Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 223

Thread: A Libertarian Case For Global Government?

  1. #31
    As libertarians, we care about what the government does (e.g. how much if it taxes, regulates, inflates, wars, etc).
    When I consider the legitimacy of a regime I have little interest in how much, so... ftfy

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...




  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    [A] single and consolidated government would become the most corrupt government on earth. - Thomas Jefferson

    The more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite and murder its foreign and domestic subjects. The more constrained the power of governments, the more power is diffused, checked and balanced, the less it will aggress on others and commit democide. [Note: Dr. Rummel coined the term democide to refer to the many and regular genocides and mass murders committed by governments.]. . . . In total, during the first eighty-eight years of this century, almost 170 million men, women, and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed, or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners. The dead could conceivably be nearly 360 million people. It is as though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. And indeed it has, but a plague of Power, not of germs. - Professor R.J. Rummel (Prf of Political Science, Univ of Hawaii) Death by Government (Transaction Press 1994).

    Putting the human cost of war and democide together, Power has killed over 203 million people in this century. … Even if all to be said about absolute Power was that it causes war and the attendant slaughter of the young and the most capable … this would be enough. But much worse even without the excuse of combat, Power also massacres in cold blood those helpless people it controls—in fact, several times more of them. - R.J. Rummel

    Power kills; absolute Power kills absolutely.Democide is committed by absolute Power; its agency is government. - R.J. Rummel
    Last edited by AZJoe; 10-05-2016 at 07:27 AM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul. "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
    "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    A key element in the genocide formula is powerful government. So what happens when there is world government? … [T]he united Nations should more accurately be dubbed the united government. Three has never been a worldwide vote of the people to ratify the U.N. charter. There has never been a world election to select representatives from each nation to the UN. Rather, the delegates to the UN are appointed by their respective governments. And who are these government? … 55% of the world’s nations are not “free” countries. Most of the “free” nations themselves labor under varying forms of “democratic” socialism (welfare statism). Perhaps a better name for the UN is the union of Socialist and military Regimes: a collection of entities … ranging in degrees of evil from “necessary” to “intolerable.” Not surprisingly, the UN member governments seek to preserve and enlarge their powers. To concentrate political power into the hands of national and then world governments - Aaron Zelman and Richard Stevens, Death by "Gun Control" 2001
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul. "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
    "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.

  6. #34
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to AZJoe again.
    Someone cover me?
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Someone cover me?
    Ok.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Someone cover me?

    Covered.
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    What kind of BS is this thread?! What is happening in here?

    I have critiqued Nationalism because of the incredible dangers, but that should NEVER be taken as a justification for globalism! Holy shyt! I'll make it simple for you:

    When it comes to governance:
    Globalism = Bad
    Nationalism = Just as bad (just faster)
    Localism = Better
    Individualism = Best

    When it comes to trade, the exact opposite is true.
    Mm. Yeah, a case could be made for globalism if your economy is good and all of that happy hoopla. That's the beauty of genuine free trade and a healthy economy. But global government, no.

    Liberty = against Government over Man. To be clear, to be libertarian is to be against Government over Man.

    Anyway. Seems like just another dishonest thread by rev3 pimping kings.

    Anarcho-Monarchism, I think it was. Sigh. So many isms...so little time.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-05-2016 at 10:43 AM.

  10. #38
    I can't think of a libertarian case for any government.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    I can't think of a libertarian case for any government.

    This^^^^ +rep
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    The dissonance, it burns.
    You eeeeediot... that made me squirt tea out me fookin' nose.

    You owe me. Big time.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    I can't think of a libertarian case for any government.
    Repworthy. Pony up ye stingys.

    Thread winner.

    /THREAD
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    I can't think of a libertarian case for any government.

    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul

  16. #43
    @William Tell

    You're missing my point, which is that the "don't put all your eggs in one basket" argument only works if you presuppose that a world government would behave in a less libertarian fashion than the average local government. But that is exactly the issue in contention; i.e. you're begging the question.

    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Definitely not a pro, you still have lots of real wars fought within states(so called "civil" wars).
    Yes, there would still be a risk of civil war, as there is now in every local state.

    What there would not be is a risk of interstate war; hence the improvement over the status quo.

    In fact, I would argue that the breaking up of states leads to less wars than forcing all states to be under one union.
    Even if that were true, you'd have to show that the additional risk of civil war outweighed the total absence of interstate warfare.

    You certainly haven't shown that.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Globalism = Bad
    Globalism = good

    ...aren't bare assertions fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
    As libertarians, we care about what the government does (e.g. how much if it taxes, regulates, inflates, wars, etc).
    When I consider the legitimacy of a regime I have little interest in how much, so... ftfy
    It's unfortunate that so many anarcho-capitalists adopt this view.

    One can advocate for the abolition of the state without taking the delusional position that all states are equally bad.

    A person who cannot (or will not) recognize that there's a difference between N. Korea and S. Korea cannot be taken seriously.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 10-05-2016 at 04:40 PM.

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    A person who cannot (or will not) recognize that there's a difference between N. Korea and S. Korea cannot be taken seriously.
    I guess you're right... you can smoke pot in N. Korea.

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  18. #45
    Excerpts from an LvMI article criticizing world government, with my counterarguments:

    I, too, believe that war is a horrible waste of lives and property, and in common with everyone else in the world, I hope that there can be peaceful solutions to world and local problems. But, I am opposed to world government. I am opposed to any world government, first, because I believe that the realities of international affairs would make a mockery of any attempt to secure peace through a single superstate. Secondly, I am opposed to world government for idealistic reasons.

    Let us consider these two objections separately.

    First, what are the realities we face? The realities are the antagonistic and conflicting national forces in the world today; and the various forms of government which prevail throughout the world—from tribal societies to colossal, monolithic, authoritarian states. Obviously, if we are to set up a world government, we must find some common denominator which will permit all forms of society to meet under one vast umbrella of law; for unless all society submits to world "law," that portion of society which remains outside must be considered "outlaw." The proponents of world government generally recognize the difficulty of including all people within the jurisdiction of a common government. As a general rule, they state that each country shall have the exclusive right to make its own laws governing its citizens, subject only to the supreme and superior law of a world government.
    Supposing that not all peoples can be put under the same law, the solution is simple: don't put them under the same law. World government does not have to mean uniform law throughout the world. Most existing states allow local variations in law to accommodate local preferences; there's no reason a world government couldn't do the same.

    This brings me to my second major objection to any world government. To build a world community upon the premise that a law against war will end wars is to build upon a false premise, and my idealistic leanings rebel against any such notion. A law has no meaning unless it can be enforced, and if enforcement means war, then a law against war is worse than a paradox, for it is a delusion.
    This may be a valid criticism of world federalism, in which a central government polices semi-autonomous local governments, each with their own armies. But it's irrelevant to a centralized world government, ruling directly over individuals. The policing activities of such a centralized world govenrment would be of the normal kind, like the policing activities of existing states.

    Worldwide competition between free men is the condition to be encouraged, for it leads to a virile, strong society! This country, as an example, owes its strength in no small measure to the free market which our founding fathers provided for in our Constitution.
    An ironic example, since one of the few functions of the federal government laid out by the Founders (Art. I, Sec. 9) was to prevent the states from raising protectionist tariffs against one another, which they would otherwise have been eager to do. In other words, the existence of a single market in the US, free trade between the states, is a result of the fact that the states are not sovereign, but are subject to a common authority.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 10-05-2016 at 05:12 PM.

  19. #46
    For those who think world government & liberty so violently opposed that I must be insane for even entertaining the idea:

    But, for the liberal, the world does not end at the borders of the state. In his eyes, whatever significance national boundaries have is only incidental and subordinate. His political thinking encompasses the whole of mankind. The starting-point of his entire political philosophy is the conviction that the division of labor is international and not merely national. He realizes from the very first that it is not sufficient to establish peace with in each country, that it is much more important that all nations live at peace with one another. The liberal therefore demands that the political organization of society be extended until it reaches its culmination in a world state that unites all nations on an equal basis. For this reason he sees the law of each nation as subordinate to international law, and that is why he demands supranational tribunals and administrative authorities to assure peace among nations in the same way that the judicial and executive organs of each country are charged with the maintenance of peace within its own territory.
    Guess who wrote that?

    ...

    ...

    ...

    ...

    ...

    ...

    ...

    ...

    No, really, guess.

    ...

    ...

    ...

    ...

    ...

    ...

    ...

    ...

    Ludwig von Mises (Liberalism, Ch. 3 Sec. 10)

    And Mises was not exceptional in this regard. World government for the sake of peace has been a part of the liberal tradition for a very long time, going back beyond Mises to Kant in the 18th century, and even to the School of Salamanca, the great proto-Austrians of the late Middle Ages.

    Reasonable liberals can disagree on the subject, but to dismiss it out of hand as inherently illiberal is an error.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 10-05-2016 at 07:07 PM.

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    As libertarians
    You strike me as no libertarian. But please, continue...



    Local Government, Pros
    -economic competition between states, which encourages liberal economic policy

    Local Government, Cons
    -war between states, and war is both bad in itself and a major driver of state growth

    Global Government, Pros
    -no war between states, since only one state

    Global Government, Cons
    -no economic competition between states, since only one state

    These factors, and any others that may exist, would have to be weighed against one another, to find which system is best on balance.

    So I'll leave it there for now and await your comments.
    All meaningless nonsense because you make static assertions with no apparent consideration for variability in human action that stems from any of a large number of possible causes.

    That said, a theoretical case can surely be made for "world government", depending on how the term is defined and what the objectives are for having one.

    Global government can work "well" in theory, IFF the right conditions are satisfied and could be guaranteed not to vary with time, fashion, or other circumstance.

    If a global government operated based upon the principles of proper human relations, were administered competently and honestly at all times and in all cases, then yes it could work as well as any government might. That's the theory. When was the last time you encountered a government immune to human failing? What was that? "Never", you say? Case closed.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    All meaningless nonsense because you make static assertions with no apparent consideration for variability in human action that stems from any of a large number of possible causes.
    If you mean that there are other factors affecting how world/local governments would behave than those I mentioned, well of course there are.

    ...and?

    Merely pointing out that there are other factors doesn't refute what I've said.

    To do that, you would need to specifically identify some of those other factors, & explain why they work against world government.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    If you mean that there are other factors affecting how world/local governments would behave than those I mentioned, well of course there are.

    ...and?

    Merely pointing out that there are other factors doesn't refute what I've said.
    Actually, that is all that needs to be established. You have accepted the assertion, and therefore are proven in error because the factors of variance to which I allude perforce drive governance away from liberty, regardless of by how small a quantum. Having done so and been accepted by a population, the door is then left wide open to any degree of deviance from the path of liberty. To accept any such diversion that arbitrarily moves the line in the sand between what is allowed and that which is prohibited or compulsory, no matter how small and usually based on some nonsensical pretext of "need", the principle of moving that boundary for the reasons cited becomes established as precedent and nobody is thereafter likely to establish a basis for no further movement.

    To do that, you would need to specifically identify some of those other factors, & explain why they work against world government.
    No, I do not at all. I have demonstrated the underlying mechanism at work, which is sufficient. That pig may be painted up with any of a thousand shades of lipstick. There are endless examples available.

    But just to shut you down once and for all, we may take the current income tax as one sample of same. Income tax was enacted in 1913 with basically no justification of which I am aware. Congress simply said "here you go. Don't like, don't look." and that was that. The American people kicked up no fuss because it did not affect them. Most had no "income" - defined not as wages as mistakenly done today, but as dividends on investments back in that era. Then with world war II came the "war tax", which was justified by Themme as necessary for the prosecution of combat against the Eville(tm) NAZIs. Once again, the American people accepted this as just, and that opened the door wider for further usurpation of taxation powers because a pretext was offfered and swallowed. The obvious example that time was for Themme to fail to rescind the "war tax" at the end of hostilities, as had been promised. The justification came in the oblique form of the "red menace". "We HAVE to have these funds or the commies will get us..." Worked like a charm as the timid and shivering American meaner, teeth chattering in apprehension of a commie emerging from under his bed at night, happily accepted the new pretext, which was a wholly arbitrary imposition upon the property rights of men.

    We could go one endlessly with examples. NFA34, GCA68, the Hughes Amendment, the "assault weapons" ban... all arbitrary bull$#@! that should have earned those who voted for, enacted, and enforced them, necktie parties and firing squads.

    But your assertions take none of this into account, the tacit assumptions being that these circumstances remain static once they are established. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    QED.

    Now leave me alone. I'm done with this bush-league nonsense.
    Last edited by osan; 10-06-2016 at 05:57 PM.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    the factors of variance to which I allude perforce drive governance away from liberty, regardless of by how small a quantum.
    You didn't even identify any factors, let alone show that they "drive governance away from liberty."

    I have demonstrated the underlying mechanism at work, which is sufficient.
    What "mechanism" are you even talking about?



    But just to shut you down once and for all, we may take the current income tax as one sample of same. Income tax was enacted in 1913 with basically no justification of which I am aware. Congress simply said "here you go. Don't like, don't look." and that was that. The American people kicked up no fuss because it did not affect them. Most had no "income" - defined no as wages as mistakenly so today, but as dividends on investments back in that era. Then with world war II came the "war tax", which was justified by Themme as necessary for the prosecution of combat against the Eville(tm) NAZIs. Once again, the American people accepted this as just, and that opened the door wide for further usurpation of taxation powers. The obvious one was for Themme to fail to rescind the "war tax" at the end of hostilities as had been promised. The justification came in the oblique form of the "red menace". "We HAVE to have these funds or the commies will get us..." Worked like a charm as the timid and shivering American meaner, teeth chattering in apprehension of a commie emerging from under his bed at night, happily accepted the new pretext, which was a wholly arbitrary imposition upon the property rights of men.

    We could go one endlessly with example. NFA34, GCA68, the Hughes Amendment, the "assault weapons" ban... all arbitrary bull$#@! that should have earned those who voted for, enacted, and enforced them necktie parties and firing squads.
    Your overarching point appears to be that governments find reasons to grow over time.

    Okay...

    ....but what does that have to do with the subject of this thread?

    ....how is that an argument in favor of local government over global government?

  25. #51
    LOL, @AZJoe just negged me, saying "failed to address Osan's points."

    Okay Joe, so what was Osan's point that I failed to address?

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    LOL, @AZJoe just negged me, saying "failed to address Osan's points."

    Okay Joe, so what was Osan's point that I failed to address?
    I don't blame him. At this point you seem bent on continuing to support your position after being shown to be wrong until everyone gets tired of showing to you and then you can say you were right.

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    you seem bent on continuing to support your position after being shown to be wrong
    How was I shown to be wrong?

    ...you'll have to excuse me for not accepting your bare assertion.

    On another note, I'm amused that no one has acknowledged the Mises quote.

    Has it sent you all into some kind of existential crisis?

  28. #54
    I think a mugger is a very small state. The difference between this micro-state and any larger state (ranging from a neighborhood gang up to a global government) is just a matter of size. There is no model of local or global statehood that eliminates all these other even more local states from continuing to exist and war with each other.

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    I think a mugger is a very small state. The difference between this micro-state and any larger state (ranging from a neighborhood gang up to a global government) is just a matter of size. There is no model of local or global statehood that eliminates all these other even more local states from continuing to exist and war with each other.
    It's certainly true that a world state would not eliminate crime.

    But it's not supposed to; that's not the argument.

    The argument is that a world state would eliminate interstate war.

    Now, you might say that war and crime differ only by degree, and that's also true.

    But differences of degree matter. A city being nuked and a person being stabbed by a mugger are both bad, but one is clearly worse.

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    @William Tell

    You're missing my point, which is that the "don't put all your eggs in one basket" argument only works if you presuppose that a world government would behave in a less libertarian fashion than the average local government. But that is exactly the issue in contention; i.e. you're begging the question.
    That's not true at all. If a world government was equally as "libertarian" as our governments are now (which is to say hardly libertarian at all) you would still want decentralization so that there would be potential places of refuge.

    You missed my point. By definition a world government is putting all your eggs in one basket. It's up to you to make the case that putting all our eggs in one basket, a basket influenced by China, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea is a good thing.

    You already had to concede that Snowden did benefit due to our lack of a one world government. You tried to brush it off by saying that a world government would have stopped Trotsky somehow, the obvious problem with that is that if the Czar had controlled the world we would now be under the Soviet Union, unless there had been a worldwide war against Trotsky after his faction took power, in which case we would of course be rooting for decentralization as always.. There are many reasons why decentralization is seen as a good thing by liberty lovers. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    There is no reason to think a world government would be in anyway better for liberty. There are many ways that it would be worse.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe






  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    It's certainly true that a world state would not eliminate crime.

    But it's not supposed to; that's not the argument.

    The argument is that a world state would eliminate interstate war.

    Now, you might say that war and crime differ only by degree, and that's also true.

    But differences of degree matter. A city being nuked and a person being stabbed by a mugger are both bad, but one is clearly worse.
    I don't think global government would stop cities from being nuked.

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Can I opt out?

    As long as you don't mind getting nuked.

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Can I opt out?
    If you don't like the NWO, then leave it.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Only Strong Federal Government Can Stop Local Government Run Amok
    By presence in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-26-2014, 12:43 PM
  2. Global Collectivist Government or Global Balkanization Breakdown?
    By Bastiat's The Law in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-08-2012, 08:50 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-22-2010, 11:38 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-27-2009, 05:08 AM
  5. Hillary wants global government
    By LibertyEagle in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-10-2007, 10:45 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •