why doesn't America return the lands to their natives?/

by Guest Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:40 am

not sure what category this should be in.

We have the Aussies with the abo's, we have had the South Africans giving back lands and properties to the blacks, we have had for a long time the breaking down of the British commonwealth etc, when will America give its power and lands back to the rightful owners...

by Guest Sat Mar 22, 2014 11:22 am

greed

by Guest Sat Mar 22, 2014 11:59 am

VOD(original) wrote:greed

they seem good at giving their international opinion, maybe they should clean up their own act first...

by Guest Sat Mar 22, 2014 2:59 pm

hmmm no takers..

by Guest Sat Mar 22, 2014 3:11 pm

Because times and demographics change. If we were to go down your route and give all the land back, 50,000 English Americans would be heading straight here, a everyone has lot the rights to any lands. Let alone the Scottish, Irish and Welsh Americans

Don't get me wrong, many wrongs were done to the indigenous peoples of so many nations through the colonial exploitation of nations and many wrongs have to be made right, but if you want to go down the road of claims to land and giving back, what next, those view solely descended from the indigenous here claim they want the land back, as they were here first?

Again you can reach a point where now the situation is so democratically different that it would be impossible to give every land back, but they should be given more land back and to me more compensation. Your view though is again very flawed because any indigenous people from a nation could thus demand power

by Guest Sat Mar 22, 2014 3:30 pm

Didge wrote:Because times and demographics change. If we were to go down your route and give all the land back, 50,000 English Americans would be heading straight here, a everyone has lot the rights to any lands. Let alone the Scottish, Irish and Welsh Americans

Don't get me wrong, many wrongs were done to the indigenous peoples of so many nations through the colonial exploitation of nations and many wrongs have to be made right, but if you want to go down the road of claims to land and giving back, what next, those view solely descended from the indigenous here claim they want the land back, as they were here first?

Again you can reach a point where now the situation is so democratically different that it would be impossible to give every land back, but they should be given more land back and to me more compensation. Your view though is again very flawed because any indigenous people from a nation could thus demand power

If the land is there's what the difference, control of their lands has been given back to the blacks in some countries..

by Guest Sat Mar 22, 2014 3:42 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Didge wrote:Because times and demographics change. If we were to go down your route and give all the land back, 50,000 English Americans would be heading straight here, a everyone has lot the rights to any lands. Let alone the Scottish, Irish and Welsh Americans

Don't get me wrong, many wrongs were done to the indigenous peoples of so many nations through the colonial exploitation of nations and many wrongs have to be made right, but if you want to go down the road of claims to land and giving back, what next, those view solely descended from the indigenous here claim they want the land back, as they were here first?

Again you can reach a point where now the situation is so democratically different that it would be impossible to give every land back, but they should be given more land back and to me more compensation. Your view though is again very flawed because any indigenous people from a nation could thus demand power

If the land is there's what the difference, control of their lands has been given back to the blacks in some countries..

What did you fail to understand by the point.

The demographics have vastly changed in America, where now the indigenous are now a small minority and in Africa this did not happen where the demographics changed so much except Southern Africa where European descendants tried to rule over the indigenous.
So again the demographics has not vastly changed in many African nations, in the US it has vastly changed and I cannot see the advantage of handing over power to around 1% of the population there and neither will any business.
So I understand your reason to ask and it is valid to ask, but it is also not a reality when the demographics have so vastly changed

Right back tomorrow

by Guest Sat Mar 22, 2014 4:27 pm

Didge wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

If the land is there's what the difference, control of their lands has been given back to the blacks in some countries..

What did you fail to understand by the point.

The demographics have vastly changed in America, where now the indigenous are now a small minority and in Africa this did not happen where the demographics changed so much except Southern Africa where European descendants tried to rule over the indigenous.
So again the demographics has not vastly changed in many African nations, in the US it has vastly changed and I cannot see the advantage of handing over power to around 1% of the population there and neither will any business.
So I understand your reason to ask and it is valid to ask, but it is also not a reality when the demographics have so vastly changed

Right back tomorrow

all excuses, native americans are still around they know what tribe had where, give them it back...

by Guest Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:28 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Didge wrote:

What did you fail to understand by the point.

The demographics have vastly changed in America, where now the indigenous are now a small minority and in Africa this did not happen where the demographics changed so much except Southern Africa where European descendants tried to rule over the indigenous.
So again the demographics has not vastly changed in many African nations, in the US it has vastly changed and I cannot see the advantage of handing over power to around 1% of the population there and neither will any business.
So I understand your reason to ask and it is valid to ask, but it is also not a reality when the demographics have so vastly changed

Right back tomorrow

all excuses, native americans are still around they know what tribe had where, give them it back...

