HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Lastest Hillary defense: ...

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:05 AM

Lastest Hillary defense: It's okay to take huge contributions from gazillionaires because ...

IT'S LEGAL!!!!

Now there's a defensible rationale, no?

79 replies, 5059 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 79 replies Author Time Post
Reply Lastest Hillary defense: It's okay to take huge contributions from gazillionaires because ... (Original post)
KPN Apr 2016 OP
Buzz Clik Apr 2016 #1
KPN Apr 2016 #5
Buzz Clik Apr 2016 #6
KPN Apr 2016 #8
Buzz Clik Apr 2016 #12
KPN Apr 2016 #15
Buzz Clik Apr 2016 #21
Armstead Apr 2016 #56
jmg257 Apr 2016 #2
Yurovsky Apr 2016 #11
jmg257 Apr 2016 #18
840high Apr 2016 #67
blm Apr 2016 #3
Armstead Apr 2016 #57
blm Apr 2016 #62
Armstead Apr 2016 #64
blm Apr 2016 #66
griffi94 Apr 2016 #4
KPN Apr 2016 #7
griffi94 Apr 2016 #9
polichick Apr 2016 #14
griffi94 Apr 2016 #17
polichick Apr 2016 #20
griffi94 Apr 2016 #24
polichick Apr 2016 #28
Maedhros Apr 2016 #59
griffi94 Apr 2016 #60
pangaia Apr 2016 #77
griffi94 Apr 2016 #79
KPN Apr 2016 #16
griffi94 Apr 2016 #19
KPN Apr 2016 #23
griffi94 Apr 2016 #29
polichick Apr 2016 #30
griffi94 Apr 2016 #33
polichick Apr 2016 #36
griffi94 Apr 2016 #38
polichick Apr 2016 #39
griffi94 Apr 2016 #41
polichick Apr 2016 #42
griffi94 Apr 2016 #46
polichick Apr 2016 #48
griffi94 Apr 2016 #49
polichick Apr 2016 #50
griffi94 Apr 2016 #51
polichick Apr 2016 #55
KPN Apr 2016 #75
jmg257 Apr 2016 #25
griffi94 Apr 2016 #35
jmg257 Apr 2016 #43
Trajan Apr 2016 #31
griffi94 Apr 2016 #34
seabeyond Apr 2016 #10
Octafish Apr 2016 #45
polichick Apr 2016 #13
brooklynite Apr 2016 #22
brooklynite Apr 2016 #26
NorthCarolina Apr 2016 #27
Ino Apr 2016 #40
KPN Apr 2016 #47
wendylaroux Apr 2016 #32
uponit7771 Apr 2016 #37
hobbit709 Apr 2016 #44
SwampG8r Apr 2016 #53
Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2016 #52
merrily Apr 2016 #54
Carolina Apr 2016 #58
Yurovsky Apr 2016 #61
Carolina Apr 2016 #63
Sunlei Apr 2016 #65
KPN Apr 2016 #68
Sunlei Apr 2016 #70
KPN Apr 2016 #74
HereSince1628 Apr 2016 #69
QC Apr 2016 #71
icecreamfan Apr 2016 #72
HereSince1628 Apr 2016 #73
Joob Apr 2016 #76
felix_numinous Apr 2016 #78

Response to KPN (Original post)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:08 AM

1. Actually, it is.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:24 AM

5. Only in a court.

So apparently, the derivatives fueled crash of 2008 was okay in your view too ... because it was legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #5)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:25 AM

6. Is that what I said?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:27 AM

8. Extrapolate. Can you do that?

Oh, I forgot, there are two kinds of people, those who can extrapolate ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #8)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:28 AM

12. You extrapolated that out your backside. I said nothing about 2008.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #12)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:31 AM

15. You made my last point for me ... thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #15)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:38 AM

21. Nonsense, but I know your type. Have the last word if that pleases you.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 12:00 PM

56. But not defensible...She donlt walk the talk like Bernie

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:09 AM

2. Well - how else do you expect to go from being millions in debt to worth over $130mil in 15 yrs?

$$$$

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:28 AM

11. Think about poor starving Chelsea...

how was she supposed to keep the water & electricity on in her $10.4M NYC home?

