I have nothing with you personally Halifax. Just trying to figure out the need of being a political apologist. If you don't want to answer, that's fine, I didn't really aim it at you personally but the apologists here. (You. As in "all of you" here).
Glenn Greenwald was on Democracy Now yesterday talking about how Clinton's main opponent is an untenable candidate, which is leaving her in a position where people are reticent to address some serious issues, and to be honest, I agree. Her hawkish tendencies will perpetuate the same "invade until they behave like us or in ways that benefit us", as they have historically in her political tenure (i.e. her support of several military coups in South America, as well as her silence on the topic of the current quasi-coup with the impeachment of Rousseff in Brazil). Her commitment to government bailouts, to perpetuating (or growing) the delta between the richest and the poorest in America, and yes, her flat-out denial of any wrongdoings on the topic of her private servers in the White House. Free, I'm doing an about face, and I agree with you. It's time to hold Clinton accountable for her actions - even when her opponent is a cross between mummified foreskin and cotton candy.
Benjs - I'm going to challenge a few statements here. I will cherry pick a few because others I can agree with, so don't read it wrong:
1. Bailouts - which bailouts do you support and which do you oppose? Do you oppose the GM bailout along with the banks? If yes, please explain the rationale. If you opposed both, well then you are a pure capitalist and I give you credit for consistency.
3. Warhawk... that's a tough one. Remember she was executing the policy of Obama. That's not to say she didn't agree with it, but it was the administration policy. I've found it interesting to see the vitriol against HRC for her time at State and the absolute silence to hold Obama to the same standard when, as Harry Truman famously said "The buck stops here."
1. I don't feel that we in the public reserve the right to pick and choose what bailouts to support, especially when corporations like GM so resemble banks. Monthly payments and interest charges effectively provide clients the right to withhold full payments owed in exchange for fees. Of course, there's more to a car company and to a bank, but this is a gist of it. Whether a poor-quality product is provided, or a poor-yielding set of investments is made, both entities responsible ought to be held accountable. That said, mrussell, if you're more well-versed and can add info to this topic, please do!
2. Servers - I apologize for this one! I didn't realize she had publicly shown remorse for this decision. I'm not sure what more one can ask of her in that case.
3. In some cases, I agree that she was executing the policy of Obama. Ultimately, the SOS should not be held accountable for his or her facilitating what is needed as per the POTUS' direct mandate. What he or she should be held accountable for is where their votes and public words reside, which one has to assume will represent his or her positionality in the POTUS' seat. To this end, Clinton has been consistent in voting to recognize the legitimacy of coups which provide right-leaning governments who feel that their respective developing nation ought to be subservient to the USA's self-appointed almost-sovereignty, as a byproduct of their economic buying power.
Ultimately, I've tried to live and breathe "question everything". What I'm finding is that the sheer shock value that follows every time Trump opens his mouth is like a wacky-waving-flailing-inflatable-tube-man in the corner that you can't look away from, even though you know roughly what'll happen next - and that gives Clinton the unspoken ability to slink towards the White House without questions about her positions and beliefs. This election, more than any before it, has taken away discussions of legitimate policy, positionality, value statements - and has instead become a sensationalist reality television show. Given the importance of who directs the movie of the next four years in the USA (which bleeds into the movie of so many other nations), I would really love to see this pivot.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
and how is he going to "MAKE" Mexico pay for the wall? send them a bill and then sick a collection agency on them? them claim bankruptcy and then blame them for all the financial ills of 'murica?
This is getting kinda scarey. I don't give a shit who the Democratic nom is. They should be so far in the lead with this douche on the other side. This is really painting a nasty picture of today's america.
anyone catch after the speech in Arizona, the "walk-out" song? that was played while the audience clapping and cheering and Trump waving....Sympathy for the Devil. wow.
Amy The Great #74594
New Orleans LA 7/4/95 reschedule 9/17/95
Chicago IL 1998, 10/9/00, 06/18/03, 05/16/06, 05/17/06
08/23/09, 08/24/09, Lolla 08/05/07
Champaign IL 4/23/03
Grand Rapids MI VFC 10/03/04
Grand Rapids MI 19May06
Noblesville IN 05/07/10 Cleveland OH 05/09/10
PJ 20 2011
Baltimore MD, Charlottesville VA, Seattle WA 2013
St. Louis MO, Milwaukee WI 2014
Tampa FL, Chicago IL, Lexington KY 2016 Missoula MT 2018
I have nothing with you personally Halifax. Just trying to figure out the need of being a political apologist. If you don't want to answer, that's fine, I didn't really aim it at you personally but the apologists here. (You. As in "all of you" here).
