OBAMA is the BEST PRESIDENT EVER
Maude

Floral Park, NY

#15515 Aug 3, 2014
ZCs wrote:
PRESIDENT OBAMA!!
Wrong Power!
Amen
Maude

Floral Park, NY

#15516 Aug 3, 2014
ZCs wrote:
PRESIDENT OBAMA!!
Wrong Power!
"ZCs" your right the American people gave this President the wrong power and should have not elected him as president we all will suffer because of his incompetence.
nac

Bellmore, NY

#15517 Aug 3, 2014
Pollys Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
“nac” I got a kick out of your claims that the sky is falling rhetoric regarding the immigration problem causing the economic collapse of the USA.
Your Posting #15489
“You are literally cheer-leading the economic collapse of our nation.”
Your posting #15491
“You are cheer-leading the collapse of this nation ---even though we have no way to pay for it... ignoring the fact that it is a death-blow to America.”
“Do you really NOT understand how that WILL lead to our economic collapse???”
Your posting #15492
“You are cheer-leading the collapse of this------. Ignoring the fact that it is a death-blow to America.”
“Do you really NOT understand how that WILL lead to our economic collapse???”
All that sounds just like something Glen Beck would be saying and you tell me that you are not Glen Beck Jr.
I certainly would agree that it is an expense that is going to be passed onto the taxpayers. I wish that there was a cheaper way to deal with the problem. I wish the kids hadn’t showed up. I wish that all illegals could be shipped out but that is not likely to happen due to politics.
But cause the economic collapse of the USA????
Surely you are smarter than that.?????????
If fighting two unfunded wars while giving tax cuts to the wealthy, bailing out banks that the government agencies were not watching over, running the world’s largest funded military, giving foreign aid to half the world, subsidies to corporation, ranchers & farmers and now you tell me that those immigrant kids are going to cause the economic collapse of the USA.. I agree that there are a lot of them but cause the economic collapse of the USA????
GIVE ME A BREAK -
Enough of the Glen Beck Jr. wild theories without any factual support other than your Glen Beck Jr. whacky opinions.
Let me explain something to you... for the millionth time...

YOU are mad about the expense of the unfunded wars & Bush tax breaks... because they are "republican expenses" ...

But you care not even a tiny bit about the expense of encouraging and enabling hundreds of thousands of invaders to come here at taxpayer expense... because they are "democrat expenses."

They are ALL expenses, polly.

I'm in the unfortunate position of having to be mad at BOTH of those things, because I'm not a child that pretends that one of these awful parties is better than the other.

Now polly, keep in mind that we already spent ALL THAT MONEY on stupid wars and sweetheart deals for "the rich folks" ...

Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that we probably don't have much left to pay for the food, shelter, clothing, education, and healthcare for anyone that can cross the border????

++

These costs are not mutually exclusive, polly. This gigantic new bill we have to foot, is on top of ALL OF THE OTHER GIGANTIC bills we have had to foot.

It's adding up. How are you so dense that you don't understand this concept????

What will it take for you to exercise even the slightest amount of common sense????
Ed Norton

Brooklyn, NY

#15518 Aug 4, 2014
Pollys Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought I had already stated three or four times that it was "well stated" not just twice.
Really ? That many ? Are you sure ? Did you research it to appease me ?

Let's dissect that post of Cut & Run (15112) that you said was "well stated" three or four times :

"[Fact: Bush applied told Congress that there were WMDs in Iraq. There were none. Thus what Bush said was a lie." ---

No. That is NOT a fact at all. All it means is that he was wrong. Along with countless others (including Dems ) who believed there were WMD's there also. Lying involves INTENT. If you believe what you are saying is truthful then you CANNOT be lying.

"The only question - one upon which I am willing to give Bush the benefit of doubt until evidence is found or released that proves the matter one way or the other - is whether Bush lied knowingly or unknowingly.] "----

There you have it. Cut & Run is willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt in that while he may have, in hindsght, been wrong about WMD's in Iraq, he believed at the time what he was saying was truthful.
You CANNOT lie UNKOWINGLY. By definition it is impossible.

"Bush either lied [knowingly and deliberately] about WMDs in Iraq" ----

By definition, KNOWING & DELIBERATELY is the only way you can lie.

"or he was misled by someone into thinking that Saddam had WMDs. Point of fact: None were found. No material evidence was found that any had ever been there. Every investigation found that the UN discovered and destroyed everything that Iraq had in the WMD line after Desert Storm in 1991."-----

Or he was misled ? If he was misled then he believed what he was saying to be truthful. Lots of people were misled by faulty intelligence. Doesn't make them liars.
Point of fact: One cannot lie unknowingly.

Well stated ??? LOL !
ZCs

Newark, NJ

#15519 Aug 4, 2014
ILAL wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you get up to go two or more times during the night ? Do you have a weak stream ? Do you have trouble keeping it up for Bloody Bill ?
If you answered yes to one or more of these questions you may be experiencing prostate trouble.
Right you are and I agree.
Pollys Opinion

Pine Ridge, SD

#15520 Aug 4, 2014
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me explain something to you... for the millionth time...

What will it take for you to exercise even the slightest amount of common sense????
I voted for Bush/Cheney much to my regret. I am/was not mad at them because they were Republicans but because what they did was wrong and stupid. I am not required to accept the actions of Republicans just because I am a Registered Republican. I am not required to hate Democrats because they are the others. I can disagree with Democrats just as easy. Right now the craziness is being acted out in the Republican Party far more than in the Democratic Party.

I am for what makes sense and what is right.

I care a lot about the illegal immigration and have for a long time. What I would do is not what either political party will do, due to the Latin American voting block and the Catholic Church. I would give them due process but everyone one of them would get kicked out and I don’t care if they had been here 20 years. An illegal act should not result in something becoming legal. That tough stand is not going to happen and I know it.

I have said that over time BOTH political parties are to blame. Even the Bush signed 2008 law was supported by Democrats. The bipartisan “Dream Act” that has not been passed is drawing them and even though the Obama executive order (basically part of the Dream Act) does not apply to those showing up now likely is having an effect. The lack of action draws them hoping to get in and become covered. The “Dream Act” should either be voted up or down and after that don’t let any more in.

The total package of what this country over years has done in regards to immigration is a drawing card. The USA has never taken a strong position on illegals. They provide cheap labor.

I fully agree that much of the debt was caused by stupid wars and sweetheart deals for the wealthy and well placed people along with corporation welfare subsidies. That hasn’t stopped either and the bill is stacking up. I’m all for cutting government spending and at least get to a balanced budget. I have no problem letting the wealthy pay more in taxes to support the economic system they get the greatest benefit from. I would also look at taxing long held inherited investment capital and taxing capital gains the same as other income.
I would love to speed up the due process of running them through court and shipping them home but we will have to deal with them for a period of time. Is it going to cost money??? Sure is. Is it going to cause the economic collapse of the USA??? Hell no. Is it going to cost money paid for by the taxpayers? Hell yes any fool knows that. Do we have the money to spend?? Hell no. Do we have to take care of them anyway? Hell yes. Should we be expediting the process? Hell yes. Will the political parties agree? Hell no. Will it cost money to ship them home? Hell yes.

Right now the Republican cannot even agree among themselves what to do and the Democrats love it. It is some Republican elected nuts getting the blunt of the problem in their Red States and Democrats enjoy watching .
Pollys Opinion

Pine Ridge, SD

#15521 Aug 4, 2014
Ed Norton wrote:
<quoted text>
"[Fact: Bush applied told Congress that there were WMDs in Iraq. There were none. Thus what Bush said was a lie." ---
-------make them liars.
Point of fact: One cannot lie unknowingly.
Well stated ??? LOL !
http://www.iraqwar.org/adminlies.htm
nospin

Ecru, MS

#15522 Aug 4, 2014
The Halabja chemical attack (Kurdish: Kîmyabarana Helebce, also known as the Halabja Massacre or Bloody Friday, was a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988, during the closing days of the Iran–Iraq War in the Kurdish city of Halabja in Southern Kurdistan. The attack was part of the Al-Anfal campaign in northern Iraq, as well as part of the Iraqi attempt to repel the Iranian Operation Zafar . It took place 48 hours after the fall of the town to Iranian army and Kurdish guerrillas.

The attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people and injured 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians. Thousands more died of complications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack. The incident, which has been officially defined as an act of genocide against the Kurdish people in Iraq, was and still remains the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.

The Halabja attack has been recognized as a separate event from the Anfal Genocide that was also conducted against the Kurdish people by the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi High Criminal Court recognized the Halabja massacre as an act of genocide on March 1, 2010, a decision welcomed by the Kurdistan Regional Government. The attack was also condemned as a crime against humanity by the Parliament of Canada.
nospin

