 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/11/2004 11:03 PM (GMT -6) |   | I found this on an old topic posted by Doc. I now understand better where you're coming from. I am going to argue that these points make a better case for libertarian activism than for withdrawl from politics. quote:
I. The Demand for a King Was a Rejection of GOD
II. Jesus teaches us that the way of life among his disciples is to be radically different from the way of the governments of the world.
III. All the kingdoms of this world are depicted in Scripture as at odds with God, and in the end he shall bring them to ruin.
IV. The nations are God’s ministers of judgement. He uses them in their wickedness to carry out his plans.
V. Even though God uses them to his own advantage, ALL the kingdoms of this world belong to the Devil and are controlled by him.
VI. We cannot serve two masters and we are not to worry about the welfare of our life. What is human government about if not rallying the allegiance of people to improve the affairs of our life (ironically, inevitably resulting in the killing of those who threaten this ideology)?
VII. Jesus and the rest of the NT teaches us to pay taxes "so that we do not give offense" to the government, but to know all the while that we are NOT "children" of the government: we are free.
VIII. Jesus taught that his kingdom was not of this world.
IX. We are to understand that we are citizens of heaven. Our allegiance is to be to the Lord of heaven. We are soldiers in his army and thus strangers, aliens, in this present world age.
X. Babylon in Revelation is a symbol of all earthly governmental power. ALL nations are intoxicated with this power. Christians are called to "come out of her."
XI. The teachings of Jesus, and the entire New Testament, forbid believers participating in any program that involves vengeance against enemies.
To these eleven I add my own.
XII. Love one another.
I form my own brand of "extreme libertarianism" from a set of premises that I believe summarizes these twelve.
A. All earthly kingdoms are evil.
B. Christians are to be loyal to the Kingdom of God only, by loving God and loving one another.
C. Christians should always/only submit to earthly rule when that submission does not conflict with loyalty to the Kingdom of God.
I realize that these premises do not summarize IV and V. While I agree with these statements, they have very limited bearing on my arguement.
First, we should "come out of [Babylon]", the symbol for earthly nations. We should instead be ruled by God. But God does not force his rule upon our wills. Instead, He allows us to choose. So coming from Babylon to the Kingdom of God requires an intermediate realm in which the individual is allowed to freely choose what he/she will do with his/her life. Without this intermediate realm there is only forced obedience to man or forced obedience to God, but one who is forced without choosing to obey God does not truly live in the Kingdom of God.
Second, we are to be loyal to the Kingdom of God only, and that means loving God and loving man. But to truly love one must not be compelled. Love requires libertarian freedom. So, to participate in the Kingdom of God one must love, and to love one must have freedom. The idea of libertarian freedom is that of negative liberty (freedom from something, in this case, coercion). Therefore, it is my belief that to the degree we passively allow our freedom to be taken we allow our ability to love to be taken. And to the degree that we forfeit our ability to love we are disloyal to the Kingdom of God. I believe this gives the Christian reason to actively, but nonviolently, work to bring about freedom.
Third, we are also called as Christians to “turn the other cheek”, in essence not to demand our rights and submit to others. If I am the only Christian in a society, and I am the only one who is not free, then I am not to work for my freedom from others. I should instead be their willing servant and demand nothing. However, if there are non-Christians who are not self-governing in my society, I should work for their freedom. If the best way to obtaining their freedom also gives me freedom, lucky me. If it leads to my servitude, lucky me anyway; I have an eternal inheritance.
In America the government has been set up in such a way that I am asked to run a small part, my vote and my free speech. If I choose to waste my ability and not help grant others some measure of freedom, then I am refusing them that same measure of the ability to love. It is my responsibility as a Christian who happens to have a say to use my say to spread love to my neighbor. Unmerited love is freeing; it breaks the cycles of hate and guilt that haunt us. Showing love to one another goes hand-in-hand with allowing them to return love back.
I believe that Christianity logically leads to libertarianism which logically leads to self-government for all. And for the Christian, self-government is a means to the end of love. Under self-government each adult individual lives by whatever authority he or she chooses. If an individual chooses to join with others and elect a government using our US Constitution as law, then they are free to do that. On the other hand, if an individual chooses not to give allegence to a group, he or she isn't subject to that groups authority. Individuals can only use force to prevent another's use of force, but the Christian is free to be entirely non-violent. Religion is not enforced and neither is membership in the state.
I understand that everything is not black and white. Limited freedom does not imply a total inability to love. But we should strive to give others every possible opportunity to be free and, possibly, to freely choose God.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
 |
esperanza
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 7/12/2004 8:00 AM (GMT -6) | | First, for Doc.
for what its worth, it seems to me that your ideology on government could basically be dangerously simplified as follows: The gov't belongs to Satan and is only concerned with power and therefore, we Christians should have nothing to do with it as long as we do not "give offense" Perhaps this is not what you meant, but this is what many people will infer from your points.
My argument is that the entire world belongs to Satan, yet God still wants his people to live in that word and work to spread good. I do not believe most governments are purely evil. Instead, I believe we are in a tug of war between Satan, who would use the gov't to spread evil, and those people who follow Christ, who would use gov't to spread good. I agree that our only allegiance should be to God, however, I do not think this allegiance forbids us from using the means available to us to spread the kingdom of God on earth.
I am NOT saying that the Kingdom of God will be an earthly gov't, only that the gov't is a tool, and when a government respects the laws and freedoms God has given us, and when Christians are active in within it, it can be used to spread good.
Do you really think it is wrong to try to "improve the affairs of this life?" I think that if I really love God, and all my allegiance is to him, I will make it one of my goals in life to bring a bit of the Kingdom of God to dwell here on earth.
An good example is a comparison with the institution of the church. As an institution, it can be used as a tool of Satan. However, most devout Christians still work within it and try to use it for good. Sorry this is so rushed and scatterbrained!!! Must get back to work.
Sahid,
Obviously, since I believe that the government can be a valuable tool when handled appropriately, I disagree with you. 
However, if you can tell me how your model provides for the problem of the rampant evil in this world…. I would be interested.
By the way, good topic!
To stay young
To save the world
Break the mirror
- Nanao Sakaki | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/12/2004 12:15 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Sahid,
Obviously, since I believe that the government can be a valuable tool when handled appropriately, I disagree with you.
However, if you can tell me how your model provides for the problem of the rampant evil in this world…. I would be interested.
By the way, good topic!
If by "provides for" you mean "gets rid of" then my model does not provide for the problem of rampant evil. However, evil actions (and good actions) come from individuals only. Either individuals by themselves or individuals working together. There is no way to pass the buck from me to my society. I am fully responsible for my actions whether I do them with society or on my own. My model (in theory) does not cause any more or less evil in proportion to good. It instead provides more freedom which can be used by the individual for evil or good. If an individual believes the lie (or to use Doc's dichotomy in Seeing is Believing, the flesh) that evil will bring happiness, then they are free to act on that lie. But the huge up side is that if we choose good (the Spirit), we are free to act on that truth. In virtually all governments our ability to use all we have for good (or evil) is cut into by the government (or the majority) telling us that we must forfeit our resources to the state rather than use them for good (or evil). Maybe giving tons of money to the state is the most loving thing. Maybe the government helps people better than the Salvation Army or any other charity organization that you can think of, but I doubt it. Besides, the majority has no right to cut ino the freedoms of the minority. The majority, at most, has the right to use force only to stop the use of force. The majority can ask people to give up their freedom, but they can't take it involuntarily.
One objection is that the United States already has enough freedom. In America the freedoms we forfeit are small compared to most of the world. But because a goal is close to being accomplished in no reason to give up.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/12/2004 2:43 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Unless we live in a society where all people have been created new through God's grace, having perfect liberty will not make the world a better place.
Perfect libery allows for perfect moral responsibility, and perfect moral responsibility allows for both evil and good. You're right it won't make the world a better place. No degree of liberty will do that. quote:
For me, the ideal government would give those who are bad (essentially, all of us) an immediate reason to be good and helps to take care of those that are unable to take care of themselves.
God has already provided the world with adequate reasons to be good and take care of others. Maybe they're not immediate, but I'm not going to say his system needs improvement. Being threatened with jail time or fines will not make the world a better place. It will merely remove certain moral decisions from the set of those things that we are responsible for. quote:
I think these two things are imperatives if we are to have a peaceful, productive society.
I agree. But it's useless to expect a human government to do this. Maybe it could make a society that is stable and productive, but it would be stable at the expense of our humanity (our freewill), and it would not produce anything worth producing. quote:
Libertarianism seems to me to simply ignore these needs within society. Am I wrong?
Libertarianism deals very much with peace, productivity, being good and taking care of others. It just realizes that none of these things should be forced on a person against his or her will. Not even God forces these things on us.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/13/2004 12:28 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by esperanza
I still have enough freedom that I am not limited in doing what I really want with life, (unlike socialism) I can still get out of life whatever I choose to.
Maybe you can do what you choose to do, but many can't. After eight years of public school my parents decided that they wanted me to have a better education. They were just able to send me and later my sister to a good private school. But a lot of my friends in public school had put up with the same problems I had. Poor teachers, overcrowding, violence, and meaningless grades. Most of my friends stayed in public schools. Their parents couldn't afford to give them a good education, because the government forced them to pay (through property taxes) for the bad education. My parents could afford private schools without much of a strain; it was the property tax that made them worry. The fact is that the government forces individuals to pay for its services, whether those services or good or not, whether they want the services or not. Were the government to give school vouchers (in the amount of the cost of one year of public school for one child) to all, somewhere around two thousand dollars could be saved by every parent per child per year. Education is just one example. Add welfare, health care, and social security to the list and millions of people would both save money and be free to spend it on cheaper but higher quality services.quote:
Things are not perfect, there is always room for improvement, but there is no way anarchy would be an improvement over what we have now.
Yes, in my proposed system some may resort to anarchy, but the vast majority value things like safety and community. For them voluntary (not to mention directly accountable and therefore more effecient) government is still available. The only change is that government is not forced upon them.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
esperanza
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 7/13/2004 12:52 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Maybe you can do what you choose to do, but many can't. After eight years of public school my parents decided that they wanted me to have a better education. They were just able to send me and later my sister to a good private school. But a lot of my friends in public school had put up with the same problems I had. Poor teachers, overcrowding, violence, and meaningless grades. Most of my friends stayed in public schools. Their parents couldn't afford to give them a good education, because the government forced them to pay (through property taxes) for the bad education. My parents could afford private schools without much of a strain; it was the property tax that made them worry. The fact is that the government forces individuals to pay for its services, whether those services or good or not, whether they want the services or not. Were the government to give school vouchers (in the amount of the cost of one year of public school for one child) to all, somewhere around two thousand dollars could be saved by every parent per child per year. Education is just one example. Add welfare, health care, and social security to the list and millions of people would both save money and be free to spend it on cheaper but higher quality services.
Personally, the government is important because it ensures basic liberties. Where I used to live, just having a choice between education and "good" education is a luxury.
One thing that makes our government 'good' is that it makes sure every child has an education. (once again, it is not a perfect education, but that doesn't mean the basic premise is bad).
It seems obvious to me that if I had to choose to live in a place where I would be assured of having an education no matter what my economic status or if I had to live at a place where only the rich received education (even if it was a better one) I would choose the place where everyone could have education.
It seems to me that your system is one that would give every advantage to the rich and the upper middle class. I am NOT saying we should discriminate against the well-off. However, I do think that for a society to work, we must help the poor. Any society that neglects the poor or not so well-off (the majority of almost any society) will fall into corruption and chaos. Your system gives no help to the poor, and every advantage to the rich. In my eyes, this is not equality, it is simply a careless and naive snobbery cloaking itself with the name of equality.
To stay young
To save the world
Break the mirror
- Nanao Sakaki | | Back to Top | | |
|
esperanza
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 15
| Posted 7/13/2004 1:16 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
What is wrong is to tell someone that they are so poor, impotent, mean, or stupid that they must turn over their decision-making. It steals from the rich. It treats the poor with no respect, like animals.
I'm sorry, but I don't exactly follow. If someone is drowning, it might be disrespectful to go grab a lifesaver without asking, but isn't that worth the person's life???
The fact that the government lets us choose, first, who we want to govern us, secondly, to go into whatever career we want, and thirdly, what we will do with the majority of our money, shows tremendous amount of respect. Yet it also shows reason by gathering taxes to ensure that all humans that it governs are ensured basic rights. This is not stealing, it is providing a stability while enabling us to keep the important freedoms, the rich as well as the poor. How can this be bad?
To stay young
To save the world
Break the mirror
- Nanao Sakaki | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/13/2004 11:02 PM (GMT -6) | | We are to be good stewards of our money. That means helping the poor. If we belong to a group that pools its money, then the group should be a good steward and give money to the poor. However, this doesn't fully describe our government. As it stands now, the group that agrees to pool its money (the majority) spends some of its money helping people and spends some of its money forcing others outside of this group (the minority) to forfeit their money. We are not to be stewards of other's money, good or bad. If money doesn't belong to you, but you take it anyway because a majority thinks it's right, you are still stealing. It's still wrong no matter how many people applaud. Even if you turn around and use the money for good, the original theft is wrong. quote:
The fact that the government lets us choose, first, who we want to govern us,
No, it doesn't. Less than half of those who voted wanted Bush. More would have voted if their vote really effected their life. In places like Texas and New York (lots of people live there by the way) your vote doesn't matter. The election is decided before it starts in those places. quote:
secondly, to go into whatever career we want
The government does not let you go into whatever career you want. Government funds and tax breaks for certain jobs make other jobs less capable of supporting the worker; plus, taxes make following your personal dreams even harder. You may say that the government provides the environment for us to follow our dreams in the first place, but the involutary nature of our government does not aid in this process. Private institutions provide better services, because customers can keep them accountable by taking their money elsewhere. Our government is not accountable to at least 49% of the population.quote:
and thirdly, what we will do with the majority of our money, shows tremendous amount of respect.
First of all, it's not our money. The money rightfully belongs to the one we took it from, even if his opinion of the tax system was different from the rest of the herd. Even if he is bad, mean, stupid, weak, different, wrong, or sinful, it's still his money. To take it from him without consent, for any reason, is wrong. And no, it's not respectful to offer the poor someone else's money. It says, "You are so pitiful, that I can't bear to dig deep into my pockets for you. I'll steal someone else's money to give you instead. You are just good enough to justify theft, just pathetic enough that I refuse to give you what you need from what I have. Finally, people are not animals. Our life consists of more than biology. Isn't it great to know that Jesus loves you so much that He died for you? What if you found out that He died for you against His will. What if He told you that someone made Him do it. No one thought you were worth sacrificing for, just worth killing for. Instead of joy you are left with guilt. I know that this is a horrible analogy. We don't kill people to feed the poor (except for those people in Montana or somewhere who refuse to pay their taxes and who choose to forcefully defend their property when the government comes to collect). We just steal. But look at the message we send. We the majority who believe in welfare have enough money to support all of America's poor, but we choose not to and instead pay a small slice of the cost and leave the rest to those who don't like welfare (usually the rich). We could help you, but we'll leave it to someone else, because you're not worth such a sacrifice. That message is not spoke verbally, but something like it is sent by more subtle means. Welfare lets people survive and nothing more. It respects them as much as we repect whales and bald eagles. People are deserving of more respect. Check out the story of the good Samaritan. Did he do the minimum only? He set the guy up in an inn and said he would pay for all the man's expenses. A blank check. If we collectively help the poor only to survive and not to thrive, we are treating them like animals. They are well treated for animals, but by putting a cap on what we will give we assign a monetary value to their lifes. Instead of throwing money at the problem, lets do what Peter did: Heal people. By all means give money too, but don't pretend our government is fixing the problem by ignoring its spiritual roots.quote:
Yet it also shows reason by gathering taxes to ensure that all humans that it governs are ensured basic rights. This is not stealing, it is providing a stability while enabling us to keep the important freedoms, the rich as well as the poor. How can this be bad?
Is the freedom to feed the poor not an important freedom? Which is more valuable, freedom or life (bios)? Which is moral, taking freedom to save life or respecting all of another's freedom? Where in the Bible are these two in conflict? Did Jesus send the rich young ruler to jail when he didn't give his money to the poor? Did Jesus even have to ask Zacchaeus to give his money to the poor? Wouldn't it have been wiser for Jesus to force them to give their money and avoid risking the poor not being fed? No. Jesus was smart and good; He is our teacher. He didn't uses the ends to justify the means. And He was the one guy who had the most legitimate claim to their money. It wouldn't even have been stealing for Him. He laid down His own life for us, but he took no one else's money for us. If it was a good thing to do, why didn't He do it? Why didn't Jesus act like Robin Hood? He encountered plenty of needy people and met His fair share of rich people too. He had the ability to take their money and save life. We know His disciples collected money for the poor. So, why not. Maybe it's because He, the one person who has the least reason to, respects our freedom.
Sorry that was so long. Don't snap at me.  Seriously, they're paying you to read all this garbage I write. Amazing.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 7/16/2004 6:37 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
quote:
The fact that the government lets us choose, first, who we want to govern us,
No, it doesn't. Less than half of those who voted wanted Bush. More would have voted if their vote really effected their life. In places like Texas and New York (lots of people live there by the way) your vote doesn't matter. The election is decided before it starts in those places.
In 2000 we had a very close election in which Gore got more votes than Bush. But there is a legitimate rural-urban cultural divide that the following county-by-county map illustrates.
www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/002678.html
It's my understanding that we would never see a dime of campaign money, nor the candidates stepping foot in any of the smaller states with out the Electoral College system. All attention and resource would be focused solely on the major metropolitan areas. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/17/2004 1:04 AM (GMT -6) | | If I could accept that it's moral to let the majority tell the minority what to do, then I would be totally behind the electoral college. Within the majority rules mindset I think it makes sense. If you are looking for simply the most effective or productive or safe government, then we really shouldn't let just anybody vote for president. You should actually have to be educated about the government, current events, and political philosophy before you are allowed to vote. If the uneducated get to vote, it's very likely that we all will be stuck with the wrong man for the job. If anything I would want the electoral college to be strengthened (if I thought the bigger group was allowed to make rules for the little groups). Unfortunately, I don't think majority rule is just, so I'm stuck with my stupid conscience telling me to rock the boat.
As to smaller states getting campaign visits, I don't know if I agree. I agree that rural, low population states would be neglected, but rightfully so. Only the majority matters. The minority doesn't get a say in our system unless the majority allows it. If it were right to have majority rule, and if it were true that each individual had the same ability to wisely vote for president, then the candidates should go to where the people are. By going to the outskirts they would neglect even more people.
So there it is. This is where most people think I go from wise to idealistic and misguided.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/17/2004 5:04 AM (GMT -6) | | God never intended that man would live off other men. God was to be the source and supply of all. In the book of Genesis men went to create cities....men begain to look to other men instead of God to meet their needs...it doesn't really seem to fair that others come in who didn't make their way by being productive and enjoy the fruit of the labour of the one which produced...well we should be givers helping the poor and giving all if one wants to but it should be something that I decide to do not made to do it by other men. Yes I know there are people disabled and should be helped so don't think of me as unmerciful but for the well...that's another issue all together.  | | Back to Top | | |
|
sometimesisquint
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 91
| Posted 7/17/2004 5:04 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Bobber
God never intended that man would live off other men. God was to be the source and supply of all. In the book of Genesis men went to create cities....men begain to look to other men instead of God to meet their needs...it doesn't really seem to fair that others come in who didn't make their way by being productive and enjoy the fruit of the labour of the one which produced...
Theocracy-based examples don't really translate for a Democratic Republic...and vice-versa, despite what Bush's rhetoric suggests.
quote:
...well we should be givers helping the poor and giving all if one wants to but it should be something that I decide to do not made to do it by other men.
Hmmm...I'm not sure about that, from a governmental standpoint OR regarding individuals following Christ. The population is inherently selfish, one of the main reasons Communism is doomed to failure. If we left such humanitarian issues up to the "general public" we might not address any issues at all.
Also, notice how the ellipsis is used in the other responses--in a term: "loosely." Granted, I used to be just like you, streaming lines of consciousness together and splicing them with three convenient dots, however, I think we can all agree that the world would be a better place if only we:
- Tackled humanitarian issues more wisely
And
- Did not use punctuation as a crutch
Just messin'. No offense intended, implied or inferred.
"What's partner yoga?"
"It's when you're two with the universe."
-My Friend Keith
---
When life gives you dish rags, you make...a kite that won't fly in the rain. | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 7/17/2004 8:30 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by sometimesisquint
Also, notice how the ellipsis is used in the other responses--in a term: "loosely." Granted, I used to be just like you, streaming lines of consciousness together and splicing them with three convenient dots, however, I think we can all agree that the world would be a better place if only we:
- Tackled humanitarian issues more wisely
And
- Did not use punctuation as a crutch
Just messin'. No offense intended, implied or inferred.
"What!" She exclaimed, "No punctuation as a crutch?!" "What in the world is the world coming to?" 
(Sorry. Just finished reading Eats, Shoots & Leaves by Lynne Truss; for any of you who are needing a very funny; very concise, very wonderful little editing book).
Jo-Anne 
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 7/18/2004 8:08 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
...well we should be givers helping the poor and giving all if one wants to but it should be something that I decide to do not made to do it by other men. [Bobber]
quote:
Hmmm...I'm not sure about that, from a governmental standpoint OR regarding individuals following Christ. The population is inherently selfish, one of the main reasons Communism is doomed to failure. If we left such humanitarian issues up to the "general public" we might not address any issues at all. [Sometimesisquint]
Well for sure there would be things you could always point to and say that there is evidence such a thing just doesn't work. But with the government involved you have that as well. You won't see what ive suggested here as something which takes place for so many do believe in government involvment but it would be interesting to see if you cut out government taking over these social issues by taxes cutting the taxes in half, but have an on going promotion through the churhes and communities of they themselves giving money to feed and house the poor. I wonder if there would some beauty to that?
Wouldn't say certain ones who use social programs and abuse them [not saying all do] but wouldn't it finally register with such ones that when they were looking to the government to be their source it will finally dawn on them it wasn't from the government they got it but they got it from their fellow citizens, their friends and loved ones and all others who work? People look to the government as some impersonal institution who collects money falling out of the sky. The government just have these resourses but it really doesn't click into them that the government got it from the people, that is the people that even live on their streets.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 55 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:32 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|