[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE

Pinguinite You have mail..

What did Bill Clinton and Gavin Newsom talk about in Mexico? I have an idea


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Experts Warn of Backlash in Donald Trump’s China Trade Policies
Source: NYTimes
URL Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/03/u ... p-trade-policy-china.html?_r=1
Published: May 2, 2016
Author: BINYAMIN APPELBAUM
Post Date: 2016-05-02 21:33:57 by buckeroo
Keywords: None
Views: 1582
Comments: 14

On the campaign trail, Donald J. Trump has promised to do quite a few things that are beyond the powers of an American president, like billing Mexico for a border wall. But when it comes to foreign trade, his powers as president would come closer to his expansive ambitions.

As president, Mr. Trump could seek to penalize other nations for undercutting American manufacturers or stealing American ideas. He could also pursue congressional legislation to impose a 45 percent tariff, or tax, on imported Chinese goods, as he has proposed.

The bottom line, some experts say, is that Mr. Trump might well be able to squeeze China.

That does not mean, however, that his punitive approach would ease America’s economic pains. In fact, a range of experts agree that Mr. Trump’s proposals are more likely to deepen those problems, particularly if China or other targeted nations retaliate, rather than accept his demands.

Starting a trade war might be cathartic for workers who have lost jobs, but it is unlikely to create a lot of factory work.

“There’s no way a tariff of this kind could deliver the kind of benefits that he’s talking about, and it’s quite wrong to think that the big problem for American workers has been foreign trade,” said J .W. Mason, a professor of economics at John Jay College and a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a liberal think tank. “But I think it could be very destructive for the rest of the world.”

Mr. Trump’s views on trade are among his oldest and steadiest public policy positions. He has long maintained that other countries are taking advantage of the United States because Americans spend more money on foreign goods than the rest of the world spends on American goods. And he has long argued for slapping higher tariffs on those foreign goods in order to fortify the American economy.

Trade was the first policy issue Mr. Trump mentioned last Tuesday in a speech after his latest round of victories in five northeastern primaries.

It emerged again Wednesday in Washington during what was billed as a major foreign policy speech.

This Tuesday, Mr. Trump hopes to sweep the delegates in Indiana and all but sew up the Republican nomination. Nowhere has trade figured more centrally than in the Hoosier State, where the air-conditioner maker Carrier opted to move operations to Mexico, becoming a recurrent feature in Mr. Trump’s anti-free-trade litanies.

China has prospered over the last few decades by focusing its economy on low-cost manufacturing for foreign markets. Exports to the United States soared, particularly after China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001. American businesses and consumers bought $481.9 billion in Chinese goods in 2015, about one-fifth of all imports and the most from any country. But manufacturing employment in the United States has fallen sharply. A 2013 study estimated that China’s rise had eliminated at least one million domestic factory jobs.

While campaigning in Indiana, the Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump said that the United States cannot continue to allow China to “rape” the country with trade deficits. By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS on Publish Date May 2, 2016. Photo by Stephen Crowley/The New York Times. Watch in Times Video »

In the current campaign, Mr. Trump has proposed a 45 percent tax on Chinese imports and a 35 percent tax on Mexican imports. He has also proposed tariffs on goods that specific American companies produce in foreign countries, including Carrier air-conditioners and Ford cars.

Mr. Trump has said the threat of such tariffs would persuade China, for example, to modify the economic policies that he describes as providing unfair advantages to Chinese companies. Rather than incur his wrath, he says, American companies would be persuaded to keep more of their factories close to home.

“The 45 percent is a threat that if they don’t behave,” Mr. Trump said at a Republican debate in Miami last month, the United States “will tax you.”

He added: “It doesn’t have to be 45; it could be less. But it has to be something because our country and our trade and our deals and most importantly our jobs are going to hell.”

As president, Mr. Trump would have some latitude to reverse a course that the nation has pursued for decades. But the results could be troublesome on multiple fronts. The removal of trade barriers has played a significant role in reducing global poverty and encouraging peace between nations, achievements that could be eroded by tit-for-tat backsliding.

“The basic principle is that a sovereign state enters trade agreements of its free will, and it can get back out,” said Robert Howse, the Lloyd C. Nelson professor of international law at N.Y.U. School of Law. “But that’s the easy part.”

Imposing sweeping tariffs would reverse a mainstay of United States foreign policy. Beginning after World War II, the United States gradually reduced its import taxes and pushed other nations to do the same, seeking not only to promote increased trade but to prevent conflict. The United States now imposes average weighted import tariffs of just 1.4 percent, according to the World Bank, among the lowest rates in the world.

Under existing laws, Mr. Trump could impose tariffs only on specific categories of imports, not whole countries, and only by demonstrating specific violations of trade rules, such as export subsidies.

“There are at least 50 sets of laws and regulations that exist that China has, at least in spirit, crossed the boundaries,” Sam Clovis, an adviser to Mr. Trump, said in an interview.

But Mr. Trump would have the difficult task of proving that China is breaking the rules before the World Trade Organization, which polices global commerce. International trade laws limit the type of help governments can provide to companies, but the role of the Chinese government is particularly opaque, said Mark Wu, a professor of law at Harvard and a former United States trade negotiator in the administration of President George W. Bush.

“China’s economy is its own beast, and it has a form that was not envisioned at the time these rules were created 20 years ago,” Mr. Wu said. “W.T.O. rules are not necessarily equipped to address all of the problematic aspects of that China Inc. system as far as American exporters are concerned.” Graphic: 2016 Delegate Count and Primary Results

In fact, one of Mr. Trump’s favorite charges, that China and other nations are suppressing the value of their currencies, is actually not a violation of existing trade agreements.

A central problem is defining currency manipulation in a way that excludes the United States — in particular, the Federal Reserve’s post-recession stimulus campaign, which had the effect of weakening the dollar much in the same way that other countries do to their currency.

Alternatively, Mr. Trump could pursue the radical option of seeking legislation to impose a broad China tariff, in effect demolishing the rules of global trade.

“It would be a flagrant violation,” said Alan O. Sykes, a professor of law at Stanford and an expert on international economic relations. “There is no prior violation of W.T.O. law that would be even close.”

The impact of such legislation would touch almost every aisle at Walmart.

In 2015, Americans bought $14.2 billion worth of Chinese shoes, $2.5 billion of Chinese jewelry and $593 million of Chinese rugs. And, most of all, cellphones — $64 billion worth, according to the Commerce Department.

All told, the United States imported $481.9 billion in Chinese goods in 2015, a record.

But research suggests that the price of Chinese goods would rise by significantly less than 45 percent because companies would hold the line to preserve their market share. Consumers can also buy comparable goods. When the United States imposed a 35 percent tariff on Chinese tires in 2009, imports of tires from China declined while imports from Indonesia, Mexico and Thailand rose sharply.

For the same reasons, however, economists see little chance that a tariff would achieve Mr. Trump’s goal of encouraging domestic production. They say it is even less likely to create large numbers of new factory jobs. American manufacturing output is at the highest level in history and employment has fallen because of large gains in efficiency, a trend that is unlikely to reverse.

China could retaliate by imposing its own tariffs. China responded to the tire tariff, for example, by imposing a tariff on American chicken parts.

The United States sold $116.2 billion in goods to China in 2015, including aircraft parts, automobiles and semiconductors — high-value industries in which workers earn high wages. Losing China’s market could mean sacrificing better jobs for less desirable ones.

Doug Oberhelman, chairman and chief executive of Caterpillar, described higher tariffs as “very dangerous” in February. “We’re 5 percent of the world population,” said Mr. Oberhelman, who spoke in his capacity as president of the Business Roundtable, a pro-trade lobby. “Ninety-five percent of our potential customers are elsewhere. We’ve got to learn and figure out how to deal with that.”

The damage to international trade agreements could also have deep and enduring consequences.

One of the central benefits of the current system is that it separates trade disputes from other kinds of conflict. The global effort to reduce tariffs after World War II “was dreamed up as a way to prevent world wars,” said Mr. Howse, the N.Y.U. professor.

“That should not be forgotten.”


Trump has many of you "trumperettes" convinced he can do all kinds of things; just because he says so. He has yet to tell you HOW.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: buckeroo (#0)

Mr. Donald is a Wharton graduate, fully qualified to screw everyone.


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Hondo68  posted on  2016-05-02   22:31:45 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: hondo68, GrandIsland, nolu chan (#1)

Mr. Donald is a Wharton graduate, fully qualified to screw everyone.

You think GrandIsland and nolu chan are graduates of Trump University? They paid $30,000 bucks just to buy a Trump cap & T-shirt (cap&gown) for their graduating ceremonies?

buckeroo  posted on  2016-05-02   22:38:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: buckeroo (#0)

personally I'm waiting to see Dump walk on water

paraclete  posted on  2016-05-02   22:40:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: paraclete (#3)

personally I'm waiting to see Dump walk on water

That won't be difficult for him. So far, he has demonstrated to be a bag of hot aire. That stuff floats on water and (in a way) it can be said, Trump walks on water, today.

buckeroo  posted on  2016-05-02   22:45:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: buckeroo (#0)

The article admits that the trade regimes don't handle the Chinese system well.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-05-02   23:57:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Vicomte13 (#5)

So TPP is a known failure. Have you heard or referenced: Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership?

buckeroo  posted on  2016-05-03   0:10:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Vicomte13 (#5)

The article admits that the trade regimes don't handle the Chinese system well.

The WTO has been a disaster for the United States. President Trump will need to withdraw us from the WTO as well as NAFTA.

Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria

nativist nationalist  posted on  2016-05-03   1:02:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: buckeroo (#4)

Trump walks on water, today.

No he just tells you he can walk on water, truth is he makes like a submarine just like the rest of us

paraclete  posted on  2016-05-03   1:19:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: buckeroo (#6)

Have you heard or referenced: Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership?

No. Do tell.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-05-03   9:07:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: buckeroo (#0)

"On the campaign trail, Donald J. Trump has promised to do quite a few things that are beyond the powers of an American president, like billing Mexico for a border wall.

Oh?

"In a memo to the Washington Post, however, Trump seems to take it seriously. He writes that he’ll take aim at a potentially vulnerable attack point in the Mexican economy — remittances:"

◾On day 1 promulgate a “proposed rule” (regulation) amending 31 CFR 130.121 to redefine applicable financial institutions to include money transfer companies like Western Union, and redefine “account” to include wire transfers. Also include in the proposed rule a requirement that no alien may wire money outside of the United States unless the alien first provides a document establishing his lawful presence in the United States.

◾On day 2 Mexico will immediately protest. They receive approximately $24 billion a year in remittances from Mexican nationals working in the United States. The majority of that amount comes from illegal aliens. it serves as de facto welfare for poor families in Mexico. There is no signifcant social safety net provided by the state in Mexico.

◾On day 3 tell Mexico that if the Mexican government will contribute __ billion to the United States to pay for the wall, the Trump Administration will not promulgate the final rule, and the regulation will not go into effect."

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-03   10:28:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: buckeroo (#0)

“There’s no way a tariff of this kind could deliver the kind of benefits that he’s talking about"

The only thing Trump has to do is make China believe he will impose a 45% tariff.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-05-03   10:32:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: misterwhite (#11)

The only thing Trump has to do is make China believe he will impose a 45% tariff.

He doesn't have the authority as President to do most of the things he promises on trade policy.

This is a c/p of the entire article in Commentary Magazine May issue (subscription only)

Taking Trump Seriously on Trade.... He has policies, or suggestions of policies. What would happen if they were put into practice?

Let us assume that Donald Trump means what he says and would, upon being sworn in as president 2017, immediately seek the implementation of his two grandest campaign promises—the unilateral imposition of high (35 to 45 percent) tariffs on Chinese and other imports due to “currency manipulation” or outsourcing, and the withdrawal of the United States from all U.S. trade agreements, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). The first thing that needs to be said is that existing law clearly precludes such actions. No U.S. statute or regulation permits the president to impose unilateral tariffs on a broad range of products from a single country or group of countries. Indeed, the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8) gives Congress the sole authority to tax imports (i.e., “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations”). So Trump would need congressional approval to impose high tariffs on all Chinese or Mexican imports.

This would be true even if Trump instructed the Treasury Department to declare China a “currency manipulator” or utilized U.S. “fair trade” laws. The former is a superficial action that, contrary to promises made in Trump’s trade plan online, requires detailed findings and in no way authorizes U.S. tariff retaliation. The latter has strict procedural, evidentiary, and substantive requirements that the president cannot circumvent. Determining that imports from China (and other countries) have been illegally dumped or subsidized is under the control of U.S. anti-dumping and countervailing duty (CVD) laws, respectively. A finding of market-distorting surges in imports (thus violating “fair trade” provisions) falls under U.S. safeguards laws. Each type of measure applies to narrow bands of imports (e.g., hot-rolled steel) from certain countries, requires specific findings of “injury” to the U.S. industry, and takes at least a year to result in duties.

These legal barriers are significant: In 2010, the most protectionist Congress in decades balked at a far narrower action and did not pass legislation making currency undervaluation an illegal subsidy under the CVD law. The current Congress failed to pass a similar measure.

Nevertheless, assuming Trump did somehow convince Congress to impose these tariffs, or simply acted unilaterally in contravention of U.S. law, the results would cause immense pain for very little, if any, gain for the U.S. economy and workforce.

The most immediate damage would be done to consumers of imports in the United States. As basic economics and U.S. customs law dictate, they would be the ones who pay Trump’s tariffs—or, if those tariffs result in making it pointless to buy those imported goods, would be forced to pay higher prices for the same goods manufactured in the United States. It’s difficult to predict the precise magnitude of such taxes, but Representative Chris Collins of New York, one of Trump’s own spokesmen, recently suggested that the cost of food, clothing, and other necessities would rise by 10 to 15 percent. Considering the average American household spends about $11,000 on these items each year, such a tax would translate to an extra $1,100 to $1,650 per year that American families would have to spend under President Trump for the same things that they’re consuming right now—money they could have saved, invested, or spent on other important necessities (and the U.S. jobs that provide them). Almost 90 percent of free trade’s consumer benefits accrue to poor and middle-class consumers; Trump’s tariffs would have precisely the opposite effect. Thus, the tax imposed by tariffs is highly regressive.

Most U.S. manufacturers also would be affected for the worse by Trump’s tariffs. Because more than half of all U.S. imports, including from China, provide necessities for other American manufacturers (industrial supplies and materials or non-automotive capital goods), tariffs on these products would force import-consuming firms to pay more for the things they need to remain globally competitive. Such higher costs would mean lower output, fewer employees, and, in the worst cases, outright bankruptcy.

U.S. exporters, in both the manufacturing and service sectors, would likely share this pain. Broad-based unilateral U.S. tariffs would violate two of the United States’ most fundamental obligations under its World Trade Organization agreements. The first is the so-called most-favored nation provision. Under Article I of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT, a WTO member must treat imports from all other members equally. Second, according to GATT’s Article II, no WTO member can impose tariffs above a so- called bound rate set forth in its tariff schedule. Immediately upon implementation, China (or Mexico) would quickly seek and win the right to impose retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods-and-services exports in the amount of the damage caused by Trump’s tariffs. At Trump’s proposed tariff level of 45 percent, WTO-authorized retaliatory tariffs by China alone could amount to as much as $225 billion in new annual taxes on U.S. exports and intellectual property. Considering that U.S. exports to China totaled only about $115 billion in 2015, this retaliation would effectively close the United States’ third-largest export market.

This is what Trump’s tariffs would do. What wouldn’t happen?

For starters, China wouldn’t instantly cave to tariff threats; instead, it would likely escalate matters. China is a sovereign nation with its own domestic politics to consider. The Chinese government also knows how to use the WTO dispute-settlement system—and other more covert forms of retaliation. For example, when the United States slapped duties on Chinese solar-panel manufacturers in 2012, China instantly retaliated with similar duties on U.S. polysilicon exports, which cost American companies and workers billions. Finally, because U.S. businesses and consumers pay for tariffs, Trump is actually threatening to hurt China by hurting Americans. This is Blazing Saddles trade policy at its finest, with the sheriff pointing the gun to his own head and threatening to shoot.

Trump’s tariffs also likely wouldn’t result in a significant increase in U.S. manufacturing output or employment. A few directly competitive U.S. companies might benefit from import protection, but the far more widespread result would be “trade diversion”—with imports shifting from China to other (more expensive) foreign countries like Vietnam, India, or Mexico. This is exactly what happened when the United States imposed tariffs on Chinese tires in 2009, and it’s a very common result of U.S. anti-dumping and CVD cases. Indeed, because of trade diversion, the Brandeis University economist Peter Petri estimates that Trump would need to create a “global tariff wall” to impose his punishment on China—a move that would further impoverish American consumers and expose U.S. exporters to even more WTO-sanctioned retaliation.

Tariffs also wouldn’t bring back many U.S. manufacturing jobs, which have been declining since the late 1940s (as a share of the U.S. workforce) and since 1979 (in sheer numerical terms)—long before trade was a significant part of the American economy. The aforementioned tires case is instructive in this regard. U.S. consumers and importing companies suffered greatly; non-Chinese imports increased; U.S. tire manufacturers didn’t improve at all; and, even under the most generous assumptions, only a few U.S. tiremaking jobs were created (at a ridiculous cost of $900,000 per job).

Trump’s plan to “rip up” the WTO, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and other U.S. trade pacts presents even worse problems. In this case, he would likely have the authority under U.S. law and various trade agreements to withdraw the United States from these deals without the consent of Congress. However, simply withdrawing from these agreements would not permit Trump to raise tariffs or otherwise abandon the United States’ obligations under them. Free-trade agreements are not treaties, which require two-thirds approval by the Senate and have the force of law upon ratification. They are “congressional- executive agreements” that, even after being signed by the president, have no legal force until they are converted into legislation passed by Congress and then signed into law by the president. (This is why Trade Promotion Authority is such a big deal: It smoothes congressional passage of U.S. FTA implementing legislation.)

To change U.S. commitments under such laws, a President Trump would need Congress to pass a new law (or laws) reversing all of the commitments, including low tariffs, previous Congresses have passed over the last 30 years (for example, the massive Uruguay Round Agreements Act that implemented the World Trade Organization Agreements in the mid-1990s). Congressional cooperation with Trump’s schemes would be far from certain.

But while Congress dithered, our free-trade partners would immediately be set loose to raise their tariffs on U.S. imports, to block U.S. service providers, to stop enforcing U.S. intellectual-property rights, and to otherwise discriminate against U.S. companies (and their workers) in favor of domestic producers or other members of the trade agreement. Not only would millions of American jobs supported by exports be at risk of disappearing, but entire global supply chains would collapse, taking the U.S. and global economies with them.

Such thoughts are not mere abstractions. We have many existing examples of how Trump-style tariffs have resulted in lower growth, higher prices, foreign retaliation, and few, if any, new jobs. A President Trump who forced through the plans Candidate Trump has been touring would be calamitous for the U.S. economy—and the world’s.

"If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato

tomder55  posted on  2016-05-03   16:19:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: buckeroo (#2)

Trump University provided me with the knowledge to make intelligent responses to your dumbest questions and observations.

You, on the other hand, received your training from Scruffy. As a dog, Scruffy would drop his steaming turds wherever he happened to be when he got the urge to drop a turd. In like manner, you drop your steaming turds of thought upon the internet, wherever you happen to be. Perhaps you could be trained by a cat to better understand what to do with your turds of thought.

And Donald Trump beat the crap out of detested Ted Cruz in Indiana. Learn to say PRESIDENT TRUMP.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-05-03   19:10:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: buckeroo, hondo68, GrandIsland (#2)

You think GrandIsland and nolu chan are graduates of Trump University? They paid $30,000 bucks just to buy a Trump cap & T-shirt (cap&gown) for their graduating ceremonies?

I learned arithmetic and applied it. I simply observed the obvious, something Cruz nitwits were unable or unwilling to do.

http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=45539&Disp=49#C49

#49. To: buckeroo (#41)

Raise your pom-poms all you want and rally for your choice.

Make all the fictitious claims you want. The arithmetic is undeniable. Cruz will be mathematically eliminated after the next primary. I need make no hand-wringing decision to observe the obvious.

nolu chan posted on 2016-04-06 14:58:14 ET

nolu chan  posted on  2016-05-03   19:53:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com