| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Gates Sr. supports estate tax | |
|
||
| Time: 08:11 EST/13:11 GMT | News Source: USA Today | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
President Bush, in pushing big tax cuts for America's wealthiest, is about to get an earful from an unlikely opponent, again. Bill Gates Sr. — father of the co-founder of Microsoft who is the USA's richest man — is fighting to keep Bush from killing the estate tax that hits the super-rich but also some small-business owners and farmers. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 233 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:43:46 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/14/2003 10:47:37 AM |
|
"is fighting to keep Bush from killing the estate tax that hits the super-rich but also some small-business owners and farmers. "
Bush doesn't care about small business owners or farmers. An amendment was introduced to last year's tax bill to raise the limit, but it was voted against by the Republicans. Claiming this group as their motive is disingenuous at best. What's really driving this is lobbyist money from the Gallo family and a few others. The Gallo family has been contributing large sums of money to campaigns for the past 10-15 years or so to try to kill this tax. The Gates family, Buffet, Rockefeller and many of the other wealthiest families in America say keep it the way it is, as it spurs charitible contributions. |
| #2 By 8062 (206.72.66.205) at 1/14/2003 11:12:17 AM |
| Well that's it for me...no more Gallo-by-the-gallon! |
| #3 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 1/14/2003 12:53:18 PM |
|
Ah.. the liberal media bias. In the first sentence, too. "big tax cuts for America's wealthiest".
There is no tax cut for the wealthy! All of Bush's tax cuts were aimed at middle class and elderly (some of whom might be rich, I admit). The point of the dividend cut is to encourage investment, get the stock market back and get those 401ks back in better shape again. It's funny how when rumors of Bush's plans came out, the market shot up really high. but then after he announced it, and everyone realized the Democrats would fillabuster any type of productive tax cut[1], the market sank. Gates, Sr. is a mega-liberal and never wants a tax cut and thinks, like most card-carrying liberals, that we don't pay ENOUGH taxes. The estate tax is a big money grab by the government and is completely unfair. Especially considering it's like 50-60%(!!!). And that's NOT just for the rich, it's for you and me too! The death tax is unfair, the marriage penalty is unfair, the child tax credit isn't enough. If you disagree with this, then you are completely disassociated with reality and the principles our forefathers set and the reason they had the revolution in the first place (hint: double and other unfair taxes). [1]: 1.) because they don't want the economy to come back so they might have a chance at the presidency in 2004, and 2.) because liberals just don't like tax cuts because it puts money into the hands of the "common folk" instead of the government and the other liberal elites who "know how to spend your money better" (Bill Clinton, 1998). |
| #4 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 1/14/2003 1:08:19 PM |
|
One other thing to add. It's funny that the libs always talk about "tax cuts for the rich/wealthy".
Bush's tax cut will affect 91 million americans (almost all of the tax-payers). The person who gets the best benefit-for-the-buck is a two-earner home with 4 kids earning a combined total of $90,000. They define the heart of the middle class as "rich". Apparently, to a liberal, the only person who isn't "rich" is a poor person on welfare who suckles from the Democrats. It should be obvious to any objective person that any tax cut, even if it were targeted at the <15% tax bracket would be considered a tax cut for the "wealthy" by the Democrats. |
| #5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/14/2003 1:42:51 PM |
|
daz - "Ah.. the liberal media bias."
It's still all about the liberals, eh? You definately need to get out of the 1980's and get a grip on reality, my friend. |
| #6 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/14/2003 1:52:16 PM |
|
daz - BTW, let's go through some facts...
"Bush's tax cut will affect 91 million americans (almost all of the tax-payers). " Yeah, I'll get about $20... Others will get $20,000. I honestly don't care about the $20, it won't make a hill of beans to me. What I'm concerned about is 10 years from now when we've gotten ourselves so far into debt that they have to come asking for $2,000 from me. "The person who gets the best benefit-for-the-buck is a two-earner home with 4 kids earning a combined total of $90,000. " Yeah, we're going to start calling this the Single Person with No Kids Tax Penalty. "It should be obvious to any objective person that any tax cut, even if it were targeted at the <15% tax bracket would be considered a tax cut for the "wealthy" by the Democrats. " It should be obvious to any objective person that any tax cut proposed by Republicans is going to be top-loaded for the richest 1% of the population. You do realize that we're still running a surplus in OASDI? But we're using OASDI surplusses to fund tax cuts out of the general fund. Just curious if you were aware of that. Now you can make an argument that says OASDI funding can't really save money, so we might as well use this as loans into the general fund... and then in turn reduce those tax rates. But when you make that argument, you are also implicitly making the argument that in 10-20 years when OASDI won't be running a surplus that you are going to have to dramatically increase tax revenues into the general fund to cover the payoff of those debts. Then further on you're going to see a situation where the general fund will need to run surplusses to loan into OASDI funds. Now we need to plan long term for this to all balance out. At this point Republicans aren't talking about the balancing. All you can focus on is raiding the general fund to pay off contributors. In the end what's important is Sound Fiscal Policy. Remember that quote from Tytler? He mentioned the downfall of democracy is Loose Fiscal Policy, something the Republicans clearly advocate through their Borrow and Spend tactics. |
| #7 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 1/14/2003 1:58:13 PM |
|
BTW, let's go through some facts...
That's a laugh. Yeah, I'll get about $20... Others will get $20,000. You said facts, this isn't a fact. I would fathom a guess to say you're in the ~20% bracket like most of the rest of us. I would guess that you don't have a kid. You're single (not married, at least). You'd save a couple hundred bucks from all the breaks. From the lowering of the brack to 18%, so some of the other credits and exceptions/deductions. However, if only pay a few hundred dollars in taxes, why would you expect to get $20,000 in breaks? That logic makes no sense. You're one of those Robin Hood liberals who thinks that only rich should pay taxes, right? Yeah, we're going to start calling this the Single Person with No Kids Tax Penalty. lol, yeah. Admittedly, single persons don't get as much benefit, but then, married people were getting penalized. It's not like married people are getting more benefit now, they're just equal or on par with single folks. Many married people filed seperately because it was cheaper due to the marriage penalty. So at the worst, you'll be equal. The Child Tax Credit has been around for a long time. Bush is just planning on increasing it. So much for a credit for the rich. What's an extra $400 to a rich person? I means a huge deal to me, and I'm not rich. $400 is another car payment or 2 for me. -c - |
| #8 By 1642 (205.177.133.219) at 1/14/2003 2:31:53 PM |
| Daz, you must have more money than I do. The Federal Estate tax is currently exempt on the fist $1 million. That is definitly not affecting me. And although I might be wrong on the percentage, I believe it tops out at 45%, a little below the 50-60% you stated. (Of course there are some states that have their own estate tax on top of that) |
| #9 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/14/2003 3:13:00 PM |
|
daz - You know, you never did respond to my question from several days ago.
Why don't we just lower tax rates to 0%? AFter all, by your logic that will cause tax revenues to increase ten-fold, right? If you can come up with a reasonable explanation as to why we should lower them to 0% I'll say your arguments are valid. I'm even going to be very liberal in my use of the word reasonable. You don't seem to understand that the issue here is not rich versus poor, the issue here is funding federal programs. How do you plan to pay for your war in Iraq with 0% tax rates? "The Child Tax Credit has been around for a long time. Bush is just planning on increasing it." 1997 isn't a long time ago. |
| #10 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/14/2003 3:16:45 PM |
|
parker - "This site says the top 1% pay 32% of income taxes:"
Ah ha! income taxes... Half the federal budget is payroll taxes, which are paid by 100% of the population.(although about 5% of the population are excluded from a portion of them by limits) I knew you had to skew the statistics to make that claim. Even so, shouldn't the richest 1% have to pay more? They certainly benefit more from government programs, especially defense. Furthermore the reality is, if you wanted to change the tax scheme such that the top 1% only contributed 1% of the federal budget... that would mean everybody making under 100,000 a year would have a 99% tax rate to cover the difference in revenues. Is that your plan? Tax the hell out of the poor and middle class, so the rich can suck more out of society and not have to contribute their fair portion back? This post was edited by sodablue on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 at 15:18. |
| #11 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/14/2003 4:08:48 PM |
|
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/bush.poll/index.html
"Bush's job approval rating is 58 percent, a five-point decline since last week and the first time it has dipped below 60 percent since the terrorist attacks. " "And in what could be a key finding for the administration, more respondents identified the economy as a decisive issue at the polls compared to terrorism, 53 percent to 32 percent. And 56 percent of those polled say they believe that Bush generally favors the rich. " And there's a graph showing only 43% of Americans think Bush gives a damn about the Federal Budget. What's really funny is this: "The president still enjoys strong support from Americans when it comes to their evaluation of his personal strengths. For example, 67 percent of those polled say Bush brought dignity back to the White House and 65 percent said he inspires confidence. " So people are happy with Bush because he's buddies with the guys(Ted Olsen being chief among them) who disgraced the White House during the 1990's, so they won't do the same to him. Weird logic, but I suppose in a twisted way it makes sense. |
| #12 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 1/14/2003 4:26:44 PM |
|
#12 Why don't we just lower tax rates to 0%? AFter all, by your logic that will cause tax revenues to increase ten-fold, right?
Actually, I did answer it, but I thought dupe said it, not you. And I'll repeat my response: Please don't insult yourself with such stupidity. Honestly soda, I know you're brainwashed and incapable of most independent thought, but this is even beyond you. I will state the obvious, though it doesn't need to be stated, conservatives and libertarians do not believe in doing away with taxes, they believe in government doing what government is supposed to do, not controlling our lives and charging us exorbitant taxes. 33% is exorbitant and that is manifest. Government wastes so much money it's ridiculous. I know you can't see this because you're brainwashed, but it's the truth. America was built on personal freedom, not dependence on the government and entitlement. Democrats encourage entitlement and class warfare (you know, like you're 'tax cuts for the rich' B.S.) to keep the people angry and wanting the Gov. to fix everything. They increase their power base this way. What's funny is that if there's a deficit, it's the President's fault, even though Congress sets the budget. The President asks for one spending increase, Congress tacks on 30 and blames it on the President. Bush cares about the budget, but he can't do anything about it. He needs money to defend the country, but the Democrats want money to spend on pork projects and socialist agendas. The problem with our budget is not defense, it's the millions of pet social projects the Democrats pork on. -c |
| #13 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/14/2003 5:41:09 PM |
|
""First, Bush tax cut can only honestly be described as a tax cut for the wealthy. To call it anything else is simply dishonest."
Thats only true if you believe only the wealthy own stocks that pay dividends." No, what you say can only be true if the poor have just as much incentive to but dividend-yielding stocks. How many dual-income families with children can afford to buy a block of 1,000, 10,000, or 100,000 shares of GE? How many of them are gowing to tak their "tax break" of $300 and buy 5 and a half shares of Microsoft? What would $300 yield if you were to invest it into a dividend-yielding equity? Not quite as much as if you had a break of $100,000, does it? In fact, it's much much less because even you ignorant money grubbing rats have to be willing to admit, even if you think the wealthy should pay less taxes, that a larger sum of expendable wealth can produce greater growth through investment than a smaller sum. |
| #14 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/14/2003 6:28:01 PM |
|
daz - "I know you're brainwashed and incapable of most independent thought"
That's a hoot coming from you. "33% is exorbitant and that is manifest. Government wastes so much money it's ridiculous. I know you can't see this because you're brainwashed, but it's the truth. " Me? Brainwashed? Bah, I fully agree that Government wastes a lot of money, most of that waste is because every 2 years we change policy direction and have to start over. If the various parties would learn to bloody work together instead of fighting all the time, we'd get more done. Ever been to Europe? They accomplish far more with less money than we spend. But again, the issue is Fiscal policy. If you think taxes are too high, then cut spending. Once you've cut spending now you can cut taxes. But you don't cut taxes and increase spending. This Borrow and Spend mentality will drive the nation bankrupt. "He needs money to defend the country, but the Democrats want money to spend on pork projects and socialist agendas." Uhh, yeah. Hey anybody catch all the pork the Republicans threw in the Homeland Security bill? Get your head out of Rush Limbaugh's behind daz. |
| #15 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/14/2003 6:32:29 PM |
|
parker - "I also believe that all citizens benefit from defense, even if some of the people aren't bright enough to realize it. "
Yep, that's certainly true. But the wealthy benefit far more from government, therefore it's only fair that they pay a greater share of the costs. I am simply responding to your ridiculous claim that it is somehow unfair that people with $1 billion/year income pay more in taxes than someone with $50k/year. ""half the federal budget is payroll taxes 35% " Regardless, my point is made that you're drumming up statistics to try to prove a fallacy. "The percentage of all families owning corporate stock, either directly or indirectly through mutual funds, rose to 48.8 percent in 1998. " Yes, in retirement funds... which don't pay taxes on dividends. So why don't you explain to us how this dividend tax cut is going to help those of us with 401ks? How are you going to keep track of the reinvested dividends so that we don't pay taxes on them when we withdraw from our funds after retirement? This post was edited by sodablue on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 at 18:43. |
| #16 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/14/2003 6:42:04 PM |
|
You know what forget it. I made a new years resolution that I wasn't going to argue with Limbaughites this year as I was so tired of educating them.
What bothers me is they take this position that people are all for taxes and against cuts. We're not. I'm all for tax cuts if it means more money in my pocket, just like any other American. But what I don't want to see is bloody deficits! It's this Loose Fiscal policy used solely to win elections that is so disturbing. By running deficits, we are only pushing problems on to future generations(or rather myself when I turn 50), for a small bit of short term gain. Now daz claims Republicans really just want to make government smaller. Well why don't they then? At least be honest with Americans. But they won't do that, because they know that to get votes again is to syphon money out of the treasury, just like Tytler said... Thus all the pork which is constantly introduced into legislation. Gotta sign a $15 billion contract with Boeing to lease planes for the military, to help good ole Dennis Hastert out in Chicago!(Thank god that one got killed by the DoD) Quit playing political games, and start being honest with yourself and the American people. If both parties worked together we'd easily solve our budget problems. Back in the 1980's my solution was fairly simple. 10% across the board budget cuts, every department. I still advocate that, although I think we can phase it in over time just by halting spending increases. Furthermore we need to look at ways to improve the efficiency of government, hire fewer people and do more. But instead all I hear is a bunch of whining about liberals this, liberals that, with no real solutions being offered other than cutting tax rates for the wealthy so they can get more votes. |
| #17 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/14/2003 7:34:36 PM |
|
parker, you, yourself are embarassing so I'd watch what you say...
""So why don't you explain to us how this dividend tax cut is going to help those of us with 401ks?" Well ... the stocks you own that aren't in a 401k will generate non-taxed dividends that you can put in a 401k which will grow quicker because you have more money left over after taxes." Well, how do we know that of the 48%, 45% do not have stock in 401ks? Second, even if you have other stock, that doesn't mean that stock has dividends... you may get nothing. And let's be clear: dividend-yielding equities are for a particular group of investor (based on their risk profile and income needs) and even then should only be a small percentage of your asset allocation. Remember that. Let's be clear. People do not get rich on dividends. Dividends are used as a source of fixed income for the risk adverse. If you can accept more risk or you do not need an alternate source of income, there is little reason to have dividend-yielding stock--and if so, only as a small percentage of your asset allocation. So: is there greater incentives for companies to give out dividends? Maybe, if so, very little and we are not going to see any substantial change in the market for some time. is there greater incentives for individuals to purchase dividend yielding stocks? Not really, they tend to be low risk (hence low return) stocks in the value category; investors can still benefit greater by exposing themselves to greater risk. is there a good reason to change your asset allocation based on this break? Probably not, transaction costs could wipe out any gains made by the break. So how does this stimulate the economy? This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 at 19:46. |
| #18 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 1/14/2003 8:49:07 PM |
|
parker - "Stop foaming soda ... it is unbecoming. "
You know, you could certainly show some maturity and quit acting like a child. |
| #19 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/14/2003 8:52:33 PM |
|
"Corporations have emphasized stock prices instead of dividends because the tax is higher on dividends. Once upon a time people bought stocks because of dividends until they screwed up the tax code.
What a moron." How the hell does the number of companies issuing dividends affect the type of investor interested in them? You raised a specious argument to start--but how the hell does it apply? Dividends are for very wealthy people who have no income but investments, the elderly who's retirement plans are not adequate for their income needs, and as a small percentage of the risk adverse investor's asset allocation. That's very clear. Corporations didn't de-emphasize dividends because of the taxes; corporations de-emphasized them because the market and the investors were geared towards growth. High P/Es were the norm. If you were a high growth company, you were not dispersing revenue--you were reinvesting in capex and acquisitions. Apparently, you don't think growth is going to return to the market--you have to inject an artificial stimilus into the equation to marginally lift people's sentiments. A lift that will not materialize anyway. But even this cut, it doesn't change the dynamics of the market: corporations are still not interested in disbursing their revenue (even if they can do it at less cost). The market (despite the cautiousness after the bubble and scandles) still demands that corporations grow, that they acquire, that they show improvements in EPS each quarter... The value types of companies that are issuing dividends cannot achieve these market goals the same way a "modern" business can. And as I said, if there is any surge at all, this will be a misplaced investment: dividends are not an appropriate investment vehicle for most investors. |
| #20 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 1/14/2003 9:01:08 PM |
|
Interesting, article, there are a few extra twists to this dividend taxation bill.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/01/07/cz_jn_0107beltway.html Oh, and here are the stocks to buy: http://www.forbes.com/2003/01/07/cx_aw_0107dividend.html Although it's rather unlikely this stimulus plan will pass, as it has little to do with stimulus. |
| #21 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 1/14/2003 9:34:17 PM |
| lol, jerk and blue are not the same. |
| #22 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/14/2003 11:53:50 PM |
|
Ok... I'm not going to comment on the previous statements made in this thread, but I will say this:
The reason Bush is cutting taxes (according to him) is to boost the economy. It follows then that he believes that if you give more money back to rich people than to poor people, it will have a great (i.e. better) impact on the overall economy. This simply does not make sense to me. Rich people already have what they want... that's a perk of being rich. If the government gives me back a bunch of money, I'm not going to run out and spend it all... I'll save it. After all, that's one way rich people get rich - saving money. One could then argue that many rich people own or manage large business (another way of getting rich), and if they have more money personally, they will be more likely to expand that business and hire more people. This doesn't make sense either. The wealth of individuals running a company has little to do with the health of the company itself. Ken Lay (sp?) was making millions, yet Enron was on its death bead. Same goes for WorldCom, Tyco, etc. In addition, for the majority of big businesses, individuals do not contribute to the bottom line of the company. In other words, Ken Lay wasn't paying people's salaries with his personal check book... it was the company's check book. Now, many would now reply that the company's bottom line is also helped, because companies pay taxes too! Absolutely... but, again, businesses don’t turn into big businesses by spending lots of money when the economy is crappy. They make money by saving it away and waiting until they can expand in a good economy. That's good business sense. Few companies are willing to be martyrs (sp?) to "help the economy". So, supply side economics doesn't make sense as the sole solution to economic problems. Can it contribute? I think so. But it only works, imo, when demand is driving the use of those rich-people-tax cuts. It is a fact that the poorer you are, the more likely you will spend 100% of your income, both out of necessity and because saving isn't often in the nature of poor people... which is one reason why they're poor! :-) But if you give money to poor people (or not-rich people), they will be more likely to spend that money than a rich person. If you give them back proportionally more money than they give to the government in taxes, they will still be more likely to spend it all! This means poor people can be an easy way to funnel money directly into the economy, thereby increasing demand, and helping all those nice rich people justify expanding their nice rich businesses. Continued on next post... |
| #23 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/14/2003 11:54:07 PM |
|
Continued from previous post...
Lastly, the "moral" side of tax cuts is an interesting one. Conservatives say that you should give the money back to the people who paid the most taxes. Liberals typically say more money should go to those who need it the most. While I don't call myself economically liberal (I call myself a free thinker), the liberal option seems to be the most "moral". You *help* more people by giving more money to the poor than to the rich. If I give $200,000 to a millionaire, whose needs and desires are all already met, I increase his standard of living very little. If I give $2,000 to a person with an annual income of $20,000, I've helped them a great deal because they are now far more able to fulfill their basic needs. In addition, this extra help is far more likely to lift them out of the cycle of poverty which so pervades millions of American's lives. Once lifted, they will begin to dramatically contribute to society in ways which were likely impossible before. Perhaps they can attend school, get a better job, become a teacher... etc. So if the goal is to help society, then I think a "liberal" tax policy is the wisest choice. If the goal is to somehow achieve a "fair" return of money to those who paid taxes, regardless of its effects, than a Conservative tax policy is the correct choice. Trust me, I understand many of you will disagree with the very premise of my argument, but I've yet to be presented with any hard evidence that the Conservative way works. I have, however, seen evidence in history that it is demand, not supply, that drives an economy. We got out of the great depression not because big businesses decided to be good citizens and start hiring... but because the government started buying massive amounts of goods to fuel the war machine during World War II. This increase in *demand*, not supply, allowed businesses to expand and hire people, thereby increasing demand as well, etc. I used to be a Libertarian, so yes, I understand capitalism. I understand the free market (as best as anybody can, I suppose.) I understand Friedman. I simply disagree. Feel free to change my mind. This post was edited by RMD on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 at 23:56. |
| #24 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 1/15/2003 8:17:35 AM |
| You're no longer a Libertarian? |
| #25 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/15/2003 11:08:48 AM |
|
#36 - I haven't been for a while. I sometimes call myself a quasi-libertarian since I still believe in many Libertarian principles... I just can't mesh what seems to be Libertarian dogma (small government is *always* good, pure capitalism is *always* the best economic policy, etc.) with reality.
While I first thought that Libertarianism was logically consistant across both economic and social policy arenas (unlike Republicans or Democrats, who contradict themselves), I've since realized that they are only able to be logically consistant by ignoring facts and making stuff up. Oh well. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 233 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:43:46 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