The land of the free!...They have a black president! cheers

I would like to see Michelle Obama up against Hilary Clinton, in the Democratic race! bounce

by Ben Reilly Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:33 pm

While we could be doing better, I wonder whether GIG knows that Native American tribes have quasi-sovereign control over land areas that amount to nearly twice the size of England?

Here you can read about the largest such area: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Nation

by Guest Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:42 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:While we could be doing better, I wonder whether GIG knows that Native American tribes have quasi-sovereign control over land areas that amount to nearly twice the size of England?

Here you can read about the largest such area: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Nation

You would back Hillary in the next presidential race, or do you have someone else in mind?

by Ben Reilly Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:47 pm

I'd love a ticket with Hillary for president and Elizabeth Warren for VP, but some will say we couldn't possibly have an all-female ticket ...

by Guest Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:57 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:I'd love a ticket with Hillary for president and Elizabeth Warren for VP, but some will say we couldn't possibly have an all-female ticket ...

Well imo, Hillary should have got the ticket first time around, but i really like Obama, and i think he's done a good job overall, from this side of the pond! ::D::

by Ben Reilly Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:17 pm

She gave Obama a good run for his money in the primaries. I don't know; I still wonder if she'd have pursued health care reform as tenaciously as he did. At any rate, I think she'd make a better president than him in other ways, and I'm really hoping she runs -- she's almost in a position now where she has no choice!

by Guest Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:23 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:She gave Obama a good run for his money in the primaries. I don't know; I still wonder if she'd have pursued health care reform as tenaciously as he did. At any rate, I think she'd make a better president than him in other ways, and I'm really hoping she runs -- she's almost in a position now where she has no choice!

If she does win the next time around, and i really hope that she does....Will Bill Clinton be the first lady, or will they have to rename that title....First man! Razz

by Guest Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:26 pm

....Of course he would be the first man!

by Ben Reilly Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:31 pm

That's a good question; I've always thought the title for the husband of the first female president (assuming that it's Hillary Clinton and not, say, a future female president married to another woman) would be First Gentleman, in keeping with the phrase "Ladies and gentlemen" Smile

by Stephenmarra Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:35 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:I'd love a ticket with Hillary for president and Elizabeth Warren for VP, but some will say we couldn't possibly have an all-female ticket ...

I'd love to see the good ol' US of A faced with a choice of Condalisa Rice and Hillary Clinton, can you imagine the angst. Shocked

. OK, it's not going to happen but just a thought. ::smthg::

by Guest Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:40 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:That's a good question; I've always thought the title for the husband of the first female president (assuming that it's Hillary Clinton and not, say, a future female president married to another woman) would be First Gentleman, in keeping with the phrase "Ladies and gentlemen"

First geezer! Laughing

by Ben Reilly Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:42 pm

Still wondering whether GIG's ever going to share his thoughts on Native tribes controlling 87,000 square miles of land inside the U.S. ::D::

by Original Quill Sun Mar 23, 2014 6:34 pm

Both the US and Canada have a pretty health reparations program going on. I know for a fact that every once in a while the whole Hopi/Navajo Reservation will turn up with brand new GMC pick-up trucks, fully decked out. It is then that you know the government just issued another check.

why doesn't America return the lands to their natives?/ 6a00d83451b3c669e201901b835c32970b-pi

why doesn't America return the lands to their natives?/ 6a00d83451b3c669e201901b835c32970b-pi

Seriously, the Native Americans had no concept of property rights, such as we have in Anglo societies. The land belonged to the people, as well as the animals according to their belief. It would be difficult to determine who would get what. Hence, they go with general reparations.

by Guest Sun Mar 23, 2014 8:04 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:While we could be doing better, I wonder whether GIG knows that Native American tribes have quasi-sovereign control over land areas that amount to nearly twice the size of England?

Here you can read about the largest such area: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Nation

quasi sovereign control??.............nearly twice the size of England but it's all theirs.... Smile

by veya_victaous Mon Mar 24, 2014 12:02 am

@GIG
ours is quasi sovereign control too
as in they have control to do what they want but with in the bounds of the nation legal code. the tribes are sort of more like Businesses or collective trust funds than actual nations.
P.S. they don't like being called abo's

@quill
more idea of property than aboriginals.

@ben
we called Julia's partners 'the first bloke' but they weren't married Wink

by Ben Reilly Mon Mar 24, 2014 12:13 am

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:While we could be doing better, I wonder whether GIG knows that Native American tribes have quasi-sovereign control over land areas that amount to nearly twice the size of England?

Here you can read about the largest such area: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Nation

quasi sovereign control??.............nearly twice the size of England but it's all theirs....

If you don't understand what I say why don't you read the damn link?

by groomsy Mon Mar 24, 2014 2:34 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

quasi sovereign control??.............nearly twice the size of England but it's all theirs....

If you don't understand what I say why don't you read the damn link?

hes too busy watching that new Willie Robertson movie and Duck Dynasty re-runs

by Ben Reilly Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:30 am

I just get sick of his crap. England has a population of over 53 million living on just over 50,000 square miles; Native reservations have about 700,000 people living on 87,000 square miles. But he won't just admit that he once again dove head-first into an issue about which he's utterly ignorant -- instead he has to make idiotic trolling comments.

by Lone Wolf Mon Mar 24, 2014 5:03 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

quasi sovereign control??.............nearly twice the size of England but it's all theirs....

If you don't understand what I say why don't you read the damn link?

I DON'T think that heavenly_ has yet even got his head around the basic concept of just how big places like the USA, Canada and Australia are in reality !

by Guest Mon Mar 24, 2014 6:20 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:While we could be doing better, I wonder whether GIG knows that Native American tribes have quasi-sovereign control over land areas that amount to nearly twice the size of England?

Here you can read about the largest such area: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Nation

its all about size with you Americans isn't it lol

Like the joke about the American visiting Blackpool bragging to the cab driver how everything is bigger and better in america , the cab passes a fish and chip shop and says to the american 'see that chip shop there its the best in Blackpool you won't get fish and chips like that anywhere else ' american replies 'in america we have bigger fish and chips than here, the fish is huge ' a little further on they are approaching Blackpool tower, the american says 'wow what's that ? the cab driver replies 'oh that , its the vinegar bottle for you bloody fish n chips shops
lol!

by Guest Mon Mar 24, 2014 7:22 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:I just get sick of his crap. England has a population of over 53 million living on just over 50,000 square miles; Native reservations have about 700,000 people living on 87,000 square miles. But he won't just admit that he once again dove head-first into an issue about which he's utterly ignorant -- instead he has to make idiotic trolling comments.

I understand entirely, they have a large area but the whole country is there's, they have control of some areas but the whole country is there's to govern, I can understand there will be issues on how much control each tribe etc would have but a meeting of existing tribal elders could sort that out..

why should america get away with armed control of a native populace while crying internationally about others..

by Guest Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:01 am

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:I just get sick of his crap. England has a population of over 53 million living on just over 50,000 square miles; Native reservations have about 700,000 people living on 87,000 square miles. But he won't just admit that he once again dove head-first into an issue about which he's utterly ignorant -- instead he has to make idiotic trolling comments.

I understand entirely, they have a large area but the whole country is there's, they have control of some areas but the whole country is there's to govern, I can understand there will be issues on how much control each tribe etc would have but a meeting of existing tribal elders could sort that out..

why should america get away with armed control of a native populace while crying internationally about others..

That is historically inaccurate, in fact the Indians are divided into separate groups themselves who held certain areas of lands and were actually very and many of the tribes were nomadic, but again the demographics has changed dramatically where now they are a small minority which again more should be done for them, but they themselves only claim to the land is ancestors who got their first, which was thousands of years ago and that is all you are debating whether a claim to a land is valid if someone's ancestors were there first, when as seen they do not settle in one place because they are nomadic, thus how is it a claim to ownership of land, if you do not settle down within an area of land?

by Guest Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:14 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:I just get sick of his crap. England has a population of over 53 million living on just over 50,000 square miles; Native reservations have about 700,000 people living on 87,000 square miles. But he won't just admit that he once again dove head-first into an issue about which he's utterly ignorant -- instead he has to make idiotic trolling comments.

I'm sure the 5 million Indians would rather have their 3.7 million square miles back.

by Guest Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:19 am

BigAndy9 wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:I just get sick of his crap. England has a population of over 53 million living on just over 50,000 square miles; Native reservations have about 700,000 people living on 87,000 square miles. But he won't just admit that he once again dove head-first into an issue about which he's utterly ignorant -- instead he has to make idiotic trolling comments.

I'm sure the 5 million Indians would rather have their 3.7 million square miles back.

my point entirely... Smile

by veya_victaous Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:01 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:I just get sick of his crap. England has a population of over 53 million living on just over 50,000 square miles; Native reservations have about 700,000 people living on 87,000 square miles. But he won't just admit that he once again dove head-first into an issue about which he's utterly ignorant -- instead he has to make idiotic trolling comments.

I'm sure the 5 million Indians would rather have their 3.7 million square miles back.

Well we'll need a time machine and some guns and we go back and kill all the red coats that would fix it. the 13 colonies would never have survived.

by Ben Reilly Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:13 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:I just get sick of his crap. England has a population of over 53 million living on just over 50,000 square miles; Native reservations have about 700,000 people living on 87,000 square miles. But he won't just admit that he once again dove head-first into an issue about which he's utterly ignorant -- instead he has to make idiotic trolling comments.

I understand entirely, they have a large area but the whole country is there's, they have control of some areas but the whole country is there's to govern, I can understand there will be issues on how much control each tribe etc would have but a meeting of existing tribal elders could sort that out..

why should america get away with armed control of a native populace while crying internationally about others..

"Armed control"? Have you been sniffing the containers under the sink?

by Ben Reilly Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:15 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:I just get sick of his crap. England has a population of over 53 million living on just over 50,000 square miles; Native reservations have about 700,000 people living on 87,000 square miles. But he won't just admit that he once again dove head-first into an issue about which he's utterly ignorant -- instead he has to make idiotic trolling comments.

I'm sure the 5 million Indians would rather have their 3.7 million square miles back.

Most of them consider themselves Americans nowadays. I promise you, though, if I walked onto Navajo Nation they'd have a hell of a lot more power over me than I would over them. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, again, and are talking out of your ass as usual.

Return England to the Celts and then we can talk.

by Ben Reilly Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:15 pm

Oh, and let's not forget Northern Ireland.

by nicko Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:18 pm

typical know it all yank,your money paid for the deaths of a lot of people.

by Ben Reilly Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:21 pm

nicko wrote:typical know it all yank,your money paid for the deaths of a lot of people.

And I suppose your hands are clean in such matters?

It was a British dumb-ass who started this thread and waded into this murk, not me.

by Ben Reilly Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:23 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:I just get sick of his crap. England has a population of over 53 million living on just over 50,000 square miles; Native reservations have about 700,000 people living on 87,000 square miles. But he won't just admit that he once again dove head-first into an issue about which he's utterly ignorant -- instead he has to make idiotic trolling comments.

I'm sure the 5 million Indians would rather have their 3.7 million square miles back.

my point entirely...

You're totally hypocritical, you know that? S. Africa "giving back lands" to black people is just fine, yet Native Americans having sovereignty over lands twice the size of your country -- their own president, their own legislature, their own laws, etc. -- is somehow not?

by veya_victaous Mon Mar 24, 2014 10:07 pm

England back to the Celts cheers

do we have any Welsh ... Demand your land back

by Lone Wolf Tue Mar 25, 2014 12:49 am

::D::

ALL ENGLISCHE out of Ireland !!!

AND THEN Scotland, as well...

bounce

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:04 am

Australia back to the Aboriginal people !!

bounce

Well, giving back seems to be the theme lol

by veya_victaous Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:15 am

Sassy wrote:Australia back to the Aboriginal people !!

Well, giving back seems to be the theme lol

And make the Anglo's pay massive compensation to Everyone in the world, double the compensation they receive if they are criminals or drug addicted alcoholics cheers

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:16 am

Well, I'm the one that keeps saying how much damage we have done to the world and we should pay compensation.

by Cass Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:18 am

Don't forget all the casinos on the reservations/tribal lands over here

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:26 am

its either colonialism or it isn't, the native americans like the abo's should have their country back...

by veya_victaous Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:56 am

@GIG
I was being sarcastic the point is peoples migrate, some people co exist others assimilate. time moves on Wink

It's all well and good to be nice to each other, but not every one has the same idea of nice so it does become complex. Part of the issue here is that we as Australians are changing we are no longer Just Anglos and Aboriginals we are from all the lands of earth... wait a minute I think there is song that explains my point.

I came from the dream-time, from the dusty red soil plains
I am the ancient heart, the keeper of the flame.
I stood upon the rocky shore, I watched the tall ships come.
For forty thousand years I've been the first Australian.

We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream and sing with one voice:
I am, you are, we are Australian

I came upon the prison ship, bowed down by iron chains.
I cleared the land, endured the lash and waited for the rains.
I'm a settler, I'm a farmer's wife on a dry and barren run
A convict then a free man, I became Australian.

We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream and sing with one voice:
I am, you are, we are Australian

I'm the daughter of a digger who sought the mother lode
The girl became a woman on the long and dusty road
I'm a child of the depression, I saw the good times come
I'm a bushy, I'm a battler, I am Australian

We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream and sing with one voice:
I am, you are, we are Australian

I'm a teller of stories, I'm a singer of songs
I am Albert Namatjira, I paint the ghostly gums
I am Clancy on his horse, I'm Ned Kelly on the run
I'm the one who waltzed Matilda, I am Australian

We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream and sing with one voice:
I am, you are, we are Australian

There are no words of comfort that can hope to ease the pain
Of losing homes and loved ones the memories will remain
Within the silent tears you’ll find the strength to carry on
You’re not alone, we are with you. We are Australian!

We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream and sing with one voice:
I am, you are, we are Australian

There are so many heroes whose stories must be told
They fought the raging fires of hell and saved so many souls
From the ashes of despair our towns will rise again!
We mourn your loss, we will rebuild. We are Australian!

We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream and sing with one voice:
I am, you are, we are Australian

I'm the hot wind from the desert, I'm the black soil of the plains
I'm the mountains and the valleys, I'm the drought and flooding rains
I am the rock, I am the sky, the rivers when they run
The spirit of this great land, I am Australian

We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream and sing with one voice:
I am, you are, we are Australian
I am, you are, we are Australian!

We are one ….. We are many ….. We are Australian!

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:07 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

I'm sure the 5 million Indians would rather have their 3.7 million square miles back.

Most of them consider themselves Americans nowadays. I promise you, though, if I walked onto Navajo Nation they'd have a hell of a lot more power over me than I would over them. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, again, and are talking out of your ass as usual.

Return England to the Celts and then we can talk.

Why - where are the Celts?

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:05 am

veya_victaous wrote:@GIG
I was being sarcastic the point is peoples migrate, some people co exist others assimilate. time moves on

It's all well and good to be nice to each other, but not every one has the same idea of nice so it does become complex. Part of the issue here is that we as Australians are changing we are no longer Just Anglos and Aboriginals we are from all the lands of earth... wait a minute I think there is song that explains my point.

I came from the dream-time, from the dusty red soil plains
I am the ancient heart, the keeper of the flame.
I stood upon the rocky shore, I watched the tall ships come.
For forty thousand years I've been the first Australian.

We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream and sing with one voice:
I am, you are, we are Australian

I came upon the prison ship, bowed down by iron chains.
I cleared the land, endured the lash and waited for the rains.
I'm a settler, I'm a farmer's wife on a dry and barren run
A convict then a free man, I became Australian.

We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream and sing with one voice:
I am, you are, we are Australian

I'm the daughter of a digger who sought the mother lode
The girl became a woman on the long and dusty road
I'm a child of the depression, I saw the good times come
I'm a bushy, I'm a battler, I am Australian

We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream and sing with one voice:
I am, you are, we are Australian

I'm a teller of stories, I'm a singer of songs
I am Albert Namatjira, I paint the ghostly gums
I am Clancy on his horse, I'm Ned Kelly on the run
I'm the one who waltzed Matilda, I am Australian

We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream and sing with one voice:
I am, you are, we are Australian

There are no words of comfort that can hope to ease the pain
Of losing homes and loved ones the memories will remain
Within the silent tears you’ll find the strength to carry on
You’re not alone, we are with you. We are Australian!

We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream and sing with one voice:
I am, you are, we are Australian

There are so many heroes whose stories must be told
They fought the raging fires of hell and saved so many souls
From the ashes of despair our towns will rise again!
We mourn your loss, we will rebuild. We are Australian!

We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream and sing with one voice:
I am, you are, we are Australian

I'm the hot wind from the desert, I'm the black soil of the plains
I'm the mountains and the valleys, I'm the drought and flooding rains
I am the rock, I am the sky, the rivers when they run
The spirit of this great land, I am Australian

We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream and sing with one voice:
I am, you are, we are Australian
I am, you are, we are Australian!

We are one ….. We are many ….. We are Australian!

i did notice you were being sarcastic... Smile

but none the less if one country is put under international pressure to give back the land to the original owners, it should be the same for them all..

by Guest Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:21 am

america are at the end of their borrowing then they extended it so they could borrow more , so financially they are very extended and will eventually collapse and i will be laughing my arse off because believe it or not america you don't own the world you will get your comeuppance .
I used to enjoy holidays in Florida now i prefer to holiday in europe more people should boycott america Smile

by Sponsored content