Poor little rich girl... Mommy & daddy just couldn't make ends meet with >$600k/yr in federal pensions and millions in book deals... 😖

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yurovsky (Reply #11)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:33 AM

18. YES!! Do it for the children! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yurovsky (Reply #11)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 02:05 PM

67. .heehee

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:10 AM

3. This Sanders voting GOTV activist disagrees with you. I don't want either Dem

forced to disarm before the laws change and GOP, as well, is forced to adhere to public finance laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #3)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 12:04 PM

57. I disagree....Bernie hasn't disarmed.

 

Imagine the money that could be raised if the Democratic Party used his strategy on a much larger scale, to appeal to voters of both candidates and all who support a set of cleanly defined progressive goals (even if it's just "Not GOP" to be accountable to the people instead corporations, lobbyists and billionaires.

Bernie is doing a workaround of a bad system, and showing it can be done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #57)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 12:20 PM

62. I don't trust that up against a fully armed GOP, Armstead.

I know Sanders wouldn't stick to that in general election if he becomes the nominee, and none of us should expect or WANT him to.

So many of you have forgotten that Kerry, who actually WROTE the Public Financing of campaigns bill he submitted to senate in the 90s, never accepted corporate pac money in any of his senate elections. He could not have gone into the presidential general election in 2004 without it. He wasn't being bought or compromised, he was putting up a fight in the arena that existed, not the one anyone wished.

Sorry, but, I see what goes on in states where all the financial advantages belong to GOP. I'm living in NC and look how quickly this once proud progressive state has regressed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #62)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 12:23 PM

64. I should have amended that...It is a little late this time for a complete clean up

 

But they ought to be looking at what Sanders has achieved as a template and commit to that and start laying the groundwork......instead of waiting for CU to maybe be repealed someday....and planning the next beg-o-rama to the corporate benefactors.

And also start applying it in Congress, to defuse the power of the lobbyists to craft legislation to their whims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #64)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 12:29 PM

66. This is why I fear some of the purity talk - it's actually crazy and impossible to do

what they are insisting be done.

This and the B or Bust talk are both hurting what I do in the party, GOTV, and I take this stuff seriously and personally, just as any GOTV activist/worker will.

It doesn't make me popular with the BoB crowd here, but, it's the reality-based reaction to what is being actively promoted here at DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:16 AM

4. As long as it was legal

then I don't care.
They were going to give the money to somebody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to griffi94 (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:25 AM

7. Legal = Good, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:27 AM

9. Legal = legal

as in not against the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to griffi94 (Reply #9)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:30 AM

14. Legal because those same people bought the politicians who wrote the law for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polichick (Reply #14)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:33 AM

17. Doesn't make it any less legal

Legal = not against the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to griffi94 (Reply #17)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:36 AM

20. Legal corruption. What a high bar!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polichick (Reply #20)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:40 AM

24. It's legal and it's also quite common in politics.

I don't share your sense of moral outrage about something that
is legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to griffi94 (Reply #24)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:43 AM

28. Of course it's legal - bought and paid for legality..

Good grief, get a clue!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to griffi94 (Reply #24)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 12:14 PM

59. Oh look: a conservative in our midst.

 

Only one possible response.

/bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maedhros (Reply #59)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 12:17 PM

60. Been a democrat since 1980

I just don't care about this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to griffi94 (Reply #24)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:46 PM

77. Slavery was once legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #77)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:53 PM

79. Yep

And now it's not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to griffi94 (Reply #9)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:33 AM

16. Your brain can't move beyond that??

Come now. You can do better than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #16)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:35 AM

19. I don't need to do better than that

It's not against the law.
It's not a personal outrage to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to griffi94 (Reply #19)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:40 AM

23. Therein the problem

with you, Hillarians and HRC. Moral and ethical corruption.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #23)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:44 AM

