Politics

Terraformer · 2016-03-21 13:51:44

Actually, maybe it would be a good idea for Vermont to become a province of Canada. Perhaps also Maine?

There's... er, well, there's not any precedence, but that's because the US are very sensitive about states leaving. Though they were happy to accept a breakaway part of Mexico, so they really shouldn't have an issue with parts of one country deciding to leave and join another.

IanM · 2016-03-21 14:31:06

Terraformer wrote:

There's... er, well, there's not any precedence, but that's because the US are very sensitive about states leaving. Though they were happy to accept a breakaway part of Mexico, so they really shouldn't have an issue with parts of one country deciding to leave and join another.

I mean, we did fight a war to prevent states from leaving. And I guess the whole breakaway double-standard is just part of good ol' selfishness (i.e., it's good if they want to join America, but it's not so good if they want to leave it), which I think might be common to a lot of countries in general, not just the US. IIRC, the only piece of land that has ever been part of the US proper and is no longer is the northernmost part of the Louisiana Purchase, ceded to what is now Canada in 1818 in exchange for a larger chunk of what had been Rupert's Land south of the modern border.

Terraformer · 2016-03-21 17:03:09

Well yes; witness the Russian governments attitude towards Crimea vs. it's attitude towards constituent republics that don't want to be part of Russia...

However, Canada is willing to let parts leave, are they not? Something they share with the UK. So not *all* countries are hypocrites when it comes to self-determination...

IanM · 2016-03-21 18:09:48

True, I just meant it's not specifically an American thing. But America's territorial defensiveness does suit its highly-patriotic attitude well, IMO.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-22 02:46:17

RobertDyck wrote:

Canada doesn't want to join. And Quebec speaks French. You have not heard them whine about how evil the English language is. They're very sensitive about their culture. They actually passed a provincial law banning English.

Also there is a French saying, which I think translates to, "You can't have your cake and eat it too!" You Canadians want all the Benefits of American citizenship, but don't want to be part of the United States. You know you can't have it both ways! Also I thought you left-wing liberals wanted bigger government. If you joined the United States, you would have bigger government! Lots of liberals in the United States want all their decisions made in Washington DC, so logically if you wanted most of your government at the Federal level, you would want to join the United States, as Toronto is only the equivalent of Sacramento, California. Now California liberals don't want states rights, instead they want everything controlled from Washington, and Canada having a population one million less that California has a government that is only the equivalent of California's state government. So you have to decide whether you want Canada to be it, or it to be a member of a larger organization. Liberals like to make up new ones such as the UN, which doesn't really govern. The UN can't protect you, because those in the UN that want to harm you have a veto on every decision the UN makes, so therefore it can't effectively govern. The United States is a much better model than the UN, because the United States has the Bill of Rights. the UN only has empty words that it can't enforce!

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-22 02:54:44

Terraformer wrote:

Actually, maybe it would be a good idea for Vermont to become a province of Canada. Perhaps also Maine?
There's... er, well, there's not any precedence, but that's because the US are very sensitive about states leaving. Though they were happy to accept a breakaway part of Mexico, so they really shouldn't have an issue with parts of one country deciding to leave and join another.

Well, the Vermonters can all go and move to Canada, but Vermont itself is staying in the Union, same is true of Maine. If people there want to depopulate their state and move to Canada, then that is their business, but they aren't taking any territory with them! What do you think NAFTA is, but a move towards a Continental Government, so lets just cut to the chase. If Mexico and Canada were to join the Union, we would have a continental government called the United States of America. If you give it a different name such as NAFTA or the North American Union, that doesn't change what it is. So the question is, how would Canada like to change the US Constitution in order for them to join? Would a name change suffice, or do you need certain amendments passed or repealed? Any particular rights under the Bill or Rights that you do not wish to have? Just saying. By the way none of this is any more fantastic than a colony on Mars. The trend is towards larger and larger countries anyway.

Terraformer · 2016-03-22 04:30:45

If Canadians want to move to the US and depopulate Canada, they can. but they're not taking Canada with them!

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-22 07:02:13

I'd say let the Canadians speak for themselves, you don't speak for them. If you want to find out for sure, let the United States make them an offer, and then the Canadians can vote on it. I think its interesting that Robert thinks it is perfectly natural for Ukrainians to want to be Russian, but he does not equally think that some Canadians might want to be Americans. Ukraine is to Russia, what Austria is to Germany, what Canada is to the United States.

Terraformer · 2016-03-22 08:11:40

Then why are you trying to speak for Vermonters? Vermont wasn't originally part of the US, it was an independent Republic. If Vermonters want to be part of Canada, who's to say they can't be?

RobertDyck · 2016-03-22 08:33:27

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

You Canadians want all the Benefits of American citizenship, but don't want to be part of the United States.

Tom, you're annoying and being stupid again. The United States already dominates a lot of Canada. Half the TV channels on cable are American, and more than half the programming on Canadian channels is American anyway. Many American business operate in Canada. Walmart opened in Canada in 1994. (Was it really that long ago?) They bought Woolco, a store similar to Walmart but owned by Woolworth, a British company. Target tried to do the same by buying Zellers, formerly owned by the Hudson's Bay Company, an iconic Canadian company. Unfortunately Target failed to bring their brands to Canadian stores, they tried to sell the same brands as Walmart but at higher prices. And they made the mistake of closing Zellers stores during the transition, so customers had to find an alternate. Once they did, they continued to shop there. Walmart kept Woolco stores open during the transition. Eaton's was another iconic Canadian store, although not as old as Hudson's Bay Company. Eaton's was struggling, had difficulty keeping up with the times, when Walmart opened it killed Eaton's. So we lost several Canadian stores.

And industry. Canada has several companies that make steel. One company noticed that all steel companies in Canada and the US were still using equipment built at the beginning of World War 2. All steel companies were investing their profits in the stock market, not updating equipment for their core business. This one Canadian company decided to invest in it's core business, they sold all stocks in other companies and took out a bank loan to update equipment for their core business. In 1992, their new equipment started to operate. It was a new furnace to smelt steel. This new furnace used less coal, so produced fewer carbon emissions. From a business perspective, using less coal means it costs less money to produce steel. And it required fewer personnel to operate. And was safer to operate, so fewer injuries. Companies pay a lot of money to train staff; when personnel get injured, it costs the company a lot to replace them. This made employees happy, but was really done for business reasons. Steel produced in this new furnace (new in 1992) had fewer impurities, so was stronger than steel from their competitors. It cost the company less to produce, so they were able to sell it at a lower price than their competitors and take a larger profit at the same time. The last furnace lasted 50 years, they expected this one would last 25 years, but they set up their bank loan to be paid off in 10 years. They could pay their bills, make loan payments, and had profit left over to pay dividends to shareholders. For their customers, this meant higher quality product at lower prices at the same time! Of course customers bought their product. Their competitors didn't like it. Several American companies, lead by US Steel, lobbied the American government to establish trade barriers. Canada and the US had a bi-national free trade agreement, but NAFTA hadn't been established yet. The bi-national free trade commission looked at the request and said "No". One company invested in new equipment so was able to out compete? This isn't a problem, it's how the market is supposed to work. But US Steel didn't like it. They lobbied their government. They got a state court to rule that it was "dumping". It wasn't, and this had already been ruled on by the bi-national free trade commission. How does a state court have jurisdiction to overrule a bi-national court? But the state court ordered US customers to impost heavy, punishing duties. Stelco was forced out of business.

Every time a Canadian company wins, American companies demand the government do something to destroy the Canadian company. When an American company wins, too bad! Canada believes in free market economy, but the US has many incidents of government control and bias. America has long abused the fact that Canada believes in freedom and free-market economy much more than the United States. As long as the United States has this much influence over Canada, we Canadians are entitled to have some say in it.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Also I thought you left-wing liberals wanted bigger government.

I told you many times, I am not "left-wing". I believe in reduced government spending, smaller government, treat the debt as a mortgage, and dramatically reduce taxes. I told you, I am not "liberal" in the sense that Republicans use that word. Members of my party like myself are called "fiscally responsible". I've tried to be respectful, but you convince me that "Republican" is metal illness.

RobertDyck · 2016-03-22 08:47:30

As IanM and Terraformer said, there are people in some states that talked about joining Canada. Since you said, Tom, the United States is more aggressively federal than any other country. States have state rights. Those rights include self-determination. If the state as a whole wants to leave the Union and join Canada, they have the right to do so. As pointed out here, Texas was a part of Mexico, it separated then joined the United States. If Texas can do that, then other states can join Canada. Quid pro quo.

In the late 1990s, when Bill Clinton was president, many young people in Canada started to ask the question why Canada and the United States are separate countries. University students in my province said only 1/3 expected to stay here, 1/3 expected to move to another province to get a job, and the remaining 1/3 expected to move to the United States. Then George W. Bush got elected. That answered the question. All talk of merging with the States ended.

RobertDyck · 2016-03-22 09:34:43

News Today: Rob Ford is dead. Cancer.

Terraformer · 2016-03-22 09:41:54

Robert, since we're talking about secession, what do you think Canada would be like if there was, say, a grand North American reorganisation, with states and provinces seceding and forming new unions? Would Canada remain the same, or would some provinces leave to form new countries (as an example, the Cascadia idea, which would involve Washington and Oregon states and British Columbia)?

Also, I wonder if the UK could entice Newfoundland back with a suitable offer...

RobertDyck · 2016-03-22 10:49:10

Terraformer wrote:

Robert, since we're talking about secession, what do you think Canada would be like if there was, say, a grand North American reorganisation, with states and provinces seceding and forming new unions? Would Canada remain the same, or would some provinces leave to form new countries (as an example, the Cascadia idea, which would involve Washington and Oregon states and British Columbia)?
Also, I wonder if the UK could entice Newfoundland back with a suitable offer...

There was a lot of speculation during the 1995 Quebec referendum. Separatists in Quebec wanted that province to become an independent country. There was a referendum in 1980, but Quebec voted to stay. Separatists didn't like the result, claimed it wasn't fair. "They weren't ready!" So a second referendum was held in 1995. Some voters in Quebec noticed separatists used the threat of separation to coerce goodies out of the federal government, so some who didn't want to separate voted "yes" anyway just to produce a close vote. The result in 1995 was 49.6% to separate, 50.4% to stay. That was so close that many were scared at what they almost did. No one who doesn't want to separate will ever vote "yes" again. The vast majority of Quebec citizens don't want another referendum, they don't want to even talk about separation.

People at that time speculated what would happen to the rest of Canada. Some believed Maritime provinces would end up joining the United States. Separatists in Quebec wanted to remain part of international treaties that Canada joined, but the rest of Canada said "no". If Quebec separated, they would have to negotiate themselves, they wouldn't automatically be part of treaties Canada was part of. In fact, many in the rest of Canada would treat Quebec leaving as a bitter divorce. The rest of Canada would ensure Quebec could not join NAFTA. Quebec has strong trade with the rest of Canada, one issue raised at the time was Quebec sold a lot of milk to Ontario. Separatists claimed that would continue, but many in the rest of Canada pointed out we have a free trade agreement with the United States (NAFTA) and Wisconsin has a lot of milk.

But that didn't happen. And won't. I currently volunteer at the Aboriginal Centre. I'm not Aboriginal, but a friend was asked to take over a computer charity run there. I was unemployed. Other volunteers from a local computer club were specialists in Linux or Macintosh, but computers there were Windows. I was a technician with experience repairing computer hardware and Windows. I agreed, it was a means to keep my skills up. Turns out I got some work as substitute instructor, only a couple days per year and last week was the first day in a year and a half. And the charity provides free repairs for refurbished computers they issue, but if someone buys a computer they can't bring it for a free repair. They allow me to hand out my business card. Half the customers for my home business are those referrals. Although I volunteer one full day per week, for me it isn't all altruistic. It's part of my business. But since it's at the Aboriginal Centre, I hear a lot from Aboriginal People.

They're not all the same. Like anyone, they are people. Most just want a job, want to live their lives. But some want all white people out of North America. If they had their way, there wouldn't be Canada, wouldn't be United States. They want North America to be Cree, Dene, Huron, Inuit, etc. In fact, some see Métis as half-breed, not real aboriginal.

What would happen? Who knows.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-22 16:22:05

RobertDyck wrote:

Terraformer wrote:
Robert, since we're talking about secession, what do you think Canada would be like if there was, say, a grand North American reorganisation, with states and provinces seceding and forming new unions? Would Canada remain the same, or would some provinces leave to form new countries (as an example, the Cascadia idea, which would involve Washington and Oregon states and British Columbia)?
Also, I wonder if the UK could entice Newfoundland back with a suitable offer...
There was a lot of speculation during the 1995 Quebec referendum. Separatists in Quebec wanted that province to become an independent country. There was a referendum in 1980, but Quebec voted to stay. Separatists didn't like the result, claimed it wasn't fair. "They weren't ready!" So a second referendum was held in 1995. Some voters in Quebec noticed separatists used the threat of separation to coerce goodies out of the federal government, so some who didn't want to separate voted "yes" anyway just to produce a close vote. The result in 1995 was 49.6% to separate, 50.4% to stay. That was so close that many were scared at what they almost did. No one who doesn't want to separate will ever vote "yes" again. The vast majority of Quebec citizens don't want another referendum, they don't want to even talk about separation.
People at that time speculated what would happen to the rest of Canada. Some believed Maritime provinces would end up joining the United States. Separatists in Quebec wanted to remain part of international treaties that Canada joined, but the rest of Canada said "no". If Quebec separated, they would have to negotiate themselves, they wouldn't automatically be part of treaties Canada was part of. In fact, many in the rest of Canada would treat Quebec leaving as a bitter divorce. The rest of Canada would ensure Quebec could not join NAFTA. Quebec has strong trade with the rest of Canada, one issue raised at the time was Quebec sold a lot of milk to Ontario. Separatists claimed that would continue, but many in the rest of Canada pointed out we have a free trade agreement with the United States (NAFTA) and Wisconsin has a lot of milk.
But that didn't happen. And won't. I currently volunteer at the Aboriginal Centre. I'm not Aboriginal, but a friend was asked to take over a computer charity run there. I was unemployed. Other volunteers from a local computer club were specialists in Linux or Macintosh, but computers there were Windows. I was a technician with experience repairing computer hardware and Windows. I agreed, it was a means to keep my skills up. Turns out I got some work as substitute instructor, only a couple days per year and last week was the first day in a year and a half. And the charity provides free repairs for refurbished computers they issue, but if someone buys a computer they can't bring it for a free repair. They allow me to hand out my business card. Half the customers for my home business are those referrals. Although I volunteer one full day per week, for me it isn't all altruistic. It's part of my business. But since it's at the Aboriginal Centre, I hear a lot from Aboriginal People.
They're not all the same. Like anyone, they are people. Most just want a job, want to live their lives. But some want all white people out of North America. If they had their way, there wouldn't be Canada, wouldn't be United States. They want North America to be Cree, Dene, Huron, Inuit, etc. In fact, some see Métis as half-breed, not real aboriginal.
What would happen? Who knows.

they are living in a fantasy land then. The North America inhabited by nomadic Indians was a political power vacuum, it was inevitable that some European power was going to fill it. It not the British, it would have been the French or the Spaniards, if not European, if could have been Chinese or Japanese doing the colonization. but a collection of tribes inhabiting North America was not a stable situation given that European powers were learning to cross those oceans. Their was a certain logic in the United States settling the west to prevent the French, Spaniards or British from doing the same with those lands, and then we might end up with a hostile European Empire on our borders. Manifest Destiny was about occupying that space before other European powers did. If we stayed out, that would not have helped the Indians, some other European colonial authority would have ended up doing the same thing to them.

I think things change over time, it is clear that you don't like my country very much and are biased against it, but you have to consider what would be best for the people that live on this continent, would it be better of they lived in a collection of small countries that can't defend themselves, or under a continent-wide government with the resources to be a formidable power to defend itself from foreign aggression. Which would you prefer?

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-03-22 16:25:02)

Terraformer · 2016-03-22 16:52:58

Well, Europe pulled ahead of the rest of the world when it was composed of more squabbling states (both more squabbling and more states) than today. The renaissance began in Italy before Italy existed as a country.The stuff the Greeks did that people actually remember, they did when they were composed of City-States.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-22 21:45:06

Terraformer wrote:

Well, Europe pulled ahead of the rest of the world when it was composed of more squabbling states (both more squabbling and more states) than today. The renaissance began in Italy before Italy existed as a country.The stuff the Greeks did that people actually remember, they did when they were composed of City-States.

More states; less squabbling, most of the European states are on the same page, all except one, Russia the troublemaker, the war bringer! The problem is, most Europeans don't really think of themselves as Europeans. They tend to lack a European "Nationalism". If someone attacks another part of Europe, say Ukraine for instance, some Europeans don't seem to care that their continent is made a little smaller, and little less free that it was before, just so that their little corner of it is not affected. Now if Russia attacked Alaska, it would be in a war with the rest of the United States, but with Europe, their is a chance for Russia to pick off one country after another, and persuade the rest of Europe not to help! That is the problem with a fractured Europe. An attack on Ukraine or any other part of Europe, needs to be seen as an attack on Europe itself! the Europeans need to feel that they all are being attacked if a part of Europe is attacked. Europe prides itself on its civilization, it should protect what its got, rather than let some Third World Dictator with a chip on his shoulder take it apart piece by piece and bring a return to barbarism.

Europe almost singlehandedly brought the scientific revolution to the world, it pioneered space travel in the person of Werner von Braun. The first person to travel in space was a European, don't forget that!

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-22 21:57:37

RobertDyck wrote:

Well, the Liberal government tabled their first budget today. It increases spending, with a $29.4 billion deficit. I was shocked when they promised a deficit during the election campaign. They promised it would be no larger than $10 billion. Now it's practically triple that. Conservatives had promised to cut spending and reduce government, but actually increased spending and increase government. When the Conservative Party of Canada was elected in 2006, they inherited a $17.4 billion surplus from the previous Liberal government. Their first budget promised to reduce the surplus, not by cutting taxes, but increasing spending. Well, they did. They quickly turned a surplus into the largest deficit in Canadian history. Now the Liberals under Justin Trudeau have increased spending even further.
Rock - Hard Place

You know why? because spending is power! They are the government, and when they spend money, they are exercising that power, they get to decide what to spend it on, but if they cut taxes, they are giving that power back to the people. The people will then invest it better than the government can, and this causes growth. The problem with Canada is that your so-called "Conservatives" are actually moderates. Canada has a moderate party that calls itself "Conservative" they are in the stripe of Mitt Romney and John McCain, they don't have anything against big government, they just think they can run it better than the liberals can. the problem with too much power in too few hands, is that power corrupts. When their are a few deciders on what the government is to spend on, their are people who want the government to spend on themselves, and they are willing to rewards the politician handsomely to direct government spending their way. You see elected politicians cannot enrich themselves directly at government expense, instead they need a third party, a supply to the government, and in exchange for directing spending towards that Third Party, that third party rewards that politicians, and their are a number of ways it could do that:
1) Direct payoff
2) A future job with the company
3) A sweetheart deal such as a below market low interest loan
4) Inside information
5) Stock options

There are many ways money fro a company benefitting from government largesse can reward the politician who directs spending that way, one other way is generous campaign contributions to the politician, so he can knock down competition with an add blitz and stay in power to grant future benefits to the company.

All this corruption can be avoided simply by giving the money back to the people, letting them keep a larger portion of their earnings, because money in many hands is less corrupt than money in few. It is much more expensive to bribe millions of people keeping a larger share of their income, than a few politicians that decide what the government is going to spend taxpayer's revenue on!

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-03-22 21:59:23)

RobertDyck · 2016-03-22 22:27:28

So vote for Ron Paul. Or Rand Paul. Oh wait! Your Republican Party eliminated them from nomination. But although Ron Paul was libertarian, his followers formed the Tea Party. They aren't libertarian, they have a lot of statist views.

Whenever Republicans get in power, they spend more than Democrats. Sounds like Conservative Party of Canada.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-23 09:03:52

RobertDyck wrote:

So vote for Ron Paul. Or Rand Paul. Oh wait! Your Republican Party eliminated them from nomination. But although Ron Paul was libertarian, his followers formed the Tea Party. They aren't libertarian, they have a lot of statist views.
Whenever Republicans get in power, they spend more than Democrats. Sounds like Conservative Party of Canada.

Why do you suppose Ted Cruz was unpopular with the Republican Establishment? You remember the Government shutdown? Barack Obama shut down the government because the Republicans refused to authorize increased borrowing! Ted Cruz was filibustering and Obama and the Media were making like it was the Republicans were shutting down the government. The Republicans caved because of pressure from Obama and the American media. Then in 2014, the Republicans won the Senate, and the first thing Speaker Boehner said was that he would not shut down the government. The Republicans you are talking about are the Republican establishment, and they were basically spending on things that Obama wanted to spend on, such as Obamacare and planned parenthood, Defense Spending was cut. So the Republicans you are complaining about were the ones who were despite their rhetoric, doing Obama's bidding, so I don't see how giving the Congress back to the Democrats and voting for Hillary will be much of an improvement, because for every dollar the Democrats cut out of Defense and NASA, they will spend two on social programs! Also have you heard, Trump was saying NATO is too expensive, he wants to cut it! Ted Cruz, your friendly neighborhood Canadian Presidential candidate wants to increase defense spending. So it appears Ted is your man, if you want to stop Trump. If you want to cut defense, then you should back Trump.

RobertDyck · 2016-03-23 09:09:07

Just posted. I think Trump said this some time ago, but was just posted on Facebook today.
#GreatWallOfCanada
Yup, this is Trump saying he wants to build a wall with Canada. He since denied it, but here is Trump himself saying he will. And he claims he'll get Canada to pay for it. You asked why anyone in Canada cares? This directly affects Canada. He's nuts.

Trump claims drugs come from Canada. But other politicians claimed 9/11 terrorists came from Canada. They didn't, they came directly from overseas into the US, they didn't come through Canada. Not one.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2016-03-23 09:14:38)

Terraformer · 2016-03-23 09:25:09

Oh, if Trump gets elected, there *will* be a wall built, and Canda *will* pay for it.

How else are they going to keep out the floods of American refugees?

RobertDyck · 2016-03-23 09:35:53

Ron Paul was the only sane candidate in 2008 and 2012. Yes, Ron Paul, not Obama. But he didn't win.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-23 10:02:53

RobertDyck wrote:

Just posted. I think Trump said this some time ago, but was just posted on Facebook today.
#GreatWallOfCanada
Yup, this is Trump saying he wants to build a wall with Canada. He since denied it, but here is Trump himself saying he will. And he claims he'll get Canada to pay for it. You asked why anyone in Canada cares? This directly affects Canada. He's nuts.
Trump claims drugs come from Canada. But other politicians claimed 9/11 terrorists came from Canada. They didn't, they came directly from overseas into the US, they didn't come through Canada. Not one.

Oh but drugs do come from Canada, and lots of them! You know why? The drug companies that make the drugs, charge a certain price in the US to recover their price for research and development, and then when they want to sell those drugs in Canada, the Canadians insist that they can only cover the cost to manufacture the existing drug, so the price in Canada is lower. Some people in the US live near Canada, so they cross the border to buy drugs because the price is cheaper, and some people go even further, they say, "Hey, I can make money buying drugs in Canada ad selling them in the US, because at drug stores they are so expensive, because drug companies try to recover their R&D costs in the US market alone. The drug companies reason that their are only 35 million Canadians, and figure its better to sell those drugs at whatever price the Canadian government will allow than not to sell them at all. And some Enterprising Canadians and Americans get into the drug smuggling business because of the aritificial price difference between Canada and the USA! I'll bet Drug Companies will support Trump!

RobertDyck · 2016-03-23 10:17:53

So you argue pharmaceutical companies should be allowed to gouge patients? Not just their cost plus a reasonable profit, but huge mark-up just because people will die with out it? That doesn't sound reasonable.

In Canada, pharmaceutical patents expire a little sooner. It used to be much sooner, but patents were extended due to pressure from the US government. Yea, they did that. Pharmaceutical companies still get patents, and they can sell their product at whatever price they want. Pharmaceuticals are not covered by our national heathcare plan. However, hospitals will only pay a certain price, so if drug companies want to sell to hospitals, they have to comply. Prices in a drug store are not regulated, it's just competition.

There was an issue with Canadian companies selling pharmaceuticals by mail-order into the US. That's competition, why would you complain about free-market? Some American politicians even encouraged this, because it was a way to make pharmaceuticals affordable.

But Trump wasn't talking about pharmaceuticals. He made accusations about narcotics. Do I really have to say anything about that?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2016-03-21 13:51:44

Re: Politics

#127 2016-03-21 14:31:06

Re: Politics

#128 2016-03-21 17:03:09

Re: Politics

#129 2016-03-21 18:09:48

Re: Politics

#130 2016-03-22 02:46:17

Re: Politics

#131 2016-03-22 02:54:44

Re: Politics

#132 2016-03-22 04:30:45

Re: Politics

#133 2016-03-22 07:02:13

Re: Politics

#134 2016-03-22 08:11:40

Re: Politics

#135 2016-03-22 08:33:27

Re: Politics

#136 2016-03-22 08:47:30

Re: Politics

#137 2016-03-22 09:34:43

Re: Politics

#138 2016-03-22 09:41:54

Re: Politics

#139 2016-03-22 10:49:10

Re: Politics

#140 2016-03-22 16:22:05

Re: Politics

#141 2016-03-22 16:52:58

Re: Politics

#142 2016-03-22 21:45:06

Re: Politics

#143 2016-03-22 21:57:37

Re: Politics

#144 2016-03-22 22:27:28

Re: Politics

#145 2016-03-23 09:03:52

Re: Politics

#146 2016-03-23 09:09:07

Re: Politics

#147 2016-03-23 09:25:09

Re: Politics

#148 2016-03-23 09:35:53

Re: Politics

#149 2016-03-23 10:02:53

Re: Politics

#150 2016-03-23 10:17:53

Re: Politics

Board footer