A reflexion upon American history

NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN THREE CENTURIES!


About our founding-fathers: They ALL lived at a time that is not even remotely similar to our lives today. There were four royal families originally plundering the newly discovered colonies during the 16th and 17th centuries. They were French, English, Spanish and Portuguese.

At the end of the 17th century the "original Americans" (mostly of British decent) became concerned about freeing themselves from the taxation of a British monarch (who was preoccupied with saving "his colonies" from the French king). He was a despot from a line of despots that had been "arranging" the sale/use of his property in the US according to his whimsy and his profit (colonial taxation revenue). An example of which is how the name "Pennsylvania" (which means "Penn's woods") came to be in the 17th century.


At the beginning of the 18th century, the south was adamant about keeping alive its sole real source of wealth - farming cotton. (The Industrial Revolution had not yet arrived, but would shortly.) For which it needed a great number of field workers and the cheaper, the better. (We all know where they came from, don't we.)


We are now two-centuries later and still dragging into the current debate the "will of our founding fathers" to refute the fact that the US is afflicted with one of the most unfair Income Disparities of any developed nation on earth.


Regardless of the historical reference to the Declaration of Independence and the original Constitution - both artful pieces of work - for development, the colonies were highly dependent upon human manpower. And there was little consideration on who worked and who benefited from that work. Which is how America's rich came manipulated the levers of political power.

This historical fact is testified by this bit of more recent research by the UofCal of "who gets what in terms of income that creates wealth":
*Here (since the inception of the Income Tax) -

*And here (focusing on a more recent history):

Period - one cannot escape the results of research by qualified scholars such as Piketty and Saez. (Unless of course, you are deaf, dumb and blind.)

America is still very much the country it was in the 17th/18th centuries as regards "who gets what and the unfettered right of some to despoil the many"...

Lafayette said:

America is still very much the country it was in the 17th/18th centuries as regards "who gets what and the unfettered right of some to despoil the many"...

Click to expand...

Human rights, civil rights, labor rights, environmental rights...

Payment disparity... holy hell are we back to beating on this dead horse again?

Lafayette said:

At the end of the 17th century the "original Americans" (mostly of British decent) became concerned about freeing themselves from the taxation of a British monarch (who was preoccupied with saving "his colonies" from the French king).

Click to expand...

Actually, it was not really the taxation itself that they objected to. It was the Taxation without Representation that they objected to. Which was guaranteed to all subjects as the Rights of Englishmen, under the Bill of Rights. And the subsequent dissolving of all elected bodies such as the Stamp Act Congress of 1765.

It was no the taxes themselves that they objected to. It was the fact that they were forced upon them with no say in the matter.

In fact, the Declaration of Rights and Grievances of 1765 tried to alleviate the misguided belief that the Colonists objected to taxes. In it they proposed removing the individual taxation such as the Stamp Act, and replace it with an excise tax based upon imports and exports at large.

The objection was to being treated like "second class citizens" without the "Rights of Englishmen". If such matters had been settled (which was the intent until June 1776), it is likely that the US would still be a part of the Commonwealth. It was only further actions like the Prohibitory Act which pushed the Colonies away from reconciliation and towards revolution.

This is something that is largely skirted over in most classes about the Colonies prior to the Revolutionary War.

WORK IN PROGRESS

Oozlefinch said:

It was not the taxes themselves that they objected to. It was the fact that they were forced upon them with no say in the matter.

Click to expand...

Yes, and with no "return upon taxation" in the form of development. (Aside from the standing army that the British king employed to make sure the "colony" was not taken over by the French King.)

Thanks for the historical perspective, which is always important in a debate! (How do you get to where you want to go if you don't know where you came from?)

But, what indeed is the difference between "then" and "now". In the 18th century, when the colonies "opted out", the larger part of the population were not an educated people. The sanctity of individual freedom was just a notion. Even George Washington kept his slaves.

COLLECTIVE FREEDOM

Where was the notion of "collective freedom"? It took another century to develop, having been sparked as a response to the Complete Control of a monarch in most European countries. The notion of "democracy" took a good long while to enter into the public-conscience. After all, European countries had had monarchs for more than 8-centuries.