Ecru, MS

#15523 Aug 4, 2014
Saddam Hussein was not charged by the Iraqi Special Tribunal for crimes against humanity based on the events at Halabja. However, Iraqi prosecutors had "500 documented baskets of crimes during the Hussein regime" and Hussein was condemned to death based on just one case, the 1982 Dujail Massacre. Among several documents revealed during the trial of Saddam Hussein, one was a 1987 memo from Iraq's military intelligence seeking permission from the president's office to use mustard gas and the nerve agent sarin against Kurds. A second document said in reply that Saddam had ordered military intelligence to study the possibility of a "sudden strike" using such weapons against Iranian and Kurdish forces. An internal memo written by military intelligence confirmed it had received approval from the president's office for a strike using "special ammunition" and emphasized that no strike would be launched without first informing the president. Saddam himself told the court: "In relation to Iran, if any military or civil official claims that Saddam gave orders to use either conventional or special ammunition, which as explained is chemical, I will take responsibility with honor. But I will discuss any act committed against our people and any Iraqi citizen, whether Arab or Kurdish. I don't accept any insult to my principles or to me personally." Kurdish survivors had no doubt Saddam was personally responsible and were disappointed he was being tried only over the killings in Dujail. Saddam was executed by hanging on December 30, 2006.
nospin

Ecru, MS

#15524 Aug 4, 2014
The know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained by Saddam's regime from foreign sources.Most precursors for chemical weapons production came from Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics, sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. Singapore-based firm Kim Al-Khaleej, affiliated to the United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq. Dieter Backfisch, managing director of West German company Karl Kolb GmbH, was quoted by saying in 1989 that "for people in Germany poison gas is something quite terrible, but this does not worry customers abroad."

On December 23, 2005, a Dutch court sentenced Frans van Anraat, a businessman who bought chemicals on the world market and sold them to Saddam's regime, to 15 years in prison. The court ruled that Saddam committed genocide against the people of Halabja; this was the first time the Halabja attack was described as an act of genocide in a court ruling. In March 2008, the government of Iraq announced plans to take legal action against the suppliers of chemicals used in the attack.

In 2013 20 Iraqi Kurds took legal action to expose two French companies whom their lawyers say were among 20 or more companies that helped Saddam Hussein construct a chemical weapons arsenal
nospin

Ecru, MS

#15525 Aug 4, 2014
Saddam: "No weapons here, I'm a nice guy".

Hitler "I'm a nice guy".
Pollys Opinion

Pine Ridge, SD

#15526 Aug 4, 2014
nospin wrote:
Saddam: "No weapons here, I'm a nice guy".
Hitler "I'm a nice guy".
The Halabja chemical attack (Kurdish: Kîmyabarana Helebce, also known as the Halabja Massacre or Bloody Friday, was a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988.

What does that have to do with the later invasion of Iraq? No one ever said he didn’t use chemicals in 1988 and that is not the foundation Bush used for invading Iraq.

Was he a nice guy? Hell no but he certainly is not the only one, some of which are known to possess weapons of mass destruction that create a mushroom cloud.

At the end of the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, the U.N. passed Security Council Resolution 687 setting the terms for the cease-fire between Iraq and the U.S-led coalition. Section C of the resolution called for the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and some ballistic missiles and established the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM).

Let’s start from there and look at what happened.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/meast/ira...

Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was "the intelligence failure" in Iraq, while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq". A key CIA informant in Iraq admitted that he lied about his allegations, "then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war".
nospin

Ecru, MS

#15527 Aug 4, 2014
Pollys Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
The Halabja chemical attack (Kurdish: Kîmyabarana Helebce, also known as the Halabja Massacre or Bloody Friday, was a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988.
What does that have to do with the later invasion of Iraq? No one ever said he didn’t use chemicals in 1988 and that is not the foundation Bush used for invading Iraq.
Was he a nice guy? Hell no but he certainly is not the only one, some of which are known to possess weapons of mass destruction that create a mushroom cloud.
At the end of the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, the U.N. passed Security Council Resolution 687 setting the terms for the cease-fire between Iraq and the U.S-led coalition. Section C of the resolution called for the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and some ballistic missiles and established the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM).
Let’s start from there and look at what happened.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/meast/ira...
Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was "the intelligence failure" in Iraq, while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq". A key CIA informant in Iraq admitted that he lied about his allegations, "then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war".
YOUR claim is "he didn't have any". Obviously he DID because it was PROVEN he used them.

Again you lie because it is YOUR claim Bush STARTED a war over weapons which is a lie. The WAR started with the invasion of Kuwait. There was a cease fire WITH terms which Saddam violated with the knowledge of a return of the war. Bush did NOT start the war nor was he the one to decided to return to hostility BUT a U.N resolution to do so.

Saddam had weapons and used them (PROVEN). He started the war (PROVEN). He had every intention of continuing his violence against his own people and other countries (PROVEN).

So just what part of taking him out do you have a problem with? Would you prefer the body count to continue under him for an indefinite time or do you have a limit he had not reached just yet?
Rap This

Fairview, PA

#15528 Aug 4, 2014
Wham-a Slam-a YOU got america in a jam-ma, lets send him to alabama,YO-YO Pres you thought you'd be the man, Now we want to send you to another land, Because we know you study the Koran. America is not the place for you, But yet they have'nt completed building your Zoo. We've heard jokes that Michelle is hot, But by the look of her big tail I'll bet she'e not. Laugh a little Prez, Soon in two years It,ll all seem like a bad dream.
Pollys Opinion

Pine Ridge, SD

#15529 Aug 4, 2014
nospin wrote:
<quoted text>YOUR claim is "he didn't have any". Obviously he DID because it was PROVEN he used them.
Again you lie because it is YOUR claim Bush STARTED a war over weapons which is a lie. The WAR started with the invasion of Kuwait. There was a cease fire WITH terms which Saddam violated with the knowledge of a return of the war. Bush did NOT start the war nor was he the one to decided to return to hostility BUT a U.N resolution to do so.
Saddam had weapons and used them (PROVEN). He started the war (PROVEN). He had every intention of continuing his violence against his own people and other countries (PROVEN).
So just what part of taking him out do you have a problem with? Would you prefer the body count to continue under him for an indefinite time or do you have a limit he had not reached just yet?
Did you fail to read the timeline between 1991 and 1997? The Kuwait war was over and done with. That was Bush #1. Actually there was another President in between the Kuwait war and the Iraq war.

Bush #2 invaded Iraq and found no weapons of mass destruction that were not already known by UN inspectors to be there.

We spent a long of money and lives on false and spun intelligence by Bush/Cheney.
Whether or not Saddam at one time used chemical weapons was not the issue or reason for us invading Iraq.

“bar0ckalypse n0w”

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#15530 Aug 4, 2014
Pollys Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
The Halabja chemical attack (Kurdish: Kîmyabarana Helebce, also known as the Halabja Massacre or Bloody Friday, was a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988.
What does that have to do with the later invasion of Iraq? No one ever said he didn’t use chemicals in 1988 and that is not the foundation Bush used for invading Iraq.
Was he a nice guy? Hell no but he certainly is not the only one, some of which are known to possess weapons of mass destruction that create a mushroom cloud.
At the end of the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, the U.N. passed Security Council Resolution 687 setting the terms for the cease-fire between Iraq and the U.S-led coalition. Section C of the resolution called for the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and some ballistic missiles and established the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM).
Let’s start from there and look at what happened.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/meast/ira...
Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was "the intelligence failure" in Iraq, while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq". A key CIA informant in Iraq admitted that he lied about his allegations, "then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war".
Then bar0ck turned the Bush arab spring to winter by surrendering from behind with his putter.
Pollys Opinion

Pine Ridge, SD

#15531 Aug 4, 2014
Bloody Bill Anderson wrote:
<quoted text>
Some people are lacking in reading comprehension. Others [like Mr. Norton] have a mindset that is so divisive that they pounce on any little detail that seems vulnerable. So you have to be very precise in what you say in order to forestall either misinterpretation or deliberate warping of what you said. The former require an extraordinary amount of explanation and simplification; the latter are undeserving of a reply. This is for the benefit of the former, so that they might not be misled by the latter.
The ‘IF’ in my post upon which Mr. Norton seized applies to whether or not Bush knew what he said was a lie when he said it or if the was merely repeating false information that had been provided to him, information that he thought was truthful and accurate, but as it turned out was not.
Here is what I said, with the inferences added in brackets:
[Fact: Bush applied told Congress that there were WMDs in Iraq. There were none. Thus what Bush said was a lie. The only question - one upon which I am willing to give Bush the benefit of doubt until evidence is found or released that proves the matter one way or the other - is whether Bush lied knowingly or unknowingly.] Bush either lied [knowingly and deliberately] about WMDs in Iraq or he was misled by someone into thinking that Saddam had WMDs. Point of fact: None were found. No material evidence was found that any had ever been there. Every investigation found that the UN discovered and destroyed everything that Iraq had in the WMD line after Desert Storm in 1991.
If Bush lied [deliberately, knowing that it was a lie when he told it], well that is bad. If he was lied to and tricked into lying [innocently, thinking that he was telling the truth] to Congress, the American people, and to the world, that is worse. It means that either somebody has the ability to deceive our intelligence services or those services are incompetent. I tend to think that if Bush truly believed that Iraq had WMDs, then someone deceived the CIA and other intelligence services, probably by feeding them false information that they knew would be the information that Bush wanted to hear and believe.
"Well Stated".
Pollys Opinion

Pine Ridge, SD

#15532 Aug 4, 2014
Ed Norton wrote:
<quoted text>
Really ? That many ? Are you sure ? Did you research it to appease me ?
Let's dissect that post of Cut & Run (15112) that you said was "well stated" three or four times :
"[Fact: Bush applied told Congress that there were WMDs in Iraq. There were none. Thus what Bush said was a lie." ---
No. That is NOT a fact at all. All it means is that he was wrong. Along with countless others (including Dems ) who believed there were WMD's there also. Lying involves INTENT. If you believe what you are saying is truthful then you CANNOT be lying.
"The only question - one upon which I am willing to give Bush the benefit of doubt until evidence is found or released that proves the matter one way or the other - is whether Bush lied knowingly or unknowingly.] "----
There you have it. Cut & Run is willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt in that while he may have, in hindsght, been wrong about WMD's in Iraq, he believed at the time what he was saying was truthful.
You CANNOT lie UNKOWINGLY. By definition it is impossible.
"Bush either lied [knowingly and deliberately] about WMDs in Iraq" ----
By definition, KNOWING & DELIBERATELY is the only way you can lie.
"or he was misled by someone into thinking that Saddam had WMDs. Point of fact: None were found. No material evidence was found that any had ever been there. Every investigation found that the UN discovered and destroyed everything that Iraq had in the WMD line after Desert Storm in 1991."-----
Or he was misled ? If he was misled then he believed what he was saying to be truthful. Lots of people were misled by faulty intelligence. Doesn't make them liars.
Point of fact: One cannot lie unknowingly.
Well stated ??? LOL !
Ok then maybe you are right that Bush lied knowingly to have reason to invade Iraq.

I still think it was "well stated" but if you feel Bush lied its fine with me.
nospin

Ecru, MS

#15533 Aug 4, 2014
Pollys Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you fail to read the timeline between 1991 and 1997? The Kuwait war was over and done with. That was Bush #1. Actually there was another President in between the Kuwait war and the Iraq war.
Bush #2 invaded Iraq and found no weapons of mass destruction that were not already known by UN inspectors to be there.
We spent a long of money and lives on false and spun intelligence by Bush/Cheney.
Whether or not Saddam at one time used chemical weapons was not the issue or reason for us invading Iraq.
The Kuwait war was NOT over. Saddam was given PROVISIONS that he agreed to for a cease fire. He violated many provisions over and over with no intention of keeping his word PROVEN by constantly violating the provisions.

The problem with not finding them is not proof of non existance. The raw chemicals were PROVEN to have been shipped there and no proof of them being destroyed THUS leading to "where are they".

Remember many of the U.N inspectors were from counties that sold arms or raw materials to Saddam thus not wanting the weapons found leading one to think maybe they helped hid them. Regardless the materials WERE proven to be shipped there. So in your infinite wisdom WHERE ARE THEY?

November 8, 2002: The UN Security Council adopts Resolution 1441. The resolution declares that Iraq "remains in material breach" of past resolutions and gives Iraq a "final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" set out by Security Council resolutions stretching back to the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

December 19, 2002: Following IAEA and UNMOVIC briefings to the UN Security Council, states that the Iraqi declaration contains a "pattern of systematic…gaps" that constitute "another material breach" of Iraq's disarmament obligations.

March 7, 2003: UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Hans Blix tells the Security Council that Iraq's cooperation with the inspectors in providing information about past weapons activities has improved, although Baghdad has not yet complied with its disarmament obligations. UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors had stated during briefings to the Security Council on January 27 and February 14 that Iraq was gradually increasing its cooperation with the United Nations. Yet, both deemed the cooperation insufficient.
UN Must Go

Brooklyn, NY

#15534 Aug 4, 2014
nospin wrote:
Saddam: "No weapons here, I'm a nice guy".
Hitler "I'm a nice guy".
Yet Mussolini wasn't particularly happy to 'hang around' lol

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

New York Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Mets talkback (Dec '07) 7 min jimi-yank 42,780
News Protecting Trump Tower cost NY City $24 million... 2 hr Cordwainer Trout 22
Time to go? (Jun '15) 4 hr -Sprocket- 13,041
Drop a Word, Add a Word (Jan '10) 5 hr Princess Hey 16,009
Add a word, Drop a word (Dec '09) 5 hr Princess Hey 17,556
Wow! The Democrats learned nothing. 6 hr Ernie Sanderz 1
support president trump- he is our president 7 hr Patriot 4
President Trump's first 100 days - Roadmap to D... 7 hr Bloody Bill Anderson 2,252

New York Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

New York Mortgages