Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Peikoff For Kerry?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

OK thanks for that, I didn't realize NY had a Conservative Party quite apart from the Repubs. But I still think it is a pretty similar situation: Bush is a conservative (even though on the Repub ticket) and his opponent has the same kind of policies she listed for Moynahan (nationalized health insurance, centralized economic management). And she said she would vote for the liberal "anytime."

I think it should be remembered that Miss Rand said this before McGovern appeared on the scene, i.e., before the liberals sank into complete hatred for America. She voted against McGovern, the liberal, and advised everyone else to do so, as well. It is my understanding that John Kerry worked for the McGovern campaign (correct me if I'm wrong). Miss Rand voted for Nixon, even though he had already imposed wage and price controls on the entire economy, and committed foreign policy blunders as well (with regard to China and Taiwan).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 372
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The above is essentially my position on America at war.  I do not believe we have to colonize anyone per se.  I don't see what the problem is here: let us have Dr. Peikoff's arguments and then we can thrash out this issue objectively, i.e., with method.

I used to be a big fan of the nuclear option but I agree with Jack Wakeland and Robert Trazinsky that the better solution is the colonization of the middle east. Jack described the essence of the plan as the 'forced reform of Islam' and with this I agree. Its not possible to kill a billion moslems. And even if nukes were deployed (and there could be a legitimate use for them even in a colonial plan), there still remains the question of the aftermath. That region needs to be transformed and secularized or it will forever be a threat.

Idon't see it as viable to simply irridiate the whole region, for containment reasons if nothing more. Let me add that I like Jack's strategy as he outlined it but I understand the viewpoint of those who argue for total destruction rather than colinization. I actually would find it helpful it I could complile a mental list of all the possible strategies available, both good and bad. So far, this board has offered 4: total pascifism, agressive nuclear deployment, secular colonialism, and Bush's "Grand Strategy" (which is a watered down version of colonialism). Are there any others? It helps me to know all the strategies that are out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it should be remembered that Miss Rand said this before McGovern appeared on the scene, i.e., before the liberals sank into complete hatred for America.  She voted against McGovern, the liberal, and advised everyone else to do so, as well.  It is my understanding that John Kerry worked for the McGovern campaign (correct me if I'm wrong).  Miss Rand voted for Nixon, even though he had already imposed wage and price controls on the entire economy, and committed foreign policy blunders as well (with regard to China and Taiwan).

Rand appeared to equate McGovern with the Hippies- a valid observation, on her part.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the USA alone could colonize the Middle East. They have around 400 million in that region while the entire US population is $280 million. The #'s just don't add up and its doomed to fail. I think we need to get rid of the welfare state here and open up our borders. Only with a robust economy and a large population will this clash of cultures be won. With a large immigrant population and no welfare state/minimum wage manufacturing would not need to go oversees anymore and the entire economy will benefit from lower prices and more consumers. Its impossible to keep barbarians out as shown by history so closed borders is a bad idea doomed to fail. Security should not be dropped but the majority of people that want into the USA want to be here for a better life, not to be a terrorist. Keeping them out is a bad idea for the long term.

As to the Middle East. What about a blockade. Wouldn't it be easier to put a security net around where the terror cells are and then send in strike teams to wipe them out? That puts us on the offensive instead of the defensive and keeps our troops out of danger until its time to battle. This nation building and other stuff is unnecessary. If you want to build nations I say nuke the heads of the government and then threaten to nuke em again until you get the government you want. The loss of life would be less and the point would be made much faster. Everyone over there thinks we are the "Great Satan" already what difference doe sit make if we use our "magic" on them a few times as a pre-emptive strike. What the heck are they doing with all of this dropping of food on the enemy too? Starve them out! Its war, stop feeding the enemy.

With all of that said I think Bush and Co. are much more capable of the right plan than Kerry. Kerry will do nothing or he'll try to negotiate. It will be like Carter all over again because they will think we lost our nerve. End of War, we lose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I used to be a big fan of the nuclear option but I agree with Jack Wakeland and Robert Trazinsky that the better solution is the colonization of the middle east. Jack described the essence of the plan as the 'forced reform of Islam' and with this I agree. Its not possible to kill a billion moslems. And even if nukes were deployed (and there could be a legitimate use for them even in a colonial plan), there still remains the question of the aftermath. That region needs to be transformed and secularized or it will forever be a threat.

Idon't see it as viable to simply irridiate the whole region, for containment reasons if nothing more. Let me add that I like Jack's strategy as he outlined it but I understand the viewpoint of those who argue for total destruction rather than colinization. I actually would find it helpful it I could complile a mental list of all the possible strategies available, both good and bad. So far, this board has offered 4: total pascifism, agressive nuclear deployment, secular colonialism, and Bush's "Grand Strategy" (which is a watered down version of colonialism). Are there any others? It helps me to know all the strategies that are out there.

I have never expressly said that nuclear weapons should be used. I said "bomb[ing]." Are all bombs nuclear? That is one hell of a package deal.

And I didn't say "kill Moslems" either. That would be foolish. I could as well say kill all Christians. I grew up in a fairly secular environment where Moslems and Christians lived side by side without rancor. The Christian/Agnostic/Atheist axis would have the Moslems over for Easter and Christmas celebrations while the Moslems would have us over for Id-elfitri and other Islamic holdiays.

Nevertheless, this bleeding-heart approach to the survival of Western civilization is not working.

All we need do is bring down the governments - and their armed supporters - with ruthless force; and the Islamic threat is over. I mean, the only reason why Osama could pull off 9/11 was the governmental support he received. Preaching hatred for America in Islamic schools will not by itself accomplish anything. Without the money, there are no soldiers and no arms; without soldiers and arms, no terror - only talk. Which is when American capitalists can move in for the economic kill. These capitalists, armed with capitalist philosophy, secular-education entrepreneurship, and a desire to reap where their tax money sowed, will work wonders where there existed only woe. Over time, the love of life will become a passion common throughout the region. But, this kindler, gentler colonialism is a species of altruism. American life is sacred. Non-American life is also sacred - until it threatens American life, in which case a ruthless defense must be presented.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clarification: The last sentences of my post should have read:

But, this kindler, gentler colonialism (our current foreign policy being implemented by Bush) is a species of altruism. American life is sacred. Non-American life is also sacred - until it threatens American life, in which case a ruthless defense must be presented.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But, this kindler, gentler colonialism is a species of altruism.  American life is sacred.  Non-American life is also sacred - until it threatens American life, in which case a ruthless defense must be presented.

Jack Wakeland's colonial plan is not an altruistic, 'sensitive war' strategy to my understanding. It would require the ruthless destuction of all insurgencies and uprisings, and the destruction of all hostile, terrorist sponsoring regimes, then followed by replacemtn with a Western style, rights respecting constitutional republic, followed by the capitalist investment that you speek of. Bush's watered down version is altruistic and includes the food packages. I am not sure what Jack Wakeland's view on it is, but I am sure that under a non-altruistically motivated collonialism, the cost of the war would be paid for by enemey oil and not by American tax payers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just thought I would post this link as evidence of some things that Christians are doing:

http://www.kernow.com/bcurnow/blog/archive.asp?id=168

I live in a town of 200,000 in Texas. Of course it is in the Bible Belt, and thus this action can make SOME sort of sense. The point however is that this is a DEBATE.

This is not the first time something like this has happened in my city alone as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this thread has shifted focus from Peikoff's views of the upcoming election to how the war should be fought, let me chime in with a word or two.

Regarding nuking the middle East, the first issue is whether the US government has the moral courage to use nonconventional weapons. In talking with non-Objectivists, the constant refrain is that they should not be used until after they are used against us. In other words, we can only respond in proportion to the level of assault we suffer.

For this reason, I think we still need to convince the general public that the moral authority of using nukes is not to be set by our enemies, and that we should stop at nothing to defend ourselves. Whether nukes should be used from the standpoint of strategy is a secondary issue, one for which philosophy as such should not issue decrees. Military science is a field unto itself, with its own experts.

My view is that we should fully endorse the moral right to use any weapon available, but the actual choice to use those should be left to the experts.

That said, for what it is worth, I think in this age of globalization, of international travel and instantaneous communication, we can't rope off some area of the world and tell them, in effect, do what you want but leave us out of it. This is especially true of the middle East, with its vast geographic span, enormous population, and large oil production.

I don't think the terrorist problem would go away if we nuked the area. Future terrorists may or may not be deterred, but chasing down the existing bad guys requires finding who and where they are. We can't do that if we eradicate records, contacts and paper trails along with the dictators. We may stop future terrorists, but cells may be moving forward now, and could be out of reach. It would be like taking out a weapons factory, but not weapons already used to attack us.

I'm not sure of the right answer, but I'm leaning toward some sort of colonization. It's interesting to note the parallels between Pax Romana and America's domination of the world today. We have bases across the globe, and are the uncontested military masters of the world. By extending our reach in the middle East, we stand a chance of altering the culture the creates terrorists.

I think we should show the world just what American imperialism could be.

By the way, a colleague of mine escaped Iran after the Shah fell. He, too, wonders why we attacked Iraq instead of Iran. Iran is now the uncontested leader of the Muslim world, now that it's chief rival is gone.

I hope we go after them soon, and before they have nukes of their own. The sad part is that this is just a hope. I wish I knew whether we had such plans or not.

As to the election, whatever gains we've made would be wiped out by a Kerry victory. The world would see it as a rejection of Bush's "cowboy" mentality -- that is, the best parts of his foreign policy. It would only encourage our enemies.

A Bush victory would be taken as a sign of our resolution to fight terrorism.

And, as I mentioned earlier, Bush has done much, much more to fight terrorism than any other recent President. He deserves to win for that, despite errors and shortcomings in the war, and downright immoral acts domestically.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack Wakeland's colonial plan is not an altruistic, 'sensitive war' strategy to my understanding. It would require the ruthless destuction of all insurgencies and uprisings, and the destruction of all hostile, terrorist sponsoring regimes, then followed by replacemtn with a Western style, rights respecting constitutional republic, followed by the capitalist investment that you speek of. Bush's watered down version is altruistic and includes the food packages. I am not sure what Jack Wakeland's view on it is, but I am sure that under a non-altruistically motivated collonialism, the cost of the war would be paid for by enemey oil and not by American tax payers.

That's something I was wondering about. A colonial solution would surely be enormously expensive. So I suppose we would finance it with the Middle East's oil, as a sort of war reparations.

The best possible thing that could happen is the overthrow of the Iranian government by the student movement, to be replaced by a Constitutional Republic, which is secular and guarantees individual rights. Whatever we can do to make that event happen, we should be doing now with every resource at our command. It would be a far better model for the Middle East than the vacillating, Islamic government forming under our aegis in Iraq.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Peikoff condemn objectivists who evaluate Bush and Kerry as being equally bad. Would that mean that he more strongly condemns objectivists who support Bush?

What does such condemnation mean? That such people are making an error? or something worse? Does it mean they are evil?

Did the strikers in Atlantis condemn Dagny?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. Peikoff condemn objectivists who evaluate Bush and Kerry as being equally bad. Would that mean that he more strongly condemns objectivists who support Bush?

What does such condemnation mean? That such people are making an error? or something worse? Does it mean they are evil?

Did the strikers in Atlantis condemn Dagny?

I think you're misrepresenting Dr. Peikoff's position. Dr. Peikoff condemns people who refuse to vote because they think both Bush and Kerry are bad. He doesn't condemn people who refuse to vote because they think Bush and Kerry are EQUALLY bad. In that case, he would probably agree with you that they are making an error of knowledge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I just came across this on FoxNews.com.  I don't consider it necessarily indicative of the threat of a second term for Bush, however. 

But it is something to think about.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129023,00.html

I don't think those Christian secessionists will get very far, but another fundamentalist Christian movement that seems to be gaining momentum is the so-called "patriot" or "militia movement" and the Constitutionalist party. Here is a good article about it. The Richard Mack guy mentioned in it is not dismissed as the fringe lunatic that he is, but is a popular speaker around the country. He received a lot of attention (most of it positive) when he spoke at my school, a very liberal university, last year, while the speaker hosted by the Objectivist club was virtually ignored. Mack says things like, "Hitler was more moral than Bill Clinton," and "The separation of church and state is a myth."

Granted, that is still a rather small movement, and the Constitutionalist party ain't going to get many votes. But most Republican Christian conservatives I know are very sympathetic to their views. I'm not as worried about the Constitutionalist party becoming a major political force, as I am about their positions gradually seeping into the mainstream Republican platform. And it could easily happen. Bush isn't helping. Future prospects aren't bright, either. One of the names I've heard tossed around for potential Republican presidential candidates in a few years (and even tentatively endorsed by some Objectivists) is Massachussetts governer Mitt Romney. But he is a typical Mormon (just slightly more pragmatic, which is why he's gotten as far as he has in politics), and I am telling you now that if a Republican Mormon like him gets into the White House, he will steer the Republican party and this country in the direction of this "patriot movement" or whatever you want to call it. And that would be very bad, regardless of what concrete political issues we may have similar views on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here goes.

This my summation, with exact quotes where appropriate, preceded by a number indicating the time it appears within the 19 minute excerpt.  The implications of what Peikoff is saying are in brackets []...

I appreciate the effort to address Peikoff's argument, Betsy, and this is certainly much better than the straw men and question-begging epithets (sometimes combined--"Peikoff must be crazy if he thinks that America will be a theocracy in four years under Bush!") of which most of this thread has consisted. But I still don't think you're giving his argument a fair shake. I think it's much deeper and more subtle than all the people here who just want to dismiss it out of hand have given it credit for.

I would like to post a detailed analysis of his argument myself, but I'll need to listen to it again first and spend some more time thinking about it, and it may be a while before I have time to do all that and make a lengthy post here about it, so it might be another week or so. But for the time being I'll just say that I think Peikoff is without a doubt right that religious fundamentalism is by far a greater long-term threat to the nation than pragmatic liberalism, so as far as this election is concerned, for me it's only a question of whether special war-time considerations should trump that. But most of what I've read in this thread has definitely pushed me more toward Kerry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to post a detailed analysis of his argument myself, but I'll need to listen to it again first and spend some more time thinking about it, and it may be a while before I have time to do all that and make a lengthy post here about it, so it might be another week or so.

When you do publish your analysis, I hope you will start another, appropriately named thread.

I hope, also, that Dr. Peikoff will publish a written text of his argument. For those of us who are looking for a long-term method for voting -- one that goes beyond this U. S. election to cover all elections in semi-free countries -- such a text may be very helpful.

I have not been able to listen to the recording on Dr. Peikoff's website. Apparently I do not have the right equipment.

Thanks for your commentary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, i'm more concerned about nationalization of industries and healthcare, the internationalization of our defense, and the great leap towards socialism that this country could take, and less concerned with the christians who are 'apparently' trying to take over this country. I'm not giddy about either candidate, but for me at least, a president who yields to God is preferable to one who believes that more government is the answer....

Link to post
Share on other sites
For me, i'm more concerned about nationalization of industries and healthcare, the internationalization of our defense, and the great leap towards socialism that this country could take, and less concerned with the christians who are 'apparently' trying to take over this country. I'm not giddy about either candidate, but for me at least, a president who yields to God is preferable to one who believes that more government is the answer....

According to Americans for Free Choice in Medicine, it is the Christian Bush who is currently taking "the great leap towards socialism" of healthcare.

http://www.afcm.org/medicarereform.html

Kerry talks about making healthcare a "right" of the people. But Bush is actually implementing this "right", right now! In the area of prescription drugs for seniors. And he's doing it on the premise that it will "cut costs to consumers," which is just another way of saying that people (seniors) have a right to cheap drugs.

Bush is building the foundation of socialized medicine. It is difficult to say whether Kerry, and his pragmatic ways, would be worse. You also have to consider that with Kerry as President, he would receive pressure from the Republican free-marketers on the Right. Right now, the free-marketers are hesitant to criticize Bush, because they don't want Kerry, that "flip-floppy liberal," in office.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pressure does not necessarily equate to action. Kerry has historically been vehemently against individual wealth creation and the free market. Kerry has said many times that he will nationalize health care. That's a big difference from 'right to live-saving drugs'. A HUGE difference. CATO has an excellent analysis of Kerry's healthcare position. Don't get me wrong, both candidates suck in relation to the free market, but you have the choice between an expresslane to hell and the more scenic route. I"ll have to choose the scenic route for now, that is, if Peikoff is so adamant to have everyone support a candidate.

besides, bush has, in the least, considered the abolishment of the IRS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
For me, i'm more concerned about nationalization of industries and healthcare, the internationalization of our defense, and the great leap towards socialism that this country could take, and less concerned with the christians who are 'apparently' trying to take over this country. I'm not giddy about either candidate, but for me at least, a president who yields to God is preferable to one who believes that more government is the answer....

Though I have been unable to access Dr. Peikoff's statement concerning his endorsement of Kerry, I, an Objectivist for 12 years, have been leaning towards Kerry myself. This will be the first time I have ever voted for a Democrat in my life.

I assume that, like me, Peikoff's reasons for endorsing Kerry are based upon essentials rather than derivatives. An individual can easily err in matters of derivatives, but if his core essentials are correct (or closer to correct than an opponent's), he may at least be reasoned with and gradually persuaded to see the truth.

As a fundamentalist Christian, and an intransigent one, George Bush's epistemology is "faith" as opposed to reason. His ethic, (at least the one touted in his campaign ads) is "sacrifice".

Kerry at least purports to be an intellectual. He attempts to reason (though faultily) his arguments through. He can at least be expected to consult actual human beings before making important decisions, as opposed to Pres. Bush who consults "God", his bible and his guardian angel for guidance.

Mr. Kerry also supports separation of church and state, and in safeguarding the free exchange of ideas. He claims (at least for now) to regret his support for the awful, police-statelike "Patriot Act", which George Bush's coalition put together and rammed through Congress. (Patriot Act II is even worse, coming through Congress in Jan 2005 if Bush is re-elected.)

I admit, I'm worried about Kerry's backing of socialized medicine, but I'm also wondering why George Bush blocked me from being able to purchase my prescription drugs from Canada where they're much cheaper. (Where's NAFTA when you need it?)

I despise Communism and Socialism, but George Bush's religion-based Fascism looks a lot more imminent from where I'm sitting. Having travelled to 39 states and having lived in 7 of them within the past 14 years, I have personally observed a groundswell of Christian fundamentalism in this nation. The most frightening thing about this movement is, of course, its anti-intellectualism. (The 60 year long "dumbing down" of our nation's youth in our Dewey-based school system is surely the culprit behind this rampant idiocy.) Equally alarming is the fact that most Christian fundamentalists crazily view their "Dominion Theology" as pro-freedom. But then they define "freedom" very differently from Objectivists.

The present Christian fundamentalist movement in our country is highly politicized, and is therefore dangerous to lovers of intellectual and personal freedom. George Bush is merely representative of the anti-reason puscht.

And you may wish to note the frequent public references to biblically-based "stewardship" of property rather than "ownership", in case you still believe the current Republican Party and its Christian Coalition supports classical, laissez-faire Capitalism and property rights.

It's not that Kerry is wonderful, or his pro-active, leftist policies defensible. It's just that he's not nearly as profoundly dangerous as Bush from this Objectivist's perspective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As a fundamentalist Christian, and an intransigent one, George Bush's epistemology is "faith" as opposed to reason. His ethic, (at least the one touted in his campaign ads) is "sacrifice".
I take it that you're suggesting that the only ethic a fundamentalist christian has is 'sacrifice'. Can you apply this reasoning to say...his foreign policy pursuits over the last three and a half years?

Kerry at least purports to be an intellectual. He attempts to reason (though faultily) his arguments through. He can at least be expected to consult actual human beings before making important decisions, as opposed to Pres. Bush who consults "God", his bible and his guardian angel for guidance.

Actually, Bush consults with a large number of highly educated individuals in his cabinet (if having a Harvard MBA was not good enough). For the fact that he utilizes Powell, Rumsfeld, and Rice, three great individuals who have strong (but very different) visions for this country (which the media continually examines the disagreement in this group, but which is an excellent move to avoid groupthink allthewhile having all options considered), really doesn't prove to me that "God' is his major foreign policy consultant. If anything, it was "God" that probably stopped Bush from launching cruise missiles at random buildings and killing innocent civilians (a la clinton in 98), and going after terrorists with our armed ground forces.

I believe that this stab at Bush was probably motivated by this embryonic stem cell controversy, but again refuting your claim, Bush has taking the route of reason. How, you ask? Because he's authorized adult stem cell research which HAS in fact been shown to work since the early 1980's, while embryonic stem cell research has not proven a single success to date.

Mr. Kerry also supports separation of church and state, and in safeguarding the free exchange of ideas. He claims (at least for now) to regret his support for the awful, police-statelike "Patriot Act", which George Bush's coalition put together and rammed through Congress. (Patriot Act II is even worse, coming through Congress in Jan 2005 if Bush is re-elected.)
Will agree wtih the seperation of church and state. And, the seperation of state and church, as it may be now...and rammed through Congress? Are you suggesting that the individual congressmen/women had no free will to sign or not to sign onto the bill? Unfortunately we don't hear (for security purposes) all the incidents where the patriot act HAS worked to the benefit of American security. Kinda like 2nd amendment rights... PAII has yet to be seen, and just because it goes through Congress doesn't mean it will get passed......

I admit, I'm worried about Kerry's backing of socialized medicine, but I'm also wondering why George Bush blocked me from being able to purchase my prescription drugs from Canada where they're much cheaper. (Where's NAFTA when you need it?)

Pretty much agree, but not sure if otc drugs from canada would be considered contraband or what....will have to check on the statutes and laws

I despise Communism and Socialism, but George Bush's religion-based Fascism looks a lot more imminent from where I'm sitting. Having travelled to 39 states and having lived in 7 of them within the past 14 years, I have personally observed a groundswell of Christian fundamentalism in this nation. The most frightening thing about this movement is, of course, its anti-intellectualism. (The 60 year long "dumbing down" of our nation's youth in our Dewey-based school system is surely the culprit behind this rampant idiocy.) Equally alarming is the fact that most Christian fundamentalists crazily view their "Dominion Theology" as pro-freedom. But then they define "freedom" very differently from Objectivists.
Religious-based fascism? How is it fascism? Can't recall hearing any headlines that the by presidential order, the government assumed all rights to property....and the dumbing down of our schools, or anti-intellectualism, comes from the Left just dumping money into school systems that continue to fail, and there is no accountability in this system. It's the religious-based schools that, at least in my state, have produced the brightest kids, and continue to out-perform public schools in most areas. No, this anti-ideology does not come from any God-fearing person, but by those who believe in reletavism WITHOUT reason.

The present Christian fundamentalist movement in our country is highly politicized, and is therefore dangerous to lovers of intellectual and personal freedom. George Bush is merely representative of the anti-reason puscht.

And you may wish to note the frequent public references to biblically-based "stewardship" of property rather than "ownership", in case you still believe the current Republican Party and its Christian Coalition supports classical, laissez-faire Capitalism and property rights.

Any rights groups today is highly politicized. that's just a fact. I truly believe that you've really made a weak parallel between Bush and Christian fundamentalism. Just because he believes in God doesn't make anyone a fundamentalist. It's almost like saying that Hamid Karzai is a muslim fundamentalist. I'm sorry, but i just dont' know where exactly Bush has focused on religious-stewardship property rights.....

It's not that Kerry is wonderful, or his pro-active, leftist policies defensible. It's just that he's not nearly as profoundly dangerous as Bush from this Objectivist's perspective.

Whole-heartedly disagree. With precedent, though maybe a weak one, I'd prefer to live in a theocracy than to live in a communist/totalitarian regime.

Ultimately, what i think most of us disagree upon is what is worse: to have a president pursuant of socialization policies, or to have one who strongly believes in a higher being.

or in a breath, what is more important to an objectivist: capitalism or atheism

Link to post
Share on other sites

My Webpage

Bush, answering questions at a campaign stop in Florida on Tuesday, said the idea of replacing the income tax with a national sales tax had some merit.

"You know, I'm not exactly sure how big the national sales tax is going to have to be, but it's the kind of interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously," Bush said, according to a Reuters report.

same thing is basically said on:

My Webpage

those are but two of many media sites that cite this quote and the idea behind it.

if you need more links, or if you need me to search the web for you, don't hesitate to ask.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...