Even with our tripartite system of governance (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) it took a long while to institute income taxation (in 1913). Up until JFK and LBJ, upper-income taxation was at 90%. It was Reagan who chopped it down to 30% - which with various tax boondoggle was effectively lowered even further.

And since, when ever in an election was "higher taxation of the rich" an election promise? Given the nature of election-funding in the US, it should be no wonder why candidates never ever mention those words.

GENUINE PUBLIC DEBATE ABOUT TAXATION

Where, ever, has there been a genuine public debate about the level of taxation in the country. For the longest time, since the Great Depression and up to 1961, taxation remained at its highest level ever above 90%. (See here.)

And after Reckless Ronnie whacked upper-income rates down to the 30% level, the consequence of Acute Income Disparity became a fundamental societal issue in the country - but only amongst progressive economists.

Whyzat? Because, unlike Europe that adopted higher taxation levels to fund progressive social programs, high-taxation became "taboo" in America. (Meaning the rich get richer and the poor can go to hell. They're all lazy bastards anyway that breed like flies.)

And that notion will NOT CHANGE until we, the sheeple, decide it should be otherwise and vote politicians who will reverse the taxation-levels by doing this:
*Putting a limit of 100% taxation above a given income level (say 3/5 megabucks annually), and
*Allowing for a much higher Inheritance Taxation level.

Only then will government expenditure bring to Americans a decently much lower-cost National Healthcare Service and Very low-cost Post-secondary Education. Both of which have become the most expensive of any in the Western World.

Till then, there will be NO SOLUTION to America's acute problem of Societal & Income Disparity.

Which remains Work-in-progress ...

Lafayette said:

Where was the notion of "collective freedom"? It took another century to develop, having been sparked as a response to the Complete Control of a monarch in most European countries. The notion of "democracy" took a good long while to enter into the public-conscience. After all, European countries had had monarchs for more than 8-centuries.

Click to expand...

But you are forgetting the House of Commons, established in 1381 in order to approve the budgets proposed by the crown. In addition to a great many other laws and documents, ranging blicanist government, dating all the way back to it's time as a colony he Roman Republic. The absolute rule of kings never really existed in that nation.

What happened in other countries does not apply for England or it's colonies. They had already long established that the "Divine Rights of Kings" did not apply, and that the Crown served at the will of the People.

Oborosen said:

Payment disparity... holy hell are we back to beating on this dead horse again?

Click to expand...

That is all this guy does, the victimhood jealous of what other people have thing. He doesn't quite understand economics, human nature, relative vs absolute poverty, etc. Its the same thing over and over and over again.

Should take time for some proper reflection, perhaps a bit of time on American spelling lessons like on the way we spell things currently though, eh? "reflexion"?

ecofarm said:

Human rights, civil rights, labor rights, environmental rights...

Click to expand...

ecofarm:

All of these are under unprecedented attack by the American political establishment at the state and federal levels of power. Capital is king in America and the pursuit of happiness for the monied few outweighs the laborious efforts of the many to get ahead. Income disparity and concentration of wealth are at levels not seen since the Gilded Age and later the Roaring Twenties. The American Commonwealth is suffering as the few expropriate the labour and meagre wealth of the many. This process is not unique to America but the scale and rate of economic polarisation is.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

ecofarm:

All of these are under unprecedented attack by the American political establishment at the state and federal levels of power. Capital is king in America and the pursuit of happiness for the monied few outweighs the laborious efforts of the many to get ahead. Income disparity and concentration of wealth are at levels not seen since the Gilded Age and later the Roaring Twenties. The American Commonwealth is suffering as the few expropriate the labour and meagre wealth of the many. This process is not unique to America but the scale and rate of economic polarisation is.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

And that is all personal opinion. Personal opinions really belong over in the Politics area. Not in the Academic area where we try to discuss things more factually.

All I see is more Socialist claptrap.

Oozlefinch said:

They had already long established that the "Divine Rights of Kings" did not apply, and that the Crown served at the will of the People.

Click to expand...

Royal seal of the Queen of England


Dieu et mon droit = God and my right

(And right does not mean "hand". It means "morally good, justified, or acceptable." Which insinuates that monarchs are on the same level as God.)

Thankfully, the regencies of Europe DID NOT serve at the will of the people. The people were generally kinda-sorta "stoopid". Only priests and royalty had some education - which up to the 18th century meant they knew how to read an write. Since the church would crown the regent, there was a long history of collusion between the two.

The poor knew how to starve, and they did abundantly - which is why finally in the 18th century the rudiments of socialism first appeared in writing.

And in most of Europe, that's still work in progress. In the US, maybe when somebody makes a Hollywood movie about it (with Christina Hendricks in a low-cut dress), will we Yanks learn what is a truly fair and honest democracy.

Freedom at first was at the heart of true-democracy as demonstrated in popular-vote elections. That was the key idea behind real liberty. Then, in the constitution, we inserted the notion of an "Electoral College" and in 1812 the first gerrymandered election was held in (of all places) Massachusetts.

From there "real and effective democracy" became a distant dream ...

Oozlefinch said:

And that is all personal opinion. Personal opinions really belong over in the Politics area. Not in the Academic area where we try to discuss things more factually.

All I see is more Socialist claptrap.

Click to expand...

Oozlefinch:

https://economics.mit.edu/files/5554

See page 29 in the above links for a summation of the analysis on the shrinking job opportunities in America post Great Recession.

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/wp16121.pdf

See page 22 in the above article for concluding comments on income polarisation in America and their impacts on society and power.

For the attack on labour rights and power see:

https://www.epi.org/publication/attack-on-american-labor-standards/

For environmental standards under attack please see:

https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i22/Environmental-rules-under-attack.html?type=paidArticleContent

For the erosion oh human rights in America see:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/n...rights-under-president-trumps-administration/

Also consider the "reforms" made to human rights due to the "War on Terror" such as rendition, enhanced interrogation methods and extrajudicial killing by drone strike.

No time for more now.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

Oozlefinch:

No time for more now.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Which has exactly what to do with this topic?

Nothing.

Goodbye.

Lafayette said:

NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN THREE CENTURIES!


About our founding-fathers: They ALL lived at a time that is not even remotely similar to our lives today. There were four royal families originally plundering the newly discovered colonies during the 16th and 17th centuries. They were French, English, Spanish and Portuguese.

At the end of the 17th century the "original Americans" (mostly of British decent) became concerned about freeing themselves from the taxation of a British monarch (who was preoccupied with saving "his colonies" from the French king). He was a despot from a line of despots that had been "arranging" the sale/use of his property in the US according to his whimsy and his profit (colonial taxation revenue). An example of which is how the name "Pennsylvania" (which means "Penn's woods") came to be in the 17th century.


At the beginning of the 18th century, the south was adamant about keeping alive its sole real source of wealth - farming cotton. (The Industrial Revolution had not yet arrived, but would shortly.) For which it needed a great number of field workers and the cheaper, the better. (We all know where they came from, don't we.)


We are now two-centuries later and still dragging into the current debate the "will of our founding fathers" to refute the fact that the US is afflicted with one of the most unfair Income Disparities of any developed nation on earth.


Regardless of the historical reference to the Declaration of Independence and the original Constitution - both artful pieces of work - for development, the colonies were highly dependent upon human manpower. And there was little consideration on who worked and who benefited from that work. Which is how America's rich came manipulated the levers of political power.

This historical fact is testified by this bit of more recent research by the UofCal of "who gets what in terms of income that creates wealth":
*Here (since the inception of the Income Tax) -

*And here (focusing on a more recent history):

Edited for brevity.

[/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
Period - one cannot escape the results of research by qualified scholars such as Piketty and Saez. (Unless of course, you are deaf, dumb and blind.)

America is still very much the country it was in the 17th/18th centuries as regards "who gets what and the unfettered right of some to despoil the many"...

Click to expand...

Lafayette:

Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century is an outstanding piece of rigorous scholarship. I highly recommend it to any who have not read it here. However it deals with all capitalist/corporatist economies today and does not single out America for reverting back to a society where concentrated capital and income polarisation are happening. This is true in many states around the world and it is Piketty's thesis that such concentration of wealth and the rewards of possessing capital will inevitably lead to polarisation and attendent oligarchy unless a society makes a conscious and active effort to continually off set this trend through redistribution of either income or wealth. This is why fair but stringently enforced progressive taxation and death taxes are necessary tools if a state is to prevent the gradual accumulation and concentration of capital (and thus political power) into fewer and fewer hands over time. This process is at work in America, Canada, Mexico, Europe, Africa, China and all of East Asia, India and South America. Singling out the USA seems somewhat unfair, although it is a good example of how far the process has gone in a country that still considers itself to be a functional democracy and a free market, neither of which is strictly true anymore due to concentration of capital in so few hands.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

However it deals with all capitalist/corporatist economies today and does not single out America for reverting back to a society where concentrated capital and income polarisation are happening.

Click to expand...

Possible but improbable. Why?

Because people/humans have an amazing ability to endure even abject poverty. Given the history of the poverty in America (as shown by historical Poverty Threshold numbers) Americans, as an example, have lived with 14/15% of the population below the Threshold for a donkey's age.

People keep bitching and moaning, but if they vote, they vote Replicant.

So, those who stay away from the polls - and they are legion in mid-term years - deserve the shat that life offers them. The Replicants WILL DO NOTHING to address the poverty-madness that has afflicted America for quite some time (Pew Research, here):

Evilroddy said:

This is true in many states around the world and it is Piketty's thesis that such concentration of wealth and the rewards of possessing capital will inevitably lead to polarisation and attendent oligarchy unless a society makes a conscious and active effort to continually off set this trend through redistribution of either income or wealth.

Click to expand...

Poverty levels in France are about the same as in the US, and you have to live in France to see what governments (both on the Left and Right) do to alleviate poverty. (Because there is an active Socialist Party in France, that gets elected to run the country. Badly, but better than nothing!)

Which is considerable but never enough - because the real solution is to get these people a job at a decent salary. That overall solution is complex, because when you are uneducated you tend to remain uneducated. People do not WAKE UP in their thirties and say, "Hey, I need a post-secondary degree to get a decent job!"

And the minimum wage in the US can only be characterized as INDECENT! A picture is worth a thousand words:


Look at that image above. The Real Minimum Wage in actual value is back to where it was in the 1950s!

It is not enough to try "pushing the poor" upwards and out of poverty - so they languish there. And, then what happens? Do we need yet another Watts Riot to remind us? Or was that sooooo long ago that most people don't remember or don't even know it happened?

Yes, the US needs another Watts-Riot, in fact several; all at the same time across the US. If it's not on TV, people cannot even conceive of what is boiling socially around them. The gun-related massacres over the past two-decades prove how immune we are to the facts-of-life happening around us.

It is pathetic for what we think is the Greatest Nation on Earth. What a joke - but nobody is laughing ... !!!!

Lafayette said:

Possible but improbable. Why?

Because people/humans have an amazing ability to endure even abject poverty. Given the history of the poverty in America (as shown by historical Poverty Threshold numbers) Americans, as an example, have lived with 14/15% of the population below the Threshold for a donkey's age.

People keep bitching and moaning, but if they vote, they vote Replicant.

So, those who stay away from the polls - and they are legion in mid-term years - deserve the shat that life offers them. The Replicants WILL DO NOTHING to address the poverty-madness that has afflicted America for quite some time (Pew Research, here):

Poverty levels in France are about the same as in the US, and you have to live in France to see what governments (both on the Left and Right) do to alleviate poverty. (Because there is an active Socialist Party in France, that gets elected to run the country. Badly, but better than nothing!)

Which is considerable but never enough - because the real solution is to get these people a job at a decent salary. That overall solution is complex, because when you are uneducated you tend to remain uneducated. People do not WAKE UP in their thirties and say, "Hey, I need a post-secondary degree to get a decent job!"

And the minimum wage in the US can only be characterized as INDECENT! A picture is worth a thousand words:

Look at that image above. The Real Minimum Wage in actual value is back to where it was in the 1950s!

It is not enough to try "pushing the poor" upwards and out of poverty - so they languish there. And, then what happens? Do we need yet another Watts Riot to remind us? Or was that sooooo long ago that most people don't remember or don't even know it happened?

Yes, the US needs another Watts-Riot, in fact several; all at the same time across the US. If it's not on TV, people cannot even conceive of what is boiling socially around them. The gun-related massacres over the past two-decades prove how immune we are to the facts-of-life happening around us.

It is pathetic for what we think is the Greatest Nation on Earth. What a joke - but nobody is laughing ... !!!!

Click to expand...

Lafayette:

I fully concur with your analysis. The political impetus for maintaining stagnant wages in America (and other states) is a governmental emphasis on inflation control to protect the value of capital over time rather than a full employment strategy which would help the general public but would also threaten the long-term value of concentrated accumulated capital by triggering wage-push inflation. Unemployment and under employment are viewed by political elites, who are beholden to power concentrations of capital, as two useful tools in keeping inflation low - this is euphemistically called the austerity approach to governmental policy rather than targeted, top-down, class warfare in defence of capital. Thomas Piketty details the mechanics of this process very clearly in his 2013 analysis. There is also a Scottish economist, operating out of Baltimore Maryland IIRC, named Mark Blyth, who is attempting to popularise the social and political costs of governmental austerity programmes which over emphasise the targeting of inflation at the expense of pursuing full employment strategies for a wider common good. Now, given the French experience with Scottish economists and bankers like John Law during the reign of Louis XV, I would understand if you dismissed Blyth as just another charlatan d'Ecosse, but his work is, while not ground-breaking, still worth serious consideration.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

Now, given the French experience with Scottish economists and bankers like John Law during the reign of Louis XV, I would understand if you dismissed Blyth as just another charlatan d'Ecosse, but his work is, while not ground-breaking, still worth serious consideration.

Click to expand...

Being a Yank, I have no great attachment to or for Louis XV - the entire line of royalty had become expensive and patently unnecessary in France.

Unfortunately, the solution was very French - intellectual hotheads mastered the political process, Louis XV's son lost his head - and French blood-lust seemed satisfied with a long list of heads having rolled off the guillotine on the Place de la Concord in Paris.

Of course, nothing changed, and Napoleon simply waltzed in to pick-up the pieces - but decided not to call himself a "King".

He settled for "Emperor". (En France, la plus ça change, la plus cela reste la même chose. ;^)

The French then took another hundred years or so to get around to a semblance of democratic representation ...

Gaugingcatenate said:

That is all this guy does, the victimhood jealous of what other people have thing. He doesn't quite understand economics, human nature, relative vs absolute poverty, etc. Its the same thing over and over and over again.

Should take time for some proper reflection, perhaps a bit of time on American spelling lessons like on the way we spell things currently though, eh? "reflexion"?

Click to expand...

It must be a sad existence, if I am to speculate honestly.

Lafayette said:

Royal seal of the Queen of England

Dieu et mon droit = God and my right

(And right does not mean "hand". It means "morally good, justified, or acceptable." Which insinuates that monarchs are on the same level as God.)

Thankfully, the regencies of Europe DID NOT serve at the will of the people. The people were generally kinda-sorta "stoopid". Only priests and royalty had some education - which up to the 18th century meant they knew how to read an write. Since the church would crown the regent, there was a long history of collusion between the two.

The poor knew how to starve, and they did abundantly - which is why finally in the 18th century the rudiments of socialism first appeared in writing.

And in most of Europe, that's still work in progress. In the US, maybe when somebody makes a Hollywood movie about it (with Christina Hendricks in a low-cut dress), will we Yanks learn what is a truly fair and honest democracy.

Freedom at first was at the heart of true-democracy as demonstrated in popular-vote elections. That was the key idea behind real liberty. Then, in the constitution, we inserted the notion of an "Electoral College" and in 1812 the first gerrymandered election was held in (of all places) Massachusetts.

From there "real and effective democracy" became a distant dream ...

Click to expand...

God and my right

Click to expand...

Ya'mean like Manifest Destiny?

Lafayette said:

NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN THREE CENTURIES!


About our founding-fathers: They ALL lived at a time that is not even remotely similar to our lives today. There were four royal families originally plundering the newly discovered colonies during the 16th and 17th centuries. They were French, English, Spanish and Portuguese.

At the end of the 17th century the "original Americans" (mostly of British decent) became concerned about freeing themselves from the taxation of a British monarch (who was preoccupied with saving "his colonies" from the French king). He was a despot from a line of despots that had been "arranging" the sale/use of his property in the US according to his whimsy and his profit (colonial taxation revenue). An example of which is how the name "Pennsylvania" (which means "Penn's woods") came to be in the 17th century.


At the beginning of the 18th century, the south was adamant about keeping alive its sole real source of wealth - farming cotton. (The Industrial Revolution had not yet arrived, but would shortly.) For which it needed a great number of field workers and the cheaper, the better. (We all know where they came from, don't we.)


We are now two-centuries later and still dragging into the current debate the "will of our founding fathers" to refute the fact that the US is afflicted with one of the most unfair Income Disparities of any developed nation on earth.


Regardless of the historical reference to the Declaration of Independence and the original Constitution - both artful pieces of work - for development, the colonies were highly dependent upon human manpower. And there was little consideration on who worked and who benefited from that work. Which is how America's rich came manipulated the levers of political power.

This historical fact is testified by this bit of more recent research by the UofCal of "who gets what in terms of income that creates wealth":
*Here (since the inception of the Income Tax) -

*And here (focusing on a more recent history):

Period - one cannot escape the results of research by qualified scholars such as Piketty and Saez. (Unless of course, you are deaf, dumb and blind.)

America is still very much the country it was in the 17th/18th centuries as regards "who gets what and the unfettered right of some to despoil the many"...

Click to expand...

Moneyed interests always rig the system in their favor, that's how they stay moneyed interests. Up until the Revolution of course...

Lafayette said:

NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN THREE CENTURIES!


About our founding-fathers: They ALL lived at a time that is not even remotely similar to our lives today. There were four royal families originally plundering the newly discovered colonies during the 16th and 17th centuries. They were French, English, Spanish and Portuguese.

At the end of the 17th century the "original Americans" (mostly of British decent) became concerned about freeing themselves from the taxation of a British monarch (who was preoccupied with saving "his colonies" from the French king). He was a despot from a line of despots that had been "arranging" the sale/use of his property in the US according to his whimsy and his profit (colonial taxation revenue). An example of which is how the name "Pennsylvania" (which means "Penn's woods") came to be in the 17th century.


At the beginning of the 18th century, the south was adamant about keeping alive its sole real source of wealth - farming cotton. (The Industrial Revolution had not yet arrived, but would shortly.) For which it needed a great number of field workers and the cheaper, the better. (We all know where they came from, don't we.)


We are now two-centuries later and still dragging into the current debate the "will of our founding fathers" to refute the fact that the US is afflicted with one of the most unfair Income Disparities of any developed nation on earth.


Regardless of the historical reference to the Declaration of Independence and the original Constitution - both artful pieces of work - for development, the colonies were highly dependent upon human manpower. And there was little consideration on who worked and who benefited from that work. Which is how America's rich came manipulated the levers of political power.

This historical fact is testified by this bit of more recent research by the UofCal of "who gets what in terms of income that creates wealth":
*Here (since the inception of the Income Tax) -

*And here (focusing on a more recent history):

Period - one cannot escape the results of research by qualified scholars such as Piketty and Saez. (Unless of course, you are deaf, dumb and blind.)

America is still very much the country it was in the 17th/18th centuries as regards "who gets what and the unfettered right of some to despoil the many"...

Click to expand...

First and foremost, the US was created by business for business to do business. Everything else is window dressing.

Personally, I kind of like it that way.

calamity said:

First and foremost, the US was created by business for business to do business. Everything else is window dressing.

Personally, I kind of like it that way.

Click to expand...

I often think that if King George had allowed Hamilton et al to participate in the colonial government, we might never have had a revolution and would now be a larger country merged with Canada.

jet57 said:

I often think that if King George had allowed Hamilton et al to participate in the colonial government, we might never have had a revolution and would now be a larger country merged with Canada.

Click to expand...

Had the Brits not over-taxed those fellas, we most certainly never would have revolted. But, there was a French war to pay for. So, Britain got greedy.

calamity said:

First and foremost, the US was created by business for business to do business. Everything else is window dressing. Personally, I kind of like it that way.

Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah.

Simplistic dogma for brainless simpletons ...

Lafayette said:

Blah, blah, blah.

Simplistic dogma for brainless simpletons ...

Click to expand...

No, a guy that knows our history.

jet57 said:

No, a guy that knows our history.

Click to expand...

Join the club ...