DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say "well-played" by all sides!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:

    ANYBODY dispute OBAMA is a LIAR???????????????




    NO TAKERS........I thought so




    i'm sorry. yes he is a liar,

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    Abraham LINCOLN  quotes:

    *You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich

    *You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong

    *You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift

    *You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down

    *You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

    *You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence

    *You cannot help people permanently by doing for them,what they could and should do for themselves.

     

    Compare that to OBAMA's action and rhetoric!!!!!!!!!!   All coolade drinkers take note!!!!

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    By the way, before the Duck guys were supposed rednecks, they were yuppies, check out these before and after photos, yet another conspiracy which turns out to be true:

    http://keep0smiling.blogspot.com/2013/07/duck-dynasty-before-and-after-beards-25.html

    Posers 

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:


    Spending as a percentage of GDP did decline.  I thought we were talking about debt relative to GDP, no?  Wasn't that your point above? If we are talking about debt as a percentage of GDP, then spending and tax revenues both need to be discussed as percentages of GDP as well.  

    Sure in absolute dollars (or even inflation adjusted dollars) there's been an increase in spending all along (though at a slower rate during the Clinton years than during the Reagan years).  But we tend to look at these things relative to the size of the economy (i.e., relative to GDP) and if we look as a percentage of GDP spending under Clinton was far lower than under Reagan. 

    Again, refer to this graph:

     



    OK.  Just a misuderstanding.  That's fine.  But if you are going to use that graph, why don't we avoid the cropping and show a broader timeline?   When you look at WW2 there is an enormous, and understandable gap undere FDR.   But who would argue that the temporary spike wasn't worthwhile?  We helped save Europe and the Free World.

    Likewise, under Reagan, the spike in military spending helped end the Cold War.  There is no graph that can show all the benefits derived by that effort.  It's not quantifiable.

     



    I still do not see the evidence the military spending in the 80's ended the cold war. It was Gorbachev's reforms that destroyed the Soviet Union. If he hadn't of liberalized his regime the country would not have collapsed. They had been a mess economically forever, even under the Czar the country was a mess. They never had a middle class of any size. I've read several books on the subject, mostly written by English economic conservatives (Tories if you wish) and the collapse was internal. Our military equipment had been better since the 1960's and it was never close. It wasn't just M1A1's that were destroying T72's in the first gulf war, our M60's had no trouble with them either. The Israeli's had been using French equipment to destroy Soviet equipment for years. The Soviets since Stalin had never been able to compete with us in spending. We now know the Soviets did not increase their defense spending to compete with Reagan. That turned out to be false. They did not bankrupt themselves competing with Reagan. They had bankrupted themselves competing with Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and then finally Reagan. The Soviet military spending did not increase in reaction to Reagan. It was always high. In fact Gorbachev wanted to reduce the military immediately upon becoming premier for idealogical reasons. Remember the talks in Iceland where Reagan actually went liberal and agreed to reduce our arsenal. Something he mocked Nixon about. Many believe "star wars" prolonged Communism instead of destroying it. The belief is with SDI the Soviet Generals refused to accept any weakining of the Soviet Union's military position. Gorbachev for whatever reason was actually a peacenick. He was not a believer in democracy per se. He was trying to reform the Soviet Union, not destroy it but once he reined in his army nothing could protect the eastern European puppets. Once they collapsed the whole house of cards soon came falling.


    Of course.  It's quite possible (quite likely, in fact) that the Soviet Union would have collapsed all on its own without Reagan spending a dollar more on defense.  But if true, that would shatter the myth and prove Reagan and all his supporters fools.  We can't have that can we?

    Regardless, it's an absolute fact that Reagan was a big spender who increased the size of government and the size of the national debt dramatically.  Those who like Reagan will claim that all that spending was necessary and beneficial because of its alleged impact on the Soviet Union.  But it's just as possible it was a waste of money . . . unless of course you're a Keynesian and think the government spending was just a good way to boost the economy.  Sometimes I have a sneaking suspicion that Reagan's advisors really were secret Keynesians, trying to capture some of FDR's wartime economic magic for themselves all the while maintaining a facade of disliking government spending as a way to attack what they really didn't like: social programs for the poor. 

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to kansaspatriot's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Only Clinton can show a decrease among presidents since Carter. 

     

     




    Well of course Clinton reduced the deficit. He had the largest tax increase in history. Why is this even a point of discussion?

     



    some of these guys don't get it



    No actually, we do.  You can't reduce the debt without raising revenues or decreasing spending or both.  The Republicans keep cutting taxes while raising spending.  That increases the debt.  It's simple math. 

    The problem is that you conservatives put on blinders to the spending because so much of it is spent on your beloved war machine. 

    You'd rather pay for bombs to kill people overseas than for health care to save the lives of Americans here. Object to that statement if you want, but actions speak far louder than words. 

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:


    Spending as a percentage of GDP did decline.  I thought we were talking about debt relative to GDP, no?  Wasn't that your point above? If we are talking about debt as a percentage of GDP, then spending and tax revenues both need to be discussed as percentages of GDP as well.  

    Sure in absolute dollars (or even inflation adjusted dollars) there's been an increase in spending all along (though at a slower rate during the Clinton years than during the Reagan years).  But we tend to look at these things relative to the size of the economy (i.e., relative to GDP) and if we look as a percentage of GDP spending under Clinton was far lower than under Reagan. 

    Again, refer to this graph:

     



    OK.  Just a misuderstanding.  That's fine.  But if you are going to use that graph, why don't we avoid the cropping and show a broader timeline?   When you look at WW2 there is an enormous, and understandable gap undere FDR.   But who would argue that the temporary spike wasn't worthwhile?  We helped save Europe and the Free World.

    Likewise, under Reagan, the spike in military spending helped end the Cold War.  There is no graph that can show all the benefits derived by that effort.  It's not quantifiable.

     



    I still do not see the evidence the military spending in the 80's ended the cold war. It was Gorbachev's reforms that destroyed the Soviet Union. If he hadn't of liberalized his regime the country would not have collapsed. They had been a mess economically forever, even under the Czar the country was a mess.



    Wrong. The Soviet economy chugged right along from the end of WW1 until Reagan outspent them in the arms race. The liberal BS spin that glasnost/perestroika was the cause of the collapse is absurd. Rather, glasnost/perestroika was a reaction to the strangulation of the Soviet economy Reagan had perpetrated.

    It is simply repugnant when people's politics make honesty an impossibility for them.

     



    Sorry Babe, you're describing yourself here.  The Soviet economy was under duress for years and, according to CIA estimates, their spending on defense did not increase in response to Reagan's expenditures.  It's you who are making things up here to fit your preconceived ideas, not the other way around. 

    The argument that Reagan drove the Soviet Union's economy into the ground by outspending them has always been a weak one.  But it's a cherished myth among conservatives who need some way to make sense of the fact that their small-government hero dramatically increased government spending and the national debt. 

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from CatfishHunter. Show CatfishHunter's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:


    Sorry Babe, you're describing yourself here.  The Soviet economy was under duress for years and, according to CIA estimates, their spending on defense did not increase in response to Reagan's expenditures.  It's you who are making things up here to fit your preconceived ideas, not the other way around. 

    The argument that Reagan drove the Soviet Union's economy into the ground by outspending them has always been a weak one.  But it's a cherished myth among conservatives who need some way to make sense of the fact that their small-government hero dramatically increased government spending and the national debt. 

     



    Have you ever played poker?   Reagan raised the stakes (military spending) and the USSR folded their hand.  That's as simplistic and accurate an analogy as the average guy can understand.   But, in order to convince the USSR that he meant business he also backed the Afghan resistance to the Soviet invasion there.   Without the weaponry we funneled into Afghanistan the Soviet defeat there would not have been so devastating.  Reagan didn't do it alone.  Thatcher provided a unified front.  The implication to the Soviets was unmistakable - the game has changed.

    And all of ^^^ was also substantially echoed by Gorbachev after the Cold War ended.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:

    ANYBODY dispute OBAMA is a LIAR???????????????




    NO TAKERS........I thought so



    bump for coolade drinkers

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:

     

    Abraham LINCOLN  quotes:

    *You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich

    *You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong

    *You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift

    *You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down

    *You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

    *You cannot build character and courageby taking away people's initiative and independence

    *You cannot help people permanently by doing for them,what they could and should do for themselves.

     

    Compare that to OBAMA's action and rhetoric!!!!!!!!!!   All coolade drinkers take note!!!!

     



    bump for media fairness

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:


    Sorry Babe, you're describing yourself here.  The Soviet economy was under duress for years and, according to CIA estimates, their spending on defense did not increase in response to Reagan's expenditures.  It's you who are making things up here to fit your preconceived ideas, not the other way around. 

    The argument that Reagan drove the Soviet Union's economy into the ground by outspending them has always been a weak one.  But it's a cherished myth among conservatives who need some way to make sense of the fact that their small-government hero dramatically increased government spending and the national debt. 

     

     



    Have you ever played poker?   Reagan raised the stakes (military spending) and the USSR folded their hand.  That's as simplistic and accurate an analogy as the average guy can understand.   But, in order to convince the USSR that he meant business he also backed the Afghan resistance to the Soviet invasion there.   Without the weaponry we funneled into Afghanistan the Soviet defeat there would not have been so devastating.  Reagan didn't do it alone.  Thatcher provided a unified front.  The implication to the Soviets was unmistakable - the game has changed.

     

    And all of ^^^ was also substantially echoed by Gorbachev after the Cold War ended.

    This interpretation assumes that Gorbachev was playing poker.  Breshnev may have been, but I think Gorbachev had already decided to leave that table. He was most concerned with a stagnant Soviet economy and didn't really see the need for continued Cold War parlor games.  It's quite possible (likely even) that the collapse of the Soviet Union would have been achieved without Reagan's big defense build up. Of course, it's impossible to prove either way because we can't see what would have happened had Reagan not spent all that tax money on defense.

    Nonetheless, whether you think the outcome was good or not, it's impossible to deny that Reagan decided to significantly increase government spending.  He claimed to be against government spending, but he spent freely, and greatly increased the size of the government and the national debt.  Its fine to claim that you think this kind of spending is okay and spending on stuff like health care isn't.  But it's government spending nonetheless. 

     

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:

    Abraham LINCOLN  quotes:

    *You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich

    *You cannot strengten the weak by weakening the strong

    *You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift

    *You cannotlift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down

    *You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

    *You cannot build character and courageby taking away people's initiative and independence

    *You cannot help people permanently by doing for them,what they could and should do for themselves.

     

    Compare that to OBAMA's action and rhetoric!!!!!!!!!!   All coolade drinkers take note!!!!



    bump for media fairness



    It's like Lincoln was warning us about this guy. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:

    Abraham LINCOLN  quotes:

    *You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich

    *You cannot strengten the weak by weakening the strong

    *You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift

    *You cannotlift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down

    *You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

    *You cannot build character and courageby taking away people's initiative and independence

    *You cannot help people permanently by doing for them,what they could and should do for themselves.

     

    Compare that to OBAMA's action and rhetoric!!!!!!!!!!   All coolade drinkers take note!!!!



    bump for media fairness



    It's like Lincoln was warning us about this guy. 



    I'd say. Not to mention Lincoln's statement about " fooling some of the people all of the time and fooling most people some of the time, but not all of the people all ofthe time. 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    So much nonsense here, let's dismantle it piece by piece.

    I am glad to see you did some internet research, though you won't admit the obvious. If Chernenko does not die the Soviet Union survives longer because there is no Perestroika and therefore no collapse.

    I don't need to do any research to see that Reagan set out to destroy the Soviets economically, and shortly thereafter they were destroyed. You're the one who has to jump through hoops trying to portray that as a coincidence.

    You have no way of knowing whether Chernenko would have been deposed or would have enacted reforms based on the crisis brewing, had he not died. Andropov, Chernenko's predecessor, was considered a reformer and wanted Gorbachev to succeed him. Chernenko was so ill, and in charge for so short a time, it is impossible to say he would have adhered to Brezhenev's policies.

     

    Reagan did not spend them into oblivion. They were spending the same under Carter and Ford and Nixon. Reagan spent us into huge debt which had positives but the collapse of the Soviet Union was not one of them. Technically the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 so it would be Bush who beat them not Reagan under your theory.

    C'mon, the coup de gras of the Soviet Empire was applied by Reagan. They had been faltering since the mid 70's and Reagan's military spending denied them the option of cutting their own such expenditures to remedy the sinking economy.

    Why didn't the Soviets cut back when Carter was president since he was supposedly weak. Why didn't they increase against Reagan when he was spending a fortune. There economy was a mess and it was always a mess. If the economy was enough to kill it it would have died while Stalin was in charge, or Kruschev, or Brezhnev, or Andropov or Chernenko.

    Wrong. By all estimates the Soviet economy was quite robust during the Brezhnev years, until the mid 70s. As it began to falter, largely brought on by the expense of the arms race, several remedies were attempted to no avail. Andropov was elected because he was a reformer. Chernenko was a sick man that nobody can even explain why he was elected other than it was his turn. The fact is that economy was in dire straits and Reagan kept the heat on it big-time. Any other conclusion is simply political dishonesty at it's root.

    Remember, Reagan based his spending on CIA analysis which everyone now knows to be completely wrong. Reagan thought the Soviets were spending massively more than they actually were. The CIA, as usual throughout it's history, was completely wrong. Reagan spent the money because he was trying to catch up withn the Soviets. We now know we had long since surpassed them.

    This is more pure nonsense. The CIA analysis was fairly accurate, if not in precise terms, then certainly in the trends. Even the numbers the USSR gives show this. The ruskie economy was faltering starting no later than1975.

    Looking back at the junk they were producing it's almost laughable but Reagan was a true cold warrior. He believed in the domino theory and the CIA told him what he wanted to hear just like it told Bush what he wanted to hear in 2003 about WMD's. Plenty of democrats believed it too, especially if a defense plant was in their district. I don't blame Reagan completely for the deficit. The American people loved it like they still do. Pay for it on your credit card. You convince yourself after the fact that it was for a worthy cause. Maybe it was but the collapse of the Soviet Union was not caused by Reagans deficit spending.

    ^ Pure political crap here. The Soviets had some 25,000 tanks in E. Germany alone. While they were not as battle worthy or as efficient as our equipment, scoffing at that kind of military muscle is the endeavor of a fool.

     

    Did Reagan cause the Soviets heartburn, of course he did. Supplying the Afghans with weapons certainly killed a lot of Soviet soldiers but that didn't cause the Soviets to lose the war. Heck, with no superpower supplying the Afghani's we can't beat them either. They are tough fighters and they are not afraid of dying because we have killed a lot of them and it does not seem to be improving much there.

    This is more indications that you are ignorant on these issues. Nobody is going to completely conquer Afghanistan, ever. The place is inundated with large mountains that shelter insurgents. Nobody has ever ruled that whole place. Reagan's military spending had nothing to do with Afghanistan. It simply kept the pressure of the arms race up against a foe who no longer could afford to play that game.

    I actually think Reagans foreign policy was fairly awful. The Beirut fiasco, the embarrasing response to the Falklands war (we actually had parts of the Reagan administration openly support the Argentine dictators) the silly Grenada invasion, supporting violent dictators in central America, supporting the Khmer Rouge for goodness sakes. We supported South Africa and apertheid while Reagan was president also. Don't get me started on the arms for hostages and how that fiasco worked out. The first Bush was great with foreign policy, absolutely brilliant carried us through the 90's. Nixon had his moments too but Reagan was complete amateur hour. Even worse than Bush 2 and Obama and that's saying something.

    This has nothing to do with our discussion so I'll leave it alone. Otherwise I would be happy to hand you your azz on some of these issues too.

     

    Even Gorbachev admits the arms race was one of the prime factors in the stagnation of the Soviet economy. Reagan upping the ante could only exasperate that malady and did not allow for reductions in that spending to spur the faltering economy. Denying this is the epitome of political ho-dom. You are what you are.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    So much nonsense here, let's dismantle it piece by piece.

    I am glad to see you did some internet research, though you won't admit the obvious. If Chernenko does not die the Soviet Union survives longer because there is no Perestroika and therefore no collapse.

    I don't need to do any research to see that Reagan set out to destroy the Soviets economically, and shortly thereafter they were destroyed. You're the one who has to jump through hoops trying to portray that as a coincidence.

    Clinton set out to improve the economy too . . . and guess what it improved!  I'm sure you give him credit too.  

    You have no way of knowing whether Chernenko would have been deposed or would have enacted reforms based on the crisis brewing, had he not died. Andropov, Chernenko's predecessor, was considered a reformer and wanted Gorbachev to succeed him. Chernenko was so ill, and in charge for so short a time, it is impossible to say he would have adhered to Brezhenev's policies.

     

    Reagan did not spend them into oblivion. They were spending the same under Carter and Ford and Nixon. Reagan spent us into huge debt which had positives but the collapse of the Soviet Union was not one of them. Technically the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 so it would be Bush who beat them not Reagan under your theory.

    C'mon, the coup de gras of the Soviet Empire was applied by Reagan. They had been faltering since the mid 70's and Reagan's military spending denied them the option of cutting their own such expenditures to remedy the sinking economy.

    Why didn't the Soviets cut back when Carter was president since he was supposedly weak. Why didn't they increase against Reagan when he was spending a fortune. There economy was a mess and it was always a mess. If the economy was enough to kill it it would have died while Stalin was in charge, or Kruschev, or Brezhnev, or Andropov or Chernenko.

    Wrong. By all estimates the Soviet economy was quite robust during the Brezhnev years, until the mid 70s. As it began to falter, largely brought on by the expense of the arms race, several remedies were attempted to no avail. Andropov was elected because he was a reformer. Chernenko was a sick man that nobody can even explain why he was elected other than it was his turn. The fact is that economy was in dire straits and Reagan kept the heat on it big-time. Any other conclusion is simply political dishonesty at it's root.

    Remember, Reagan based his spending on CIA analysis which everyone now knows to be completely wrong. Reagan thought the Soviets were spending massively more than they actually were. The CIA, as usual throughout it's history, was completely wrong. Reagan spent the money because he was trying to catch up withn the Soviets. We now know we had long since surpassed them.

    This is more pure nonsense. The CIA analysis was fairly accurate, if not in precise terms, then certainly in the trends. Even the numbers the USSR gives show this. The ruskie economy was faltering starting no later than1975.

    Looking back at the junk they were producing it's almost laughable but Reagan was a true cold warrior. He believed in the domino theory and the CIA told him what he wanted to hear just like it told Bush what he wanted to hear in 2003 about WMD's. Plenty of democrats believed it too, especially if a defense plant was in their district. I don't blame Reagan completely for the deficit. The American people loved it like they still do. Pay for it on your credit card. You convince yourself after the fact that it was for a worthy cause. Maybe it was but the collapse of the Soviet Union was not caused by Reagans deficit spending.

    ^ Pure political crap here. The Soviets had some 25,000 tanks in E. Germany alone. While they were not as battle worthy or as efficient as our equipment, scoffing at that kind of military muscle is the endeavor of a fool.

     

    Did Reagan cause the Soviets heartburn, of course he did. Supplying the Afghans with weapons certainly killed a lot of Soviet soldiers but that didn't cause the Soviets to lose the war. Heck, with no superpower supplying the Afghani's we can't beat them either. They are tough fighters and they are not afraid of dying because we have killed a lot of them and it does not seem to be improving much there.

    This is more indications that you are ignorant on these issues. Nobody is going to completely conquer Afghanistan, ever. The place is inundated with large mountains that shelter insurgents. Nobody has ever ruled that whole place. Reagan's military spending had nothing to do with Afghanistan. It simply kept the pressure of the arms race up against a foe who no longer could afford to play that game.

    I actually think Reagans foreign policy was fairly awful. The Beirut fiasco, the embarrasing response to the Falklands war (we actually had parts of the Reagan administration openly support the Argentine dictators) the silly Grenada invasion, supporting violent dictators in central America, supporting the Khmer Rouge for goodness sakes. We supported South Africa and apertheid while Reagan was president also. Don't get me started on the arms for hostages and how that fiasco worked out. The first Bush was great with foreign policy, absolutely brilliant carried us through the 90's. Nixon had his moments too but Reagan was complete amateur hour. Even worse than Bush 2 and Obama and that's saying something.

    This has nothing to do with our discussion so I'll leave it alone. Otherwise I would be happy to hand you your azz on some of these issues too.

     

    Even Gorbachev admits the arms race was one of the prime factors in the stagnation of the Soviet economy. Reagan upping the ante could only exasperate that malady and did not allow for reductions in that spending to spur the faltering economy. Denying this is the epitome of political ho-dom. You are what you are.




     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     


    I still do not see the evidence the military spending in the 80's ended the cold war. It was Gorbachev's reforms that destroyed the Soviet Union. If he hadn't of liberalized his regime the country would not have collapsed. They had been a mess economically forever, even under the Czar the country was a mess.

     



    Wrong. The Soviet economy chugged right along from the end of WW1 until Reagan outspent them in the arms race. The liberal BS spin that glasnost/perestroika was the cause of the collapse is absurd. Rather, glasnost/perestroika was a reaction to the strangulation of the Soviet economy Reagan had perpetrated.

     

    It is simply repugnant when people's politics make honesty an impossibility for them.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Sorry Babe, you're describing yourself here.  The Soviet economy was under duress for years and, according to CIA estimates, their spending on defense did not increase in response to Reagan's expenditures.  It's you who are making things up here to fit your preconceived ideas, not the other way around. 

    The argument that Reagan drove the Soviet Union's economy into the ground by outspending them has always been a weak one.  But it's a cherished myth among conservatives who need some way to make sense of the fact that their small-government hero dramatically increased government spending and the national debt. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    No pro, I'm describing YOU.

    Reagan put big pressure on the Soviets to keep their military spending high while their economy was slowing down. This is irrefutable. They had the money to keep that up throughout most of the Brezhnev years. But during the 70's problems started to surface and their best option would have been to cut back. Reagan made that a scary proposition for them.

    The difference between me and you is that I view each issue separately without the shackles of a party line to force my perception, unlike you.

    Any fair assessment of Reagan's military spending shows that it was decisive in sinking an economy at exactly the right opportunity.

    Of course the same ilk as you tried to prevent the installation of short range nuclear missiles in W. Europe. But sanity prevailed, and the Soviets removed theirs from E. Europe.

    If you want some examples of things I think Reagan did wrong, I'll provide them sometime.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bradysgirlforreal. Show Bradysgirlforreal's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    Yeah because with a 300-600 million dollar healthcare website that doesn't work, the crashing dollar, war on multiple fronts, a Dept Of Homeland Security that is amassing an army, motorized weapons, an endless supply of ammunition to use against it's own citizens and concentration camps strategically scattered around the country I'm sure what a bunch of fake redneck crackers who pretend to be dumber than they really are on TV matters...

    Boy for a contrarian you sure take up the most BS distractions the powers that be offer up and leave the actual issues alone don't you?

     




    Very well said!!  --  bravo a fellow American that does'nt have his head in the sand-we all need to gear up for what's coming-like it or not?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    So much nonsense here, let's dismantle it piece by piece.

    I am glad to see you did some internet research, though you won't admit the obvious. If Chernenko does not die the Soviet Union survives longer because there is no Perestroika and therefore no collapse.

    I don't need to do any research to see that Reagan set out to destroy the Soviets economically, and shortly thereafter they were destroyed. You're the one who has to jump through hoops trying to portray that as a coincidence.

    Clinton set out to improve the economy too . . . and guess what it improved!  I'm sure you give him credit too.  



    ^ This is what I mean. Every honest and objective person agrees that Clinton was in the right place at the right time to enjoy the dotcom bubble. He did not a f'n thing to improve the economy. Reagan actually did something to effect his goal, whether you or any other political hos want to admit it or not.

    Johnson, Carter, Bush, Clinton, Bush2 and Obama were/are all failures at their job. Reagan, Kennedy and Ike were decent.

    Pro, you are much with politics as Rusty is with football; not very honest, and a ho to your agenda.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    So much nonsense here, let's dismantle it piece by piece.

    I am glad to see you did some internet research, though you won't admit the obvious. If Chernenko does not die the Soviet Union survives longer because there is no Perestroika and therefore no collapse.

    I don't need to do any research to see that Reagan set out to destroy the Soviets economically, and shortly thereafter they were destroyed. You're the one who has to jump through hoops trying to portray that as a coincidence.

    Clinton set out to improve the economy too . . . and guess what it improved!  I'm sure you give him credit too.  

     



    ^ This is what I mean. Every honest and objective person agrees that Clinton was in the right place at the right time to enjoy the dotcom bubble. He did not a f'n thing to improve the economy. Reagan actually did something to effect his goal, whether you or any other political hos want to admit it or not.

     

    Johnson, Carter, Bush, Clinton, Bush2 and Obama were/are all failures at their job. Reagan, Kennedy and Ike were decent.

    Pro, you are much with politics as Rusty is with football; not very honest, and a ho to your agenda.

     




    NAFTA, balancing the budget, welfare reform, deregulaton?  Weren't these intended to improve the economy?  Who's being dishonest here?  The same logic you used to give credit to Reagan for the collapse of Soviet Union also requires you to give credit to Clinton for improving the economy.  If you try to have it both ways, you just prove it's you who are the intellectually dishonest one . . .

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:


    Sorry Babe, you're describing yourself here.  The Soviet economy was under duress for years and, according to CIA estimates, their spending on defense did not increase in response to Reagan's expenditures.  It's you who are making things up here to fit your preconceived ideas, not the other way around. 

    The argument that Reagan drove the Soviet Union's economy into the ground by outspending them has always been a weak one.  But it's a cherished myth among conservatives who need some way to make sense of the fact that their small-government hero dramatically increased government spending and the national debt. 

     



    Have you ever played poker?   Reagan raised the stakes (military spending) and the USSR folded their hand.  That's as simplistic and accurate an analogy as the average guy can understand.   But, in order to convince the USSR that he meant business he also backed the Afghan resistance to the Soviet invasion there.   Without the weaponry we funneled into Afghanistan the Soviet defeat there would not have been so devastating.  Reagan didn't do it alone.  Thatcher provided a unified front.  The implication to the Soviets was unmistakable - the game has changed.

    And all of ^^^ was also substantially echoed by Gorbachev after the Cold War ended.



    Show some evidence of this please. Gorbachev was considered a reformer before taking office. He was an Andropov supporter. That is why he became premier. It had nothing to do with the defense budget. Perestroika destroyed communism from the inside and Gorbachev didn't have the inclination to use the military to save it. Gorbachev didn't create a parliament because of our defense spending. The Russian people didn't elect anti communists ino that parliament because of Reagan. Once the Russian people got electoral rights (as limited as they were) and free speech which would not lead to a gulag, communism was dead. Only force could save it and Gorbachev did not have the heart to do it. When the hard line coup finally came in 1991 it was too late. Yeltsin was the hero who stood up, not Gorbachev. Yeltsin had become an anti communist hero and was now an international "rock star" destroying communism who just happened to despise Gorbachev for trying to save it. You can't save a dictatorship by allowing free speech and holding elections unless the people wanted to be terrorized. Once the masses realized they were not going to jail for criticizing the politburo nothing could save it. Gorbachev was known to oppose the Afghan war from before he became premier, and like Nixon wanted out with some sort of honor intact. The Soviet Unions economy was always a mess. They never dug themselves out of anything. The Soviet Union was an economic mess when they invaded Hungary in 1956 and they were an economic mess in 1968 when they invaded Czecheslovakia. If they had invaded Poland in 1989 to save communism I guarantee you they would have saved it. By announcing to the world they would no longer interfere in Warsaw Pact domestic policies they destroyed the Warsaw Pact. Poland like Czecheslovakia was communist for 2 reasons only. A vbrutal secret police force and the Russian Army. Once the second was removed the first couldn't hold on.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    So much nonsense here, let's dismantle it piece by piece.

    I am glad to see you did some internet research, though you won't admit the obvious. If Chernenko does not die the Soviet Union survives longer because there is no Perestroika and therefore no collapse.

    I don't need to do any research to see that Reagan set out to destroy the Soviets economically, and shortly thereafter they were destroyed. You're the one who has to jump through hoops trying to portray that as a coincidence.

    Clinton set out to improve the economy too . . . and guess what it improved!  I'm sure you give him credit too.  

     



    ^ This is what I mean. Every honest and objective person agrees that Clinton was in the right place at the right time to enjoy the dotcom bubble. He did not a f'n thing to improve the economy. Reagan actually did something to effect his goal, whether you or any other political hos want to admit it or not.

     

    Johnson, Carter, Bush, Clinton, Bush2 and Obama were/are all failures at their job. Reagan, Kennedy and Ike were decent.

    Pro, you are much with politics as Rusty is with football; not very honest, and a ho to your agenda.

     




    NAFTA, balancing the budget, welfare reform, deregulaton?  Weren't these intended to improve the economy?  Who's being dishonest here?  The same logic you used to give credit to Reagan for the collapse of Soviet Union also requires you to give credit to Clinton for improving the economy.  If you try to have it both ways, you just prove it's you who are the intellectually dishonest one . . .

     




    You just HAVE to be kidding me. The largest tax increase in history (to balance the budget) was a move to improve the economy? What credible economist on earth thinks a major tax hike is beneficial to an economy? Welfare reform was an economy fixing plan? Deregulation isn't going far to fix an economy. All these things had nothing whatsoever to do with the thing that actually fueled Clinton's economy; the dotcom bubble.

    Pro, I'm putting you on ignore. You're not a bad guy, but your politics are so worthless to even read I don't want to continue or I might say things I regret. I do enjoy your football talk, but it's just not enough of a tradeoff to endure the occasional political mindlessness you belch.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    So much nonsense here, let's dismantle it piece by piece.

    I am glad to see you did some internet research, though you won't admit the obvious. If Chernenko does not die the Soviet Union survives longer because there is no Perestroika and therefore no collapse.

    I don't need to do any research to see that Reagan set out to destroy the Soviets economically, and shortly thereafter they were destroyed. You're the one who has to jump through hoops trying to portray that as a coincidence.

    Clinton set out to improve the economy too . . . and guess what it improved!  I'm sure you give him credit too.  

     



    ^ This is what I mean. Every honest and objective person agrees that Clinton was in the right place at the right time to enjoy the dotcom bubble. He did not a f'n thing to improve the economy. Reagan actually did something to effect his goal, whether you or any other political hos want to admit it or not.

     

    Johnson, Carter, Bush, Clinton, Bush2 and Obama were/are all failures at their job. Reagan, Kennedy and Ike were decent.

    Pro, you are much with politics as Rusty is with football; not very honest, and a ho to your agenda.

     




    NAFTA, balancing the budget, welfare reform, deregulaton?  Weren't these intended to improve the economy?  Who's being dishonest here?  The same logic you used to give credit to Reagan for the collapse of Soviet Union also requires you to give credit to Clinton for improving the economy.  If you try to have it both ways, you just prove it's you who are the intellectually dishonest one . . .

     



    Deregulation? Like repealing glass-steagall? Yeah, that was brilliant. That helped set us on a 8 year recession and counting. Nafta as well as naftas big brother TPP are jokes. Gee, I wonder where all the jobs keep going? 

    Not arguing that Clinton did do some economic good. But how much good and how much of it him vs dotcom, pre 2k stuff it is hard to tell. He also did plenty bad and I am not talking about Monica, the various real estate scams or those he knocked off either.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    So much nonsense here, let's dismantle it piece by piece.

    I am glad to see you did some internet research, though you won't admit the obvious. If Chernenko does not die the Soviet Union survives longer because there is no Perestroika and therefore no collapse.

    I don't need to do any research to see that Reagan set out to destroy the Soviets economically, and shortly thereafter they were destroyed. You're the one who has to jump through hoops trying to portray that as a coincidence.

    Clinton set out to improve the economy too . . . and guess what it improved!  I'm sure you give him credit too.  

     



    ^ This is what I mean. Every honest and objective person agrees that Clinton was in the right place at the right time to enjoy the dotcom bubble. He did not a f'n thing to improve the economy. Reagan actually did something to effect his goal, whether you or any other political hos want to admit it or not.

     

    Johnson, Carter, Bush, Clinton, Bush2 and Obama were/are all failures at their job. Reagan, Kennedy and Ike were decent.

    Pro, you are much with politics as Rusty is with football; not very honest, and a ho to your agenda.

     




    NAFTA, balancing the budget, welfare reform, deregulaton?  Weren't these intended to improve the economy?  Who's being dishonest here?  The same logic you used to give credit to Reagan for the collapse of Soviet Union also requires you to give credit to Clinton for improving the economy.  If you try to have it both ways, you just prove it's you who are the intellectually dishonest one . . .

     




    You just HAVE to be kidding me. The largest tax increase in history (to balance the budget) was a move to improve the economy? What credible economist on earth thinks a major tax hike is beneficial to an economy? Welfare reform was an economy fixing plan? Deregulation isn't going far to fix an economy. All these things had nothing whatsoever to do with the thing that actually fueled Clinton's economy; the dotcom bubble.

    Pro, I'm putting you on ignore. You're not a bad guy, but your politics are so worthless to even read I don't want to continue or I might say things I regret. I do enjoy your football talk, but it's just not enough of a tradeoff to endure the occasional political mindlessness you belch.



    Better to shut your eyes and close your mind.  Par for the course apparently . . . Wink

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    So much nonsense here, let's dismantle it piece by piece.

    I am glad to see you did some internet research, though you won't admit the obvious. If Chernenko does not die the Soviet Union survives longer because there is no Perestroika and therefore no collapse.

    I don't need to do any research to see that Reagan set out to destroy the Soviets economically, and shortly thereafter they were destroyed. You're the one who has to jump through hoops trying to portray that as a coincidence.

    Clinton set out to improve the economy too . . . and guess what it improved!  I'm sure you give him credit too.  

     



    ^ This is what I mean. Every honest and objective person agrees that Clinton was in the right place at the right time to enjoy the dotcom bubble. He did not a f'n thing to improve the economy. Reagan actually did something to effect his goal, whether you or any other political hos want to admit it or not.

     

    Johnson, Carter, Bush, Clinton, Bush2 and Obama were/are all failures at their job. Reagan, Kennedy and Ike were decent.

    Pro, you are much with politics as Rusty is with football; not very honest, and a ho to your agenda.

     




    NAFTA, balancing the budget, welfare reform, deregulaton?  Weren't these intended to improve the economy?  Who's being dishonest here?  The same logic you used to give credit to Reagan for the collapse of Soviet Union also requires you to give credit to Clinton for improving the economy.  If you try to have it both ways, you just prove it's you who are the intellectually dishonest one . . .

     



    Deregulation? Like repealing glass-steagall? Yeah, that was brilliant. That helped set us on a 8 year recession and counting. Nafta as well as naftas big brother TPP are jokes. Gee, I wonder where all the jobs keep going? 

    Not arguing that Clinton did do some economic good. But how much good and how much of it him vs dotcom, pre 2k stuff it is hard to tell. He also did plenty bad and I am not talking about Monica, the various real estate scams or those he knocked off either.



    Just pointing out the logical flaws of Babe's argument.  If he's going to say that just because the Soviet Union collapsed during Reagan's term, Reagan's policies must have caused that collapse then he also has to say just because the economy improved during Clinton's term, Clinton's policies must have caused that improvement.  

    Personally, I don't think either's policies caused what's claimed . . . but the logic is the same and if you're going to use that logic for Reagan, then you have to use it for Clinton too.  

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to ccnsd's comment:

    So much nonsense here, let's dismantle it piece by piece.

    I am glad to see you did some internet research, though you won't admit the obvious. If Chernenko does not die the Soviet Union survives longer because there is no Perestroika and therefore no collapse.

    I don't need to do any research to see that Reagan set out to destroy the Soviets economically, and shortly thereafter they were destroyed. You're the one who has to jump through hoops trying to portray that as a coincidence.

    You have no way of knowing whether Chernenko would have been deposed or would have enacted reforms based on the crisis brewing, had he not died. Andropov, Chernenko's predecessor, was considered a reformer and wanted Gorbachev to succeed him. Chernenko was so ill, and in charge for so short a time, it is impossible to say he would have adhered to Brezhenev's policies.

     

    Reagan did not spend them into oblivion. They were spending the same under Carter and Ford and Nixon. Reagan spent us into huge debt which had positives but the collapse of the Soviet Union was not one of them. Technically the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 so it would be Bush who beat them not Reagan under your theory.

    C'mon, the coup de gras of the Soviet Empire was applied by Reagan. They had been faltering since the mid 70's and Reagan's military spending denied them the option of cutting their own such expenditures to remedy the sinking economy.

    Why didn't the Soviets cut back when Carter was president since he was supposedly weak. Why didn't they increase against Reagan when he was spending a fortune. There economy was a mess and it was always a mess. If the economy was enough to kill it it would have died while Stalin was in charge, or Kruschev, or Brezhnev, or Andropov or Chernenko.

    Wrong. By all estimates the Soviet economy was quite robust during the Brezhnev years, until the mid 70s. As it began to falter, largely brought on by the expense of the arms race, several remedies were attempted to no avail. Andropov was elected because he was a reformer. Chernenko was a sick man that nobody can even explain why he was elected other than it was his turn. The fact is that economy was in dire straits and Reagan kept the heat on it big-time. Any other conclusion is simply political dishonesty at it's root.

    Remember, Reagan based his spending on CIA analysis which everyone now knows to be completely wrong. Reagan thought the Soviets were spending massively more than they actually were. The CIA, as usual throughout it's history, was completely wrong. Reagan spent the money because he was trying to catch up withn the Soviets. We now know we had long since surpassed them.

    This is more pure nonsense. The CIA analysis was fairly accurate, if not in precise terms, then certainly in the trends. Even the numbers the USSR gives show this. The ruskie economy was faltering starting no later than1975.

    Looking back at the junk they were producing it's almost laughable but Reagan was a true cold warrior. He believed in the domino theory and the CIA told him what he wanted to hear just like it told Bush what he wanted to hear in 2003 about WMD's. Plenty of democrats believed it too, especially if a defense plant was in their district. I don't blame Reagan completely for the deficit. The American people loved it like they still do. Pay for it on your credit card. You convince yourself after the fact that it was for a worthy cause. Maybe it was but the collapse of the Soviet Union was not caused by Reagans deficit spending.

    ^ Pure political crap here. The Soviets had some 25,000 tanks in E. Germany alone. While they were not as battle worthy or as efficient as our equipment, scoffing at that kind of military muscle is the endeavor of a fool.

     

    Did Reagan cause the Soviets heartburn, of course he did. Supplying the Afghans with weapons certainly killed a lot of Soviet soldiers but that didn't cause the Soviets to lose the war. Heck, with no superpower supplying the Afghani's we can't beat them either. They are tough fighters and they are not afraid of dying because we have killed a lot of them and it does not seem to be improving much there.

    This is more indications that you are ignorant on these issues. Nobody is going to completely conquer Afghanistan, ever. The place is inundated with large mountains that shelter insurgents. Nobody has ever ruled that whole place. Reagan's military spending had nothing to do with Afghanistan. It simply kept the pressure of the arms race up against a foe who no longer could afford to play that game.

    I actually think Reagans foreign policy was fairly awful. The Beirut fiasco, the embarrasing response to the Falklands war (we actually had parts of the Reagan administration openly support the Argentine dictators) the silly Grenada invasion, supporting violent dictators in central America, supporting the Khmer Rouge for goodness sakes. We supported South Africa and apertheid while Reagan was president also. Don't get me started on the arms for hostages and how that fiasco worked out. The first Bush was great with foreign policy, absolutely brilliant carried us through the 90's. Nixon had his moments too but Reagan was complete amateur hour. Even worse than Bush 2 and Obama and that's saying something.

    This has nothing to do with our discussion so I'll leave it alone. Otherwise I would be happy to hand you your azz on some of these issues too.

     

    Even Gorbachev admits the arms race was one of the prime factors in the stagnation of the Soviet economy. Reagan upping the ante could only exasperate that malady and did not allow for reductions in that spending to spur the faltering economy. Denying this is the epitome of political ho-dom. You are what you are.


    What? The economy is well known to have been a disaster under Brezhnev. That is why he was replaced with Andropov, someone who was considered a reformer. Chernenko was a Brehznev lackey