Lawman Posted February 13 Posted February 13 foolNo we all know what formed your opinion on the matter. It’s the same reason you spent 20 minutes edging yourself the other night while Putin explained his version of history for us.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FourFans Posted February 13 Posted February 13 16 minutes ago, BashiChuni said: fool Come on dude. You can do better. 53 minutes ago, Lawman said: You guys can quit searching for excuses and just come out and say your reason for not supporting action in Ukraine is simply to be contrarian to the current party in charge. First it was “but mah border,” now it’s, “well Europe should pay first….” Two things can be true at the same time. I want Ukraine to win, and I want our border secure. Different pots of money. Hell, our southern border simply requires the current executive to admit he was wrong and reverse his own actions. Likewise, Ukraine doesn't require us to kneecap our own capabilities. We can have both. Not everyone opposed to a LOT of the current admin's decisions are just binary about that decision. Maybe narrow down the brush a bit. 1
Lord Ratner Posted February 13 Posted February 13 3 hours ago, Lawman said: There is a deliberate separate Border bill that went through the Senate and is effectively torpedoed by the house to allow Political hay to be made out of it for the election. Congress had the opportunity to do something about the border separate of Ukraine and they are deliberately choosing not to. Don’t now use that to justify not supporting this action. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk It's a garbage bill. Plain and simple. It does not fix the problems at the border, and exists solely to take away the Republican talking point going into the election. I 100% support torpedoing that bill. I'm completely in favor of supporting Ukraine, but they exist to me as just one issue facing this country, not *the* issue. For better or worse, Ukraine is not an issue that unites the Republican party. However it seems like the issue is of minimal importance to the Democrats as well. There are at least well-reasoned arguments on both sides surrounding the Ukraine debate. There are absolutely no well-reasoned arguments supporting the absolute dumpster fire situation at our Southern border. Democrats would condition aid for Ukraine on perpetuating an overtly anti-American border policy, and as such they can be trusted with *nothing* that isn't codified in legislation. How many times are Republicans going to fall for Democratic border "solutions?" No more. The Democrats dug themselves into this hole, and they can easily dig themselves out by simply fixing the border problem. Instead, for whatever unfathomable reason, they wish to perpetuate the millions of illegal aliens coming to this country, while still hoping to neutralize the issue going into the presidential election. Let's say that they are successful, and as a result are able to retain control of the White House for another 4 years. I believe that would be terrible for the country, and far worse than whatever is going to happen to Ukraine, especially considering that even the positive possible outcomes in the Ukraine conflict are nullified by incompetent American leadership in the following years. 2
pbar Posted February 13 Posted February 13 7 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said: <snip> Instead, for whatever unfathomable reason, they wish to perpetuate the millions of illegal aliens coming to this country, while still hoping to neutralize the issue going into the presidential election. <snip> Unfathomable? Immigration turned California from red to a one-party blue state where in many races the Republicans don't even bother to run a candidate.
Lawman Posted February 13 Posted February 13 It's a garbage bill. Plain and simple. It does not fix the problems at the border, and exists solely to take away the Republican talking point going into the election. I 100% support torpedoing that bill. I'm completely in favor of supporting Ukraine, but they exist to me as just one issue facing this country, not *the* issue. For better or worse, Ukraine is not an issue that unites the Republican party. However it seems like the issue is of minimal importance to the Democrats as well. There are at least well-reasoned arguments on both sides surrounding the Ukraine debate. There are absolutely no well-reasoned arguments supporting the absolute dumpster fire situation at our Southern border. Democrats would condition aid for Ukraine on perpetuating an overtly anti-American border policy, and as such they can be trusted with *nothing* that isn't codified in legislation. How many times are Republicans going to fall for Democratic border "solutions?" No more. The Democrats dug themselves into this hole, and they can easily dig themselves out by simply fixing the border problem. Instead, for whatever unfathomable reason, they wish to perpetuate the millions of illegal aliens coming to this country, while still hoping to neutralize the issue going into the presidential election. Let's say that they are successful, and as a result are able to retain control of the White House for another 4 years. I believe that would be terrible for the country, and far worse than whatever is going to happen to Ukraine, especially considering that even the positive possible outcomes in the Ukraine conflict are nullified by incompetent American leadership in the following years.Then fix THAT bill.Stop the bullshit of “we will do X if we get everything in the Border Bill we want” when we know the second it’s threatening getting Trump into full campaign mode we will sacrifice that as well.Ukraine/Israel/climate change/whatever new issue excuse to avoid funding something has absolutely F-all to do with the southern Border and should be governed in laws as such. The people now stepping forward to say “not without the border” in this thread only to immediately pivot to “Europe should pay first” when they are have simply decided whatever yardage or reason they will move the goal posts because NO is their only answer in regards to Ukraine.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
HeloDude Posted February 13 Posted February 13 1 hour ago, Lawman said: They have been. Despite a lower combined GDP, the Euro NATO countries are actually outspending us when it’s in our best interest not to get stuck solving the third European World War You guys can quit searching for excuses and just come out and say your reason for not supporting action in Ukraine is simply to be contrarian to the current party in charge. First it was “but mah border,” now it’s, “well Europe should pay first….” They already are. Also give a comparison in total dollars of mil equipment donated by us vs Ze Germans. For anybody familiar with how much equipment they have just lying around on hand they are punching well above their weight. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Cool story—how much is the EU giving to the US compared to what we’re spending on their continent? I think it’s safe to say that Europe has a lot more to risk than we do…so yeah, let’s let them cover it. Unless the EU is trying to send billions of dollars to the US for our border security that I’m not aware of? Let me know when they stop their crazy socialism in order to provide more for defense of their continent…until then, the US is broke.
Lawman Posted February 13 Posted February 13 Cool story—how much is the EU giving to the US compared to what we’re spending on their continent? I think it’s safe to say that Europe has a lot more to risk than we do…so yeah, let’s let them cover it. Unless the EU is trying to send billions of dollars to the US for our border security that I’m not aware of? Let me know when they stop their crazy socialism in order to provide more for defense of their continent…until then, the US is broke.So when confronted with actual hard numbers (which have only gone higher and more in their favor by their recent bill) you now resort to “well they should pay for our border.” Is that before or after they “abandon socialism.” Like I said this has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of what reason you give, you’ll just adopt a new self justification when you find out that goal line has already been achieved so you can continue to be opposed for any reason. So why should Europe pay for the border now exactly? Because that’s absolute horse shit when the guys at JTF-North would rather have the Mexicans change their constitution so we can use the resources already down there not just throw money at the problem unrelated to Ukraine.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
HeloDude Posted February 13 Posted February 13 2 minutes ago, Lawman said: So when confronted with actual hard numbers (which have only gone higher and more in their favor by their recent bill) you now resort to “well they should pay for our border.” Like I said this has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of what reason you give, you’ll just adopt a new self justification when you find out that goal line has already been achieved so you can continue to be opposed for any reason. So why should Europe pay for the border now exactly? Because that’s absolute horse shit when the guys at JTF-North would rather have the Mexicans change their constitution so we can use the resources already down there not just throw money at the problem unrelated to Ukraine. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk How dare I suggest each country/region focus on their own specific issues/threats before dealing with those across the ocean… I was in favor of invading Iraq in 2003 when I was in my early/mid20s-–I was wrong. And let me know when you want me to put up the debt clock again. 1
BashiChuni Posted February 14 Posted February 14 1 hour ago, Lawman said: No we all know what formed your opinion on the matter. It’s the same reason you spent 20 minutes edging yourself the other night while Putin explained his version of history for us. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 20? I have better stamina than that
Lord Ratner Posted February 14 Posted February 14 1 hour ago, Lawman said: Then fix THAT bill. Stop the bullshit of “we will do X if we get everything in the Border Bill we want” when we know the second it’s threatening getting Trump into full campaign mode we will sacrifice that as well. Ukraine/Israel/climate change/whatever new issue excuse to avoid funding something has absolutely F-all to do with the southern Border and should be governed in laws as such. The people now stepping forward to say “not without the border” in this thread only to immediately pivot to “Europe should pay first” when they are have simply decided whatever yardage or reason they will move the goal posts because NO is their only answer in regards to Ukraine. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Fine. Fix that bill. Then you can have the Ukraine bill. I think you're trying to lump too many people into one group. At no point have I objected to spending the money on Ukraine, and I do not object to it now. In fact I have disagreed with those who claim we shouldn't be spending money on Ukraine because we have problems at home. We can do both. What we can't do is only support Ukraine, and continue to let our domestic issues languish. Both, or nothing. Politics is about negotiating, an inescapable, if sometimes unpleasant, reality. The Republicans are not crazy about funding Ukraine, and the Democrats are not crazy about fixing the border. 1
Lawman Posted February 14 Posted February 14 Fine. Fix that bill. Then you can have the Ukraine bill. I think you're trying to lump too many people into one group. At no point have I objected to spending the money on Ukraine, and I do not object to it now. In fact I have disagreed with those who claim we shouldn't be spending money on Ukraine because we have problems at home. We can do both. What we can't do is only support Ukraine, and continue to let our domestic issues languish. Both, or nothing. Politics is about negotiating, an inescapable, if sometimes unpleasant, reality. The Republicans are not crazy about funding Ukraine, and the Democrats are not crazy about fixing the border.Do you honestly believe government can or should function that way? M2 and Helo are perfect examples of this not being about any issue except to use it as a cudgel to get other things and then never approve it even when shown they are getting action. “Europe must!” Well guess what they have. Plus actions in congress are not linear action. The government doesn’t simply sit and only work one issue then move to the next. Two the hijacking at the floor of any issue for some non related issue leads to nothing getting done on any issue. Business is performed in committee; and then the floor is simply short debate and voting, but now that the blowhard faction of sound bite happy congressional reps have realized they can get reelected through accomplishing nothing but making YouTube statements we’ve reversed that process to the floor being where things get decided. We watched democrats try the same bullshit with the infrastructure bill demanding massive climate change or they would veto it. They accomplished nothing but delaying needed restoring of our home industrial base because they wanted it all and would kill the hostage if they didn’t get it. This is why the output of Congress is something like 20% of the last one, and has been exponentially decreasing in effective work for the past decade or two. It’s not about actual governing, it’s about placing whatever sacred electoral issue gets your region sparked for reelection so you can stand there and demand it be addressed or you will kill the hostage. Like what idiocy would that lead to?“My fellow Congressional reps before we open the voting on Ombibus bill 11476c Id like to address that we have through bipartisan committee managed to secure funding for the border wall, end college loan repayment, defund planned parenthood, and provide aid and material to forces fighting in Ukraine… The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.”“Yes Mr Speaker! I and my fellow _____ caucus members will not be supporting this bill because it provides 40k in funding to the lesbian Arts center of Philadelphia and also as my constituents have expressed concern that Belgium is still a socialist country and hasn’t provided X billion in funding! We demand this bill be voted down!”Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
HeloDude Posted February 14 Posted February 14 34 minutes ago, Lawman said: Do you honestly believe government can or should function that way? M2 and Helo… Here you go bro (link at the very bottom)—you need it. We don’t have an extra hundreds of billions of dollars between this bill and the other Ukraine funding bills when we can’t even prevent millions of people coming into this country illegally. My concern with Russia invading Ukraine, when an entire continent can support Ukraine if they wish, doesn’t come close to my concern for our country with what has been going on with our border/handling of illegal immigration over the last 20-30 years (and probably even before then). The GOP said no Ukraine funding without securing our border, and the GOP doesn’t believe that the Senate bill would have done that. Now if the Dems want to tie HR2 to Ukrainian funding then I have no doubt it would pass (though I personally would still be against the Ukraine funding for the debt clock reason below). So you’re right, this is about politics, on both sides—and fortunately it looks like the House GOP will finally at least take some sort of stand to what they said they believed in. If the country wants something different then they can change it in the next year. https://www.usdebtclock.org
Lawman Posted February 14 Posted February 14 Here you go bro (link at the very bottom)—you need it. We don’t have an extra hundreds of billions of dollars between this bill and the other Ukraine funding bills when we can’t even prevent millions of people coming into this country illegally. My concern with Russia invading Ukraine, when an entire continent can support Ukraine if they wish, doesn’t come close to my concern for our country with what has been going on with our border/handling of illegal immigration over the last 20-30 years (and probably even before then). The GOP said no Ukraine funding without securing our border, and the GOP doesn’t believe that the Senate bill would have done that. Now if the Dems want to tie HR2 to Ukrainian funding then I have no doubt it would pass (though I personally would still be against the Ukraine funding for the debt clock reason below). So you’re right, this is about politics, on both sides—and fortunately it looks like the House GOP will finally at least take some sort of stand to what they said they believed in. If the country wants something different then they can change it in the next year. https://www.usdebtclock.orgBut we can find money for Israel all by its self. No need to secure the border with that bill after all. The USBP union was in favor of the Senate bill (and they back Trump and have been vocal as hell of Biden) saying it was a win in the direction you are demanding we move first. Only after the guy no longer getting security briefings opened his mouth about it did we suddenly need to pause and it wasn’t good enough for Republicans in the house. While you’re freaking about that debt clock ask yourself how much we’re adding to it when we deploy my division this summer for yet another move on the strategic chess board because of what Russia started over a decade ago in Chechnya and Georgia. Again this has absolutely nothing to do with fiscal policy or getting X done before Y for most of you. We haven’t had a fiscally conservative executive or Congress since the first Bush. You’ve been told to appose Ukraine for whatever reason you can find just be apposed to the aid, despite the acknowledgment that doing so aids Putin in closing one more chapter in his eventual conflict with NATO (he’s said which countries he needs to have to say so over to be safe and it’s not ending with Ukraine). You made the smug comment Euros pay for it first, well if you get a calculator the place with less total GDP than us and going through a recession in a good chunk of its countries while facing far worse outlook in demographics is punching well into this fight. They’ve acknowledged what they miffed up for 3 decades, Russia is not our friend and actively working to destabilize the region and now actively willing to start wars in what it views as its vassal states. The debt clock won’t mean shit if we get dragged into an Article 5 war over this because we passed up the chance to let them culminate in the Donbass and end their ability to conduct offensive operations around where the Dniper River runs. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
HeloDude Posted February 14 Posted February 14 7 minutes ago, Lawman said: But we can find money for Israel all by its self. No need to secure the border with that bill after all. The USBP union was in favor of the Senate bill (and they back Trump and have been vocal as hell of Biden) saying it was a win in the direction you are demanding we move first. Only after the guy no longer getting security briefings opened his mouth about it did we suddenly need to pause and it wasn’t good enough for Republicans in the house. While you’re freaking about that debt clock ask yourself how much we’re adding to it when we deploy my division this summer for yet another move on the strategic chess board because of what Russia started over a decade ago in Chechnya and Georgia. Again this has absolutely nothing to do with fiscal policy or getting X done before Y for most of you. You’ve been told to appose Ukraine for whatever reason you can find just be apposed to the aid, despite the acknowledgment that doing so aids Putin in closing one more chapter in his eventual conflict with NATO (he’s said which countries he needs to have to say so over to be safe and it’s not ending with Ukraine). Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Where did I call for more money for Israel? And with me, it most definitely has to do with fiscal policy, especially when it comes to spending on problems abroad vs in our own backyard. I’m against a lot of things in the world—that doesn’t mean I need to fund a force against such things, and yes, that includes Putin. I have also plenty of times said we should reduce defense spending, not increase it. This isn’t the 1950s, the 60s, and so on. And you are clearly not worried about our fiscal situation if you think certain spending policies shouldn’t even warrant the discussion—fiscal policies have harmed countries far more often than by being destroyed by countries half a world away. As for your issues with Trump, sorry man, but that’s on you. I think he did a horrible job handling Covid, the spending, you name it. If he’s right on the border issue then good on him. I’m an issues guy, not a politician guy. If you want someone to pick on, I mostly agree with Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, but not all the time.
Lawman Posted February 14 Posted February 14 Where did I call for more money for Israel? And with me, it most definitely has to do with fiscal policy, especially when it comes to spending on problems abroad vs in our own backyard. I’m against a lot of things in the world—that doesn’t mean I need to fund a force against such things, and yes, that includes Putin. I have also plenty of times said we should reduce defense spending, not increase it. This isn’t the 1950s, the 60s, and so on. And you are clearly not worried about our fiscal situation if you think certain spending policies shouldn’t even warrant the discussion—fiscal policies have harmed countries far more often than by being destroyed by countries half a world away. As for your issues with Trump, sorry man, but that’s on you. I think he did a horrible job handling Covid, the spending, you name it. If he’s right on the border issue then good on him. I’m an issues guy, not a politician guy. If you want someone to pick on, I mostly agree with Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, but not all the time.He’s not “right on the border issue” he is Right on Campaigning.Again the border bill you are now saying isn’t good enough was fine for the people in the Senate including republicans and the people tasked to enforce it representing Border patrol. All parties far more informed on the issue than the guy campaigning and his crack team of people who aren’t even in the room to read the thing for him.Trump opens his mouth to call it a bad deal and the Soundbite Republicans tank the thing. You’d have gotten a win, but it’s more important to the Trump alliance to make as many campaign issues as possible, to hell with fiscal policy or strategic policy and damn sure border policy. And now that it’s the decided position of anybody who it’s more important for Biden to lose than to actually take a W and walk with it, that bill “isn’t good enough.” But to paraphrase the Republican senator negotiating all the things they wanted to get it through at least it’s a starting place victory after decades of idle talk. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BashiChuni Posted February 14 Posted February 14 The border bill is not a “win”. Biden removed numerous executive orders on the border when he took over. It caused an exponential uptick in illegal immigrants. and now three years later he holds the republicans hostage and blames THEM for not fixing the border? Come on bro. Be better. 1
Lawman Posted February 14 Posted February 14 The border bill is not a “win”. Biden removed numerous executive orders on the border when he took over. It caused an exponential uptick in illegal immigrants. and now three years later he holds the republicans hostage and blames THEM for not fixing the border? Come on bro. Be better. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/border-patrol-union-backs-senate-immigration-bill-despite/story?id=106969976Again the people tasked with actually dealing with the border would rather this than people like Marjorie telling us how Biden doesn’t want to secure the border for another 10 months. The kill the hostage method of government has nothing to do but make better sound bites for the low information electorate crowd. Same as when the squad sits in front of an infrastructure deal because it doesn’t do enough to address their required bullshit demands.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
HeloDude Posted February 14 Posted February 14 5 minutes ago, Lawman said: He’s not “right on the border issue” he is Right on Campaigning. Again the border bill you are now saying isn’t good enough was fine for the people in the Senate including republicans and the people tasked to enforce it representing Border patrol. Trump opens his mouth to call it a bad deal and the Soundbite Republicans tank the thing. You’d have gotten a win, but it’s more important to the Trump alliance to make as many campaign issues as possible, to hell with fiscal policy or strategic policy and damn sure border policy. And now that it’s the decided position of anybody who it’s more important for Biden to lose than to actually take a W and walk with it, that bill “isn’t good enough.” But to paraphrase the Republican senator negotiating all the things they wanted to get it through at least it’s a starting place victory after decades of idle talk. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk You still don’t get it…I don’t care whether you like Trump or not. I think he did some good things and definitely did some not so good things. I am issues guy. The Senate border bill was junk—and since I can think for myself, I can tell you why if you’re interested. I have already explained why I am against more Ukraine funding. As I said, I am able to think for myself, but if you want to listen to a bunch of Senators, then that’s on you…thankfully our political class is so genuine (that’s sarcasm btw).
Lawman Posted February 14 Posted February 14 You still don’t get it…I don’t care whether you like Trump or not. I think he did some good things and definitely did some not so good things. I am issues guy. The Senate border bill was junk—and since I can think for myself, I can tell you why if you’re interested. I have already explained why I am against more Ukraine funding. As I said, I am able to think for myself, but if you want to listen to a bunch of Senators, then that’s on you…thankfully our political class is so genuine (that’s sarcasm btw).And in the last ten days you read that bill in its entirety when exactly?Again when the head of the organization that is critical of the current admin but is tasked with actually solving the issues on the border says “yes we want this by consensus.” That means a lot more than Trump screaming “this bill is bad” which he did 5 days before normal people could read it, and a bunch of reps in the house lining up to say “we don’t support this.” We know they didn’t do anything to actually make any improvement to the border except bitch about Biden.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
tac airlifter Posted February 14 Posted February 14 Lawman it seems you cannot grasp other people have different opinions than you.
HeloDude Posted February 14 Posted February 14 17 minutes ago, Lawman said: And in the last ten days you read that bill in its entirety when exactly? Again when the head of the organization that is critical of the current admin but is tasked with actually solving the issues on the border says “yes we want this by consensus.” That means a lot more than Trump screaming “this bill is bad” and a bunch of reps in the house lining up to say “we don’t support this” when we know they didn’t do anything to actually make any improvement to the border except bitch about Biden. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk I’m sure I read it at least to the extent you read the bill that just got voted on in the Senate less than 24 hours ago that you see in very much support of, along with your support of the the same original Senate bill. And Biden said for years there wasn’t a problem with the border, so he either believed that or was lying—either way, not good. And yes, I did read it, see below…that’s a big no for me. You can like this, I don’t. https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/emergency_national_security_supplemental_section-by-section.pdf
Lawman Posted February 14 Posted February 14 Lawman it seems you cannot grasp other people have different opinions than you. No I have a problem with people diametrically apposed to smart national security policy (and not because Biden said it) hiding behind some red herring issue to defend themselves or throwing out talking points only to be confronted with actual math and then throw some new chaff into the argument why we can’t…. Again go back and read the dozen or so excuses thrown out of “why we can’t” or “we gotta first” and then look at the consensus potential of the current House or Senate. Guess what, you can’t have it all when you have the thinnest majority in either chamber in decades. If you think “this bill isn’t good enough and until!….” That’s idiotic obstructionism and it’s not really about moving the ball forward, it’s about getting to win the game without playing or you’ll take the ball home. And both parties do that shit and it’s gotta stop. We needed the infrastructure bill (go look at global supply chains and projected issues). We got to watch a minority group of idiots more interested in their political survival than actually what the country needed for months. If you want the bill that accomplishes all you need; than convince people to put a chamber together that represents that. Don’t tell me the solution to government and the reason we can’t address an issue is “until this one thing we deem the most important we won’t move forward.” That’s the current tack of the House Republicans demanding from the position of a majority that would fit in a Mazda Miata.But hey here’s Marjorie Taylor Green to make sure we fix the border…Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
HeloDude Posted February 14 Posted February 14 Or maybe…your opinion is just that, an opinion, like mine. My opinion just costs less than your’s.
Lawman Posted February 14 Posted February 14 Or maybe…your opinion is just that, an opinion, like mine. My opinion just costs less than your’s.It’s costing my division ~3.5 billion dollars to deploy it to EUCOM. That’s just the cost of moving us and our stuff to and from. So every 8-9 months we’ve been spending that for almost the last ten years. That’s just the cost to the Army moving chess pieces in response to the Russians and their continued aggression in the region. That doesn’t include the cost of attrition in people (reenlistments are significantly lower) or the cost to replace equipment etc.Again…. Hobbling Russia to where we don’t have to keep doing that is a bargain for what it’s currently been and continues to cost. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
HeloDude Posted February 14 Posted February 14 28 minutes ago, Lawman said: It’s costing my division ~3.5 billion dollars to deploy it to EUCOM. That’s just the cost of moving us and our stuff to and from. So every 8-9 months we’ve been spending that for almost the last ten years. That’s just the cost to the Army moving chess pieces in response to the Russians and their continued aggression in the region. That doesn’t include the cost of attrition in people (reenlistments are significantly lower) or the cost to replace equipment etc. Again…. Hobbling Russia to where we don’t have to keep doing that is a bargain for what it’s currently been and continues to cost. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Ummm, yeah—let’s severely reduce our footprint overseas and bring those costs down as well. And again, I don’t worry about Russia attacking the US anytime soon. Here’s a novel idea: Allow Europe to defend…oh, I don’t know…Europe? You know what I do worry about…yep, there it is below again for you. https://www.usdebtclock.org
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now