29. I don't see a problem

I don't even kind of care.
I hope Hillary has the biggest war chest in the history of war chests
when she has to face the GOP this fall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #23)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:45 AM

30. Really. If it was legal to torture kids, that poster would be cool with it...

using that logic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polichick (Reply #30)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:47 AM

33. Wow you're really comparing campaign finance to torturing children.

That's pretty low.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to griffi94 (Reply #33)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:55 AM

36. I'm pointing out how shallow your thinking is. If it's legal, it's cool...

in your world apparently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polichick (Reply #36)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:02 AM

38. No you're really not

Nothing was said about torturing anybody.
You seem POd because I'm not outraged.
And in any case torturing children is illegal.

I don't share your outrage that's hardly the same thing as being pro torture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to griffi94 (Reply #38)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:13 AM

39. I'm not "POd" - just amused at your inability to connect dots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polichick (Reply #39)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:17 AM

41. I connect dots just fine

I just don't care even a little bit how many billionaires donated to Hillary.
They donate to all campaigns.
I still remember 2008 when Obama was supposedly only taking small donations.
Then after he won it turned out that wasn't exactly true.

There's some PAC supporting Bernie
They all take money from the wealthy.

If it's illegal and a candidate is doing it then I'd be a little more outraged.
Until then I don't care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to griffi94 (Reply #41)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:20 AM

42. Good thing Americans fighting for justice over the years didn't think like that...

It would still be legal to beat kids, enslave black people, and keep women from voting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polichick (Reply #42)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:24 AM

46. I'm not sure what your point is

is it that we have a moral obligation to not support laws that are legal but that we find personally immoral.
Maybe we have a duty to changes those laws because we disagree with the on a moral basis.

Or is it just that we should all be more outraged about them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to griffi94 (Reply #46)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:34 AM

48. My point is * being legal does not equal being right * and it's especially vile when...

those who benefit from the immoral law have purchased the politicians who write those laws.

It's beyond absurd to believe that politicians don't serve those who intentionally buy them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polichick (Reply #48)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:45 AM

49. Being legal = not against the law

It's not illegal for trillionaires to give candidates money.
Again. I don't care. It's what's legal.

When the law is changed then I'll care.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to griffi94 (Reply #49)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:47 AM

50. Laws don't change UNTIL people care. Think hard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polichick (Reply #50)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:50 AM

51. Then change it

Until then you seem to be upset because things aren't like they should be.
The OP was about defending Hillary for taking money from billionaires
just because it was legal.

It doesn't need a defense. It's not against the law.
It's not a moral outrage to me.
I don't spend a lot of time worrying about how things should be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to griffi94 (Reply #51)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:59 AM

55. "I don't spend a lot of time worrying about how things should be." Obviously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to griffi94 (Reply #51)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:38 PM

75. We are trying to change it.

People like you are getting in the way and slowing down progress. It's temporary though. Of course, once the changes are made, you'll pat yourselkves on the back for the fine work you did saving our nation. Shallow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to griffi94 (Reply #9)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:41 AM

25. Interesting - do you disagree with her on this whole PLCAA lawsuit thing?

The crux of which is the AR & ammo based in the lawsuit were legally purchased and marketed, though it shouldn't be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #25)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:52 AM

35. I don't know enough about that case to render an opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to griffi94 (Reply #35)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:21 AM

43. You should check it out - its one of her main arguments against Sanders.

And will likely be the basis of a big contrast in the GE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to griffi94 (Reply #9)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:45 AM

31. Is it against the law to take huge sums of money from a billionaire

 

And then turn around and restive that billionaires taxes to near zero?

It's legal ... Is it right? ... Should it be right?

Some of us believe this should be CLEARLY against the law .... We reject the argument that it's legal therefore it's ok ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #31)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:50 AM

34. Then reject it

But I don't care as long as it's legal.
It's not a moral position for me. I'm not outraged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:28 AM

10. Sanders has always been funded by rich, he just lies or omits it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:22 AM

45. If that were true, you would show it.

So, please show -- EVEN ONCE -- where: "Sanders has always been funded by rich, he just lies or omits it."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:28 AM

13. Same defense corporations use to avoid taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:39 AM

22. But, as an ordinary 1%er, I'm still allowed to give?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:42 AM

26. Still waiting to see the Bernie Sanders model applied to the entire election

He'll need 10X his Primary cash for the GE...

He'll need contributions for all the House and Senate races (so far, -three- Democratic Primary races are all that's important)...

He'll need money for each State Party for voter registration and turnout...

Waiting to see the plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:43 AM

27. Seriously though, she has only a very small percentage of $ coming in from average Joe supporters

 

to the tune of not more than about 20% (if even that). If she didn't take cash from the wealthy to make up for her failure to solicit donations from the average voter, her campaign would have run out of cash a LONG TIME ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NorthCarolina (Reply #27)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:13 AM

40. If she didn't take cash from the wealthy...

she would be Bernie-like. And being Bernie-like, I believe she would get donations from the average voter.

I donate to Bernie because he fights for me, because his integrity is not for sale, because he's not wealthy... and so he needs my donation.

She is none of those things. She can go fund herself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ino (Reply #40)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:27 AM

47. If she didn't take cash from the wealthy ...

Bernie would have already wrapped this thing up ... probably long ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:45 AM

32. That is what the prez said about arresting wall street crooks too. "It's not illegal."

So quit picking on her!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 10:56 AM

37. Latest Podium Bird Logic: Lets go to a gun fight with a baseball bat cause MORALS!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:22 AM

44. Why do I think of that scene in The Magic Christian?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #44)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:57 AM

53. +1000000 for the reference

Now lets put on our piggy masks and party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:55 AM

52. Yep. Legal...just like subprime loans, ARMs, gun shows. All legal.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #52)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:58 AM

54. And there you have stated the problem in a nutshell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 12:14 PM

58. She's awful

She accepted the vast sums because that's what they offered

She took the vast sums because it is legal


Well as someone wisely pointed out on FaceBook:

Slavery was legal
Colonialism was legal
The Holocaust was legal
Apartheid was legal...

Legality is a matter of power, not justice

HRC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carolina (Reply #58)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 12:19 PM

61. And that has always been her M.O. ...

It's not what is right or wrong, moral or immoral, it's "can we get away with it?"

From a legal standpoint, even if it's not legal, can we create a legal wall around us to deflect, defer, and delay until everyone forgets about it or prosecutors give up.

Taking money from Wall Street disqualifies you from getting my vote when I have an option that is unsullied by such corruption.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yurovsky (Reply #61)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 12:22 PM

63. Exactly!

Between her tethers to Wall Street and her aye vote on IWR, I will never vote for her

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 12:26 PM

65. Jebbie Bush amassed twice as much money as all of them running & no speech for donation needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #65)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 02:25 PM

68. So?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #68)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 03:50 PM

70. What?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #70)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:34 PM

74. Do you have a point?

Jeb Bush having more campaign contribution money isn't a justification. So what's your point?

Didn't you learn from your Mama? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 02:30 PM

69. Sounds ok to me and perfectly consistent with the personality of Our Lady of the Loopholes

Is coordinating with PACs bad? Well, it was for Scott Walker (R, Gov WI) he had 2 John Doe investigations involving his doing it.

But, you see it's perfectly moral for HRC campaign to do it with David Brock because there's a loophole in the law that makes it legal.

HRC has doesn't need a moral compass, she has the law and it's loopholes. What she -needs- is more PAC money and more PACs producing more flak for Sanders' campaign

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #69)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 03:58 PM

71. Our Lady of the Loopholes, Pray for Us!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to icecreamfan (Reply #72)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 04:09 PM

73. She got those donations the old fashioned way... she earned them

by being Wall Street's senator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:40 PM

76. My 2 cents on this...

Doesn't mean much but if it was huge, it would mean a whole lot.

And that's, the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Original post)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:52 PM

78. The idolatry of money

has hit critical mass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread