leave it at that.
I am very much of the opinion that there are no "natural rights" as specified by natural rights theory. If rights are natural, innate in humans, then they can only be invaded and not taken away, I think that's part of the argument. Anyone with superior power can invade someone's rights, they can't take them away because they were granted by a creator and no human has the authority of the creator. I think that's another part of the argument. That relies on the assumption of a creator for its validity I think.
On the other hand, I am of the opinion that rights are a social arrangement. In my view whether rights are "taken away" or simply invaded is largely irrelevant, the effect is the same. In a solitary state a human doesn't need to consider "rights". In a social state humans can - they don't have to - negotiate the creation of rights.
Diuretic, I'm actually of the opinion that a "right" be it one that one believes is a natural right or one that is granted to them through the legislative process can be easily taken away and therefore are all temporary. Even in our own constitution even though some "rights" i.e. those not expressed in the constitution are reserved for the states or the people are easily taken away when the Supreme Court decides that the General Welfare Clause allows congress to do so. When asked recently a Supreme Court Justice was asked what they thought of rights granted in the constitution and that Justice made the comment " Your rights are whatever we decide they are".
Diuretic
Permanently confused
Yes there are no absolute rights.
The Supreme Court justice was curt, smacks of a touch of arrogance there. It might be partially correct but the smugness is a bit much
The Supreme Court justice was curt, smacks of a touch of arrogance there. It might be partially correct but the smugness is a bit much
rubberhead
Member
- Sep 8, 2009
- 498
- 31
- 16
Just thought you'd slip that in at the end eh? I argue that there is no need for society if you have no rights upon joining it.
What kind of a society is it if you have no rights? Is that a society at all?
The want for the guarantee of ones rights is the motivation for being part of a society. Indeed protecting the rights of one another seems to be the reason for organizing into groups at all.
So which came first? The chicken or the egg? Society or rights?
I have been arguing that 'natural' rights are the ones that result in a minimal social pressure if guaranteed.
Let me pose a question:
In a society where some do not have rights, are those people with no rights still considered members of that society?
If you believe that society can exist without rights, then you should be able to answer this question.
The term "Bill of Rights" is a misnomer. Most of the listed "prohibitions", more than "rights", are unnecessary.
The Constitution gives certain powers to the National Government. It is a cage that keeps the National Government in check. Most of the "Bill of Rights" speaks to things that the National Government has no power over in the first place.
So, it is unnecessary.
If you are searching out your "Rights", I'd start first with your State Government.
That is "home".
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,542
- 2,165
- Banned
- #1,229
Rosseau and Jefferson would disagree with your last paragraph, and Locke would agree with them instead of you. Having written that, I agree that simply because Jefferson claimed we do have inalienable rights independent, obviously independent of social relations, does not make him right.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,542
- 2,165
- Banned
- #1,230
That Stonewall is settled in 1865. Your side of the argument died on the battlefield. It is interesting to discuss, but it is a sterile discussion.
Diuretic
Permanently confused
I write as I think it - the bit at the end just came to me.
No need for a society? Need is irrelevant, society just is. As for rights on joining it - provided the joining is consensual, authorised, legitimate etc. there would be social rights for the member.
The existence of a society doesn't depend on its members having rights. I wouldn't want to live there though
Rights aren't a reason for societies, they're produced by societies.
Since societies produce rights, societies came first.
Lack of rights doesn't signify non-membership of a society. A slave can be a member of a society in the broadest sense of "society", he or she isn't a citizen but they can be a member of society. That's a status issue, not a membership issue.
rubberhead
Member
- Sep 8, 2009
- 498
- 31
- 16
I write as I think it - the bit at the end just came to me.
No need for a society? Need is irrelevant, society just is. As for rights on joining it - provided the joining is consensual, authorised, legitimate etc. there would be social rights for the member.
The existence of a society doesn't depend on its members having rights. I wouldn't want to live there though
Rights aren't a reason for societies, they're produced by societies.
Since societies produce rights, societies came first.
Lack of rights doesn't signify non-membership of a society. A slave can be a member of a society in the broadest sense of "society", he or she isn't a citizen but they can be a member of society. That's a status issue, not a membership issue.
I think we disagree on the definition of society then. Oh well, we don't have to agree. I don't think society just 'is'. It's a huge stretch to say society just exists. I think society is a good strategy when it maximizes well-being of all involved. You haven't shown that societies create rights, maybe you think it's obvious. I think it's obvious that people are born with their rights and organize into societies to make sure that their rights can be protected.
The Constitutional Amendment Process
The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.
The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.
In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.
In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.
Constitutional Amendment Process
The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.
The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.
In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.
In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.
Constitutional Amendment Process
PubliusInfinitum
Rookie
- Aug 18, 2008
- 6,805
- 729
- 0
- Banned
- #1,234
Well if it's defining, it's defining... thus a definition. I see your point... but such serves as a rationalization to avoid DEFINING MORALITY...
As in the Judea-Christian Ethos of Morality... Which the a- and the anti-theist reject. Thus the notion that 'Theism is not essential to Morality' is false. You simply want to plug in your own rationalization of morality and are desperate to avoid defining such, because where such is defined, it requires judgment and that gets a little prickly. Which is why Duir has suddenly found a reticent streak on the issue.
She knows damn good and well that where she answers the challenge posed, she's done in terms of credibility on the whole "I don't need God to me moral..." thing.
Got it... You want to define what a morality is, without defining what Morality actually is... perfectly clear.
But when ya stack the relativist notion of morality, up against those with a specific ethos, your desired cooperation thing turns ugly; promoting that 'war' thing you seem so prone to lament.
Well what makes like easier is where people agree on acceptable behavior, that's for sure. But stating that you believe in Morality doesn't an agreement make. You may, for instance believe it's perfectly acceptable to use the Government to subsidize your life at the expense of another... thus imparting yourself as a burden to someone who has absolutely no moral responsibility for your sorry ass what so ever. Again... such is the morality formula for those wars you seem so sensitive to.
Agreed...
Well, at the minimum, God gave us the means to reason, so as to observe our surrounding environment and deduce from our experience what works and what doesn't... So it's incorrect to say that god hasn't provided us with the means to know his will... add the scriptures to that and it's a hands down "God's all over it..."
I've probably 1500 posts defining my understanding of the immutable principles, God's law and the perfection in reason which proves their divine origins.
The Creator endows the gift of life... with that life, the inherent rights to pursue the fulfillment of that life and the responsibility to not exercise that right to the detriment of another's right; and to defend one's means to exercise that right and that of their neighbor.
Where everyone recognizes, respects and maintains the responsibilities intrinsic with those rights... there is no means to or potential for, failure.
Well by not calling it what it is... you avoid judgment... by avoiding judgment you render your opinion moot, you reject your responsibility to defend the right of those who are at risk of the unbjustifiable taking of their lives and promote the interests of those who disagree with you; who do not hesitate to, nor do they have any problem with such judgments.
Having a Doctorate in Medicine doesn't give you a pass to make moral decisions which usurps the rights of others... the list of catastrophic unintended consequences from ROE is endless... as is every single other rationalization to avoid the intrinsic responsibilities of one's rights. Not the least of which is failing to come to a firm judgment on the act of taking the life of the most innocent life in the scope of humanity.
Yet he did... that you fail to credit him with your means to reason doesn't change that.
Is this embryo a human embryo? Does this embryo represent a viable stage of life, if left to it's natural course? Is the answer to both is yes... then you're looking at human life and human life is endowed by its creator with the unalienable right to its life. That a greater power than that embryo strips it of the means to exercise that right, doesn't change it. So clearly, we do not agree...
A fully formed fetus is simply an old embryo... which wasn't striped of its life.
It doesn't brother...
Yes you do... You're just struggling with the responsibility to draw a line and stand on it. It's hard... but where you fail to defend the right of another, you undermine your own damn right, to your own damn life.
Where would you be on the issue if it was YOU in your present stage of development, subject to the whim of a superior power to strip you of your innocent life? A life which had simply been judged to be an inconvenience, to that superior power.
Imagine now that two people were having a discussion on a message board, where one says to the other: I just don't believe Rubberhead in his current stage of development represent a human being... and even if he does... he's already locked up and I can't here him crying from my house... so ****'im.
I imagine you'd disagree with their opinion regarding your humanity and be mighty disappointed to find out they didn't have a sufficient grip on their responsibility to defend their own rights to understand that the only difference between you and THEM is their name isn't rubberhead and someone of sufficient power hasn't deemed them disposable...
That's basicially where we are in that one. All thats missing to declare either of us dispoable is the proper circumstance, a rationalization and sufficient concentrated power directed at us to get the job done.
Agreed... Now build on that and take a freakin' stand.
The ONLY time that taking a human life is justified is when that life is a clear and present threat to one's own life... and it getting between you and that prom dress; or that ya don't really feel ready to raise a child is not a threat to one's life. "If you continue with the pregnancy, you're gonna die..." THAT'S a threat to one's life... Same goes for Rape... the Mother did not willfully engage in intercourse, conception was set entirely against her will and means to avoid it... and as such the risk of childbirth does represent sufficent threat to take the childs life... Some argue that the child is not responsible... and while that's true, if a child was holding a shotgun to my head and completely innocent of their actions... if killing that child was necessary to save my life... I would be perfectly justifed to take that childs life... I may or may not take action to do so... but as is the case of conception due to rape, the mother is entitled to preserve her own life, to the detriment of the innocent child.
Noting complicated about it...
Then you haven't lived hard enough friend... Life is a *****... it is HARD and REALITY SUCKS! What is the point of suffering through this existance if this is all there is? If this is it... there is NOTHING that can make the burden of this life worth it. Nothing...
It doesn't scare me... Been there, done that... it's the easiest thing there is. You move out fo this life into the next, just as if you were walking through your front door.
I didn't invent God... he actually invented me. I didn't make him up, I simply recognized his existance and accept that this life has a purpose, that there are hard and fast rules on how one is to live this life and that I'm to live by them and not worry about the purpose; that I owe God for this opportunity and I am thankful for it; and I hope that when it's played out that I held up my end. But no matter what I think, say or do... I'll be held accountable for my actions... and there's not a damn thing I can do or say to prevent it.
It couldn't be easier...
No...
The love is the flow to the foil of misfortune...
If I buy a house in your name... does that make it your house? Are you responsible for it? Some would say ya are... but I say that they're full of shit. Which is my position on those who start wars or kill others in the name of God.
Doing so, will bring accountability of the damnation variety... as it is an attrocious violation of one's inherent responsibilities and there will literally be hell to pay.
No sir, man did not create God... Period. And the assertion that such is the case is pure conjecture, of the baseless varierty.
God created man and endowed him with unalienable rights and responsibilities to defend and maintain those rights... thus man is free to do what he will... and it is up to other free men to destroy those men and send them on to face thier final judgment... as such is the sacred duty of every free man.
Actually, you claim that God is a myth... thus any claim which you assign against or for God is a farce; empty rhetoric. I speak with God every day... there's nothing to it... he answers me, just as you answer me... in the means by which you prefer... God's response comes as does every other notion... in clear and discernible impression... just as your response comes.
Men who claim to speak for God do so for their own reasons... but the faithful understand what righteousness is and what it is not and are not subject to misunderstandings.
It's unlikely that claiming ignorance of God's voice will carry much wieght at our final accounting. One doesn't interpret Day as Night... just as evil, does virtue does not resemble vice.
If one fails to recognize the Father's voice, his intent or his presence, it is because they choose not...
Last edited:
I must confess that this is the First Time in My Life I have Heard the Claim that "Democracy Killed Christ. I personally want to thank You for that Perspective. My soon to be Jewish Son in Law should get a kick out of it.
Here is something Intense that is often times never thought of when people think advocate that majority rules thing...
On August 19, about 95 percent of registered voters in Germany went to the poles and gave Hitler 38 million votes of approval (90 percent of the vote). Thus Adolf Hitler could claim he was Führer of the German nation by direct will of the people. Hitler now wielded absolute power in Germany, beyond that of any previous traditional head of state. He had become, in effect, the law unto himself.
You see, those that founded this nation understood that tryanny can come even in the guise of the will of the majority. While our form of Govt. may not be the best there is a Constitutional Republic such as our's is the best we have. What I have suggested though that during the FDR Administration the Supreme Court empowered congress through a series of decisions on the General Welfare Clause to basically do anything they wished thus undermining the concept of limited Govt. as seen by the Father of the constitution Madison.
I like advised by Locke, Madison, Jefferson, Thoreau, King, and Gandhi, Rely on Conscience First, in Relation to Right and Wrong Behavior. Society and Government do not Trump Conscience. We choose those battles wisely and out of Necessity. The concept of Defensive Necessity, has swayed enough Jurors, not big on the Kool-Aid flavor of the week.
Nonviolent Civil Disobedience is a child of The Natural Law that Empowers It's Catalyst to succeed against all odds. I Celebrate every evidence of that,and I thank God Every day that there are those out there above Price. Those that will not surrender Principle to the corruption of the week or day.
The Declaration Of Independence Recognized Inalienable Right, Natural Law, as depicted by John Locke, through Jefferson's Hand. From Our Maker, Recognized by Government, to what ever degree, and protected, by the Individual, the Society, and the Government. The Natural Order would include all three, serving the same Interest. Principle, Righteousness, would Require Impartial Justice in defending Life, Liberty, and Property, plus the Pursuit of Happiness. Our Forefathers understood the Recipe for Tyranny, and tried to protect against the Encroachment of it. The fact that Our system is now heavily corrupted is no excuse for the intentions behind the damaging course We are now on. The FDR years hurt Us dearly. The First major Assault however came much Earlier on.
Two examples of Creative and Imaginative Constructionism. Both presumed much more than Reason would support. Transparency, Continuity, Impartiality, seem pretty lacking in both cases.Madison and Jefferson Fought the Corruption of Federalism, they were outmaneuvered.
Hamilton: The Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, 1791 Alexander Hamilton.
Our Documents - Marbury v. Madison (1803) John Marshal.
A second lesson from you today, I always considered the 75% bar on Constitutional Amendment a stop gap or safety margin,against the Pied Piper. The 95% support Hitler got reinforces that We need to stop indoctrinating Our Children, the consequences unveiled testify of Human Stupidity. Where was the Voice of Conscience throughout all of this? There are no Deity's that are going to save Us from ourselves when we do unjustified harm.
You are preaching to the Choir on Tyranny. There is a Book "Reclaiming The American Revolution", by William Watkins. It's a great read. Conscience is the Foundation of Righteous Change.
our government is not set up for a pure democracy, it can NEVER become one....
a republic, means a country without a Monarch at head....a republic CAN HAVE A DICTATOR AS HEAD and many do.
we are however, operating as a representative democracy...our representatives are elected on pure majority vote, our us senators are elected on a mere majority vote, our State representatives are elected on mere majority vote, and our mayors and governors all on mere majority of the people....
our president is elected by the majority vote in each state, translated in to state electors casting their vote, so a democratically elected representative...the electoral college votes for him.... if 94% of americans voted for a Hitler, as you nicely implied, we would still have hitler elected, even in this Republic of ours, so i guess i don't see your point, at all....???
care
a republic, means a country without a Monarch at head....a republic CAN HAVE A DICTATOR AS HEAD and many do.
we are however, operating as a representative democracy...our representatives are elected on pure majority vote, our us senators are elected on a mere majority vote, our State representatives are elected on mere majority vote, and our mayors and governors all on mere majority of the people....
our president is elected by the majority vote in each state, translated in to state electors casting their vote, so a democratically elected representative...the electoral college votes for him.... if 94% of americans voted for a Hitler, as you nicely implied, we would still have hitler elected, even in this Republic of ours, so i guess i don't see your point, at all....???
care
Last edited:
There was a time when Constitutional Amendment was Necessary to add Powers, to Empower. Now the Courts do it. We live by Rule of Law, not Majority Rule. There is a difference. It would benefit those around you , for you to realize the potential there. Conscience first makes a difference too. Try it sometime.
View it as a First Commandment! God first in all things.
Kevin_Kennedy
Defend Liberty
- Aug 27, 2008
- 18,603
- 1,969
- 245
- Thread starter
- #1,239
That hasn't been working out so well since the beginning of the nation.
There was a time when Constitutional Amendment was Necessary to add Powers, to Empower. Now the Courts do it. We live by Rule of Law, not Majority Rule. There is a difference. It would benefit those around you , for you to realize the potential there. Conscience first makes a difference too. Try it sometime.
we do live by rule of law...
and the judicial activism is just as great or greater from republican leaning judiciary if you can see past partisan-ism.
the majority vote of our representatives MAKES the LAW intense....the minority vote will never ''make the rule of law'' that we follow.
the majority is not some kind of SIN in our representative Democratic Republic , it is PART of it!
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Marines reassures families over ICE presence at graduation ceremony- Started by Zincwarrior
- Replies: 0
-
putin´s parliament Deputy Delagin compares current events in putin´s empire to the collapse of the ussr empire- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 0
-
Jobs Numbers Smash Through Expectations: US Payrolls Grow By 178,000!- Started by Captain Creeper
- Replies: 7
-
-