Glenn Greenwald was on Democracy Now yesterday talking about how Clinton's main opponent is an untenable candidate, which is leaving her in a position where people are reticent to address some serious issues, and to be honest, I agree. Her hawkish tendencies will perpetuate the same "invade until they behave like us or in ways that benefit us", as they have historically in her political tenure (i.e. her support of several military coups in South America, as well as her silence on the topic of the current quasi-coup with the impeachment of Rousseff in Brazil). Her commitment to government bailouts, to perpetuating (or growing) the delta between the richest and the poorest in America, and yes, her flat-out denial of any wrongdoings on the topic of her private servers in the White House. Free, I'm doing an about face, and I agree with you. It's time to hold Clinton accountable for her actions - even when her opponent is a cross between mummified foreskin and cotton candy.
Benjs - I'm going to challenge a few statements here. I will cherry pick a few because others I can agree with, so don't read it wrong:
1. Bailouts - which bailouts do you support and which do you oppose? Do you oppose the GM bailout along with the banks? If yes, please explain the rationale. If you opposed both, well then you are a pure capitalist and I give you credit for consistency.
3. Warhawk... that's a tough one. Remember she was executing the policy of Obama. That's not to say she didn't agree with it, but it was the administration policy. I've found it interesting to see the vitriol against HRC for her time at State and the absolute silence to hold Obama to the same standard when, as Harry Truman famously said "The buck stops here."
.
Ultimately, I've tried to live and breathe "question everything". What I'm finding is that the sheer shock value that follows every time Trump opens his mouth is like a wacky-waving-flailing-inflatable-tube-man in the corner that you can't look away from, even though you know roughly what'll happen next - and that gives Clinton the unspoken ability to slink towards the White House without questions about her positions and beliefs. This election, more than any before it, has taken away discussions of legitimate policy, positionality, value statements - and has instead become a sensationalist reality television show. Given the importance of who directs the movie of the next four years in the USA (which bleeds into the movie of so many other nations), I would really love to see this pivot.
I don't give a shit who the Democratic nom is. They should be so far in the lead with this douche on the other side. This is really painting a nasty picture of today's america.
This is the huge problem. Because people are so in fear of a clown taking full advantage of his publicity stunts, people will BLINDLY follow the other contender and ask NO questions. And that is so dangerous for the country!! (not you personally).
I don't give a shit who the Democratic nom is. They should be so far in the lead with this douche on the other side. This is really painting a nasty picture of today's america.
This is the huge problem. Because people are so in fear of a clown taking full advantage of his publicity stunts, people will BLINDLY follow the other contender and ask NO questions. And that is so dangerous for the country!! (not you personally).
Again, you insert the condescending word "BLINDLY" into your statement. Why can't you just accept that what is really important to you, is less important to other people. 90% of people could give a shit about Debbie Wasserman. 70% could give a shit about the wall street speeches. But you relentlessly harp on those points presumably under the assumption that these should be critical decision points in one's choice. And if they are not, they are BLIND. Sorry, that's simply not the case. People are capable of prioritizing differently than you.
Stop with the hysteria please. Again, you project that people are blindly following either candidate. Are some? Sure. Are most? Highly unlikely. What's dangerous is that one of the major political parties totally caved to the tea party alt right faction of their party. But what did you expect since this is what they've been cultivating for the past 30 years?
This will not be the new norm in American politics. This is an anomaly. Unless the republicans continue on their current path, that is.
I don't give a shit who the Democratic nom is. They should be so far in the lead with this douche on the other side. This is really painting a nasty picture of today's america.
This is the huge problem. Because people are so in fear of a clown taking full advantage of his publicity stunts, people will BLINDLY follow the other contender and ask NO questions. And that is so dangerous for the country!! (not you personally).
Again, you insert the condescending word "BLINDLY" into your statement. Why can't you just accept that what is really important to you, is less important to other people. 90% of people could give a shit about Debbie Wasserman. 70% could give a shit about the wall street speeches. But you relentlessly harp on those points presumably under the assumption that these should be critical decision points in one's choice. And if they are not, they are BLIND. Sorry, that's simply not the case. People are capable of prioritizing differently than you.
The same Debbie Wasserman who just won her primary.
I don't give a shit who the Democratic nom is. They should be so far in the lead with this douche on the other side. This is really painting a nasty picture of today's america.
This is the huge problem. Because people are so in fear of a clown taking full advantage of his publicity stunts, people will BLINDLY follow the other contender and ask NO questions. And that is so dangerous for the country!! (not you personally).
It's not a huge problem when the GOP candidate is a fucking idiot.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
You guys can take it as it ever you want to. But I am not the enemy, I am the messenger. By not questioning the other candidate and making sure that she's got the right ideas for this country you are blindly following. Wake up.
I don't give a shit who the Democratic nom is. They should be so far in the lead with this douche on the other side. This is really painting a nasty picture of today's america.
This is the huge problem. Because people are so in fear of a clown taking full advantage of his publicity stunts, people will BLINDLY follow the other contender and ask NO questions. And that is so dangerous for the country!! (not you personally).
It's not a huge problem when the GOP candidate is a fucking idiot.
anyone catch after the speech in Arizona, the "walk-out" song? that was played while the audience clapping and cheering and Trump waving....Sympathy for the Devil. wow.
No it was "you can't always get what you want " still I'm sure the Stones are not to happy
You guys can take it as it ever you want to. But I am not the enemy, I am the messenger. By not questioning the other candidate and making sure that she's got the right ideas for this country you are blindly following. Wake up.
Ok so Clinton is the devil and I can understand your hatred for her , are you ok with Trump being your president ? I'm def not
I have nothing with you personally Halifax. Just trying to figure out the need of being a political apologist. If you don't want to answer, that's fine, I didn't really aim it at you personally but the apologists here. (You. As in "all of you" here).
Glenn Greenwald was on Democracy Now yesterday talking about how Clinton's main opponent is an untenable candidate, which is leaving her in a position where people are reticent to address some serious issues, and to be honest, I agree. Her hawkish tendencies will perpetuate the same "invade until they behave like us or in ways that benefit us", as they have historically in her political tenure (i.e. her support of several military coups in South America, as well as her silence on the topic of the current quasi-coup with the impeachment of Rousseff in Brazil). Her commitment to government bailouts, to perpetuating (or growing) the delta between the richest and the poorest in America, and yes, her flat-out denial of any wrongdoings on the topic of her private servers in the White House. Free, I'm doing an about face, and I agree with you. It's time to hold Clinton accountable for her actions - even when her opponent is a cross between mummified foreskin and cotton candy.
Benjs - I'm going to challenge a few statements here. I will cherry pick a few because others I can agree with, so don't read it wrong:
1. Bailouts - which bailouts do you support and which do you oppose? Do you oppose the GM bailout along with the banks? If yes, please explain the rationale. If you opposed both, well then you are a pure capitalist and I give you credit for consistency.
3. Warhawk... that's a tough one. Remember she was executing the policy of Obama. That's not to say she didn't agree with it, but it was the administration policy. I've found it interesting to see the vitriol against HRC for her time at State and the absolute silence to hold Obama to the same standard when, as Harry Truman famously said "The buck stops here."
1. I don't feel that we in the public reserve the right to pick and choose what bailouts to support, especially when corporations like GM so resemble banks. Monthly payments and interest charges effectively provide clients the right to withhold full payments owed in exchange for fees. Of course, there's more to a car company and to a bank, but this is a gist of it. Whether a poor-quality product is provided, or a poor-yielding set of investments is made, both entities responsible ought to be held accountable. That said, mrussell, if you're more well-versed and can add info to this topic, please do!
You are correct that in some ways, an automotive company is similar to a bank (although GM spun off GMAC financing into Ally Bank a few years ago). But they are structured in similar ways and have similar issues. Without getting into the details, I supported both bailouts. And I did so for overlapping reasons. (Disclaimer: During 2008 crisis, I was in senior management at a large bank. We took TARP money because we were forced to do so by the government. The gov made solvent banks take TARP as well so the market didn't destroy the ones that were distressed... different argument though. But anyway, my perspective may be different than others.)
So I supported both bailouts. The reason I supported GM was because of all the people that were employed or connected to GM through the supply chain (truck drivers, parts makers, dealerships, etc.). The resulting unemployment, particularly in the Midwest, would have been fairly substantial and worsened an already sick economy. So the government bought preferred shares of GM (rather than just loaning $, creating more debt for them) and GM recovered. Now we taxpayers lost probably 10 billion on that deal after the government sold its shares, but that's far less than it probably would have paid in unemployment, lost taxes (personal and business), lower GDP, etc. So in all, I think it was a wise thing to do. And think of how many families that the small 10 billion investment saved.
TARP - this is the one people had a bigger problem with, but to me it was essentially the same concept, but the ramifications would have been far worse. Regardless of whose fault it was (that's a whole different discussion), the reality is that Bank provide two essential services in this country. First, they provide not only loans for cars, homes, etc, but they provide essential small business loans that are used to keep these companies afloat through payroll, through slow pay of clients etc. Second, the top six banks in the US employ 800K people. 98% of these people are just like you and me. They are middle class, and earn between 40 and 100k per year. If these banks had failed, how many middle class families would have suffered the same fate as GM families? Untold amounts, particularly since it wasn't the Chase and Citi's that really needed TARP, it was all the regional and second tier banks. And if the gov't let them fail, would the Jamie Dimon (Chase) or Ken Lewis (BAC) be hurt? Hell no. They are ungodly rich already. Letting the banks fail hurts middle class employees, not the C class. And then you let the banks fail. Then what? Then the credit market tightens because there is more competition for %, so interest rates raise. Who gets hurt there? Consumers and small business's that can't afford the double digit rates. So small businesses close because they can't float their receivable, or can't pay employees. It's a reverberating effect.
And what was the final cost of TARP? Officially the taxpayers made about 15 billion but I suspect it was an even trade because of value of the dollar and inflation. Either way, both investments were wise to me. They were not pure capitalistic, but in many ways humanitarian.
Sorry so long Benjs, but this is something I have thought about for many years.
I don't give a shit who the Democratic nom is. They should be so far in the lead with this douche on the other side. This is really painting a nasty picture of today's america.
This is the huge problem. Because people are so in fear of a clown taking full advantage of his publicity stunts, people will BLINDLY follow the other contender and ask NO questions. And that is so dangerous for the country!! (not you personally).
it's not blind. most people have openly admitted she is not ideal and she creates trust issues. people are asking questions. but what trump will do is potentially FAR WORSE than what she will do. it's unfortunately the lesser of two evils here.
I don't give a shit who the Democratic nom is. They should be so far in the lead with this douche on the other side. This is really painting a nasty picture of today's america.
This is the huge problem. Because people are so in fear of a clown taking full advantage of his publicity stunts, people will BLINDLY follow the other contender and ask NO questions. And that is so dangerous for the country!! (not you personally).
It's not a huge problem when the GOP candidate is a fucking idiot.
Man, you're proving my point again!
You keep saying that....trust me, I'm not proving any point that you think you are attempting to make
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
and how is he going to "MAKE" Mexico pay for the wall? send them a bill and then sick a collection agency on them? them claim bankruptcy and then blame them for all the financial ills of 'murica?
This is getting kinda scarey. I don't give a shit who the Democratic nom is. They should be so far in the lead with this douche on the other side. This is really painting a nasty picture of today's america.
What if I think she has the right ideas for the country?
with her lengthy shady history, and her obvious flip flopping on policy, if you have no questions about her, you're not being a very concerned citizen.
and how is he going to "MAKE" Mexico pay for the wall? send them a bill and then sick a collection agency on them? them claim bankruptcy and then blame them for all the financial ills of 'murica?
This is getting kinda scarey. I don't give a shit who the Democratic nom is. They should be so far in the lead with this douche on the other side. This is really painting a nasty picture of today's america.
No more foreign aid.
Why would it be Mexico's responsibility to pay for a wall under any scenario.? We don't force people to stay in our country, so why should they? Wouldn't it be our responsibility to pay for the method of keeping people out of our country?
I don't give a shit who the Democratic nom is. They should be so far in the lead with this douche on the other side. This is really painting a nasty picture of today's america.
This is the huge problem. Because people are so in fear of a clown taking full advantage of his publicity stunts, people will BLINDLY follow the other contender and ask NO questions. And that is so dangerous for the country!! (not you personally).
It's not a huge problem when the GOP candidate is a fucking idiot.
But a fucking idiot who has closed the gap on Hillary to within 4 points
You have not questioned Clinton's actions here, not once and 100% defended Hillary. Leading me to believe you are blindly following. Understand?
Looking for where you questioned Bernie in any way.....looking....looking.... hmmm...
If Bernie had any questionable deals and behavior, something Hilary has shown and proven multiple times, he should and would have been questioned as should be. But that's what people like about him: he's more trustworthy and reliable, and full of integrity, so much more than your candidate and you are NOT questioning her. Which is why I'm questioning all Hillary supporters for not questioning her. Her shadiness is all out there in the open. And her supporters do not question it. There is something seriously wrong with that and says a lot about the American citizen.
Comments
2. Servers - I apologize for this one! I didn't realize she had publicly shown remorse for this decision. I'm not sure what more one can ask of her in that case.
3. In some cases, I agree that she was executing the policy of Obama. Ultimately, the SOS should not be held accountable for his or her facilitating what is needed as per the POTUS' direct mandate. What he or she should be held accountable for is where their votes and public words reside, which one has to assume will represent his or her positionality in the POTUS' seat. To this end, Clinton has been consistent in voting to recognize the legitimacy of coups which provide right-leaning governments who feel that their respective developing nation ought to be subservient to the USA's self-appointed almost-sovereignty, as a byproduct of their economic buying power.
Ultimately, I've tried to live and breathe "question everything". What I'm finding is that the sheer shock value that follows every time Trump opens his mouth is like a wacky-waving-flailing-inflatable-tube-man in the corner that you can't look away from, even though you know roughly what'll happen next - and that gives Clinton the unspoken ability to slink towards the White House without questions about her positions and beliefs. This election, more than any before it, has taken away discussions of legitimate policy, positionality, value statements - and has instead become a sensationalist reality television show. Given the importance of who directs the movie of the next four years in the USA (which bleeds into the movie of so many other nations), I would really love to see this pivot.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
He's on it
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Be sure to hear this often in the future.
This is getting kinda scarey. I don't give a shit who the Democratic nom is. They should be so far in the lead with this douche on the other side. This is really painting a nasty picture of today's america.
www.headstonesband.com
New Orleans LA 7/4/95 reschedule 9/17/95
Chicago IL 1998, 10/9/00, 06/18/03, 05/16/06, 05/17/06
08/23/09, 08/24/09, Lolla 08/05/07
Champaign IL 4/23/03
Grand Rapids MI VFC 10/03/04
Grand Rapids MI 19May06
Noblesville IN 05/07/10 Cleveland OH 05/09/10
PJ 20 2011
Baltimore MD, Charlottesville VA, Seattle WA 2013
St. Louis MO, Milwaukee WI 2014
Tampa FL, Chicago IL, Lexington KY 2016
Missoula MT 2018
This will not be the new norm in American politics. This is an anomaly. Unless the republicans continue on their current path, that is.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
So I supported both bailouts. The reason I supported GM was because of all the people that were employed or connected to GM through the supply chain (truck drivers, parts makers, dealerships, etc.). The resulting unemployment, particularly in the Midwest, would have been fairly substantial and worsened an already sick economy. So the government bought preferred shares of GM (rather than just loaning $, creating more debt for them) and GM recovered. Now we taxpayers lost probably 10 billion on that deal after the government sold its shares, but that's far less than it probably would have paid in unemployment, lost taxes (personal and business), lower GDP, etc. So in all, I think it was a wise thing to do. And think of how many families that the small 10 billion investment saved.
TARP - this is the one people had a bigger problem with, but to me it was essentially the same concept, but the ramifications would have been far worse. Regardless of whose fault it was (that's a whole different discussion), the reality is that Bank provide two essential services in this country. First, they provide not only loans for cars, homes, etc, but they provide essential small business loans that are used to keep these companies afloat through payroll, through slow pay of clients etc. Second, the top six banks in the US employ 800K people. 98% of these people are just like you and me. They are middle class, and earn between 40 and 100k per year. If these banks had failed, how many middle class families would have suffered the same fate as GM families? Untold amounts, particularly since it wasn't the Chase and Citi's that really needed TARP, it was all the regional and second tier banks. And if the gov't let them fail, would the Jamie Dimon (Chase) or Ken Lewis (BAC) be hurt? Hell no. They are ungodly rich already. Letting the banks fail hurts middle class employees, not the C class.
And then you let the banks fail. Then what? Then the credit market tightens because there is more competition for %, so interest rates raise. Who gets hurt there? Consumers and small business's that can't afford the double digit rates. So small businesses close because they can't float their receivable, or can't pay employees. It's a reverberating effect.
And what was the final cost of TARP? Officially the taxpayers made about 15 billion but I suspect it was an even trade because of value of the dollar and inflation. Either way, both investments were wise to me. They were not pure capitalistic, but in many ways humanitarian.
Sorry so long Benjs, but this is something I have thought about for many years.
www.headstonesband.com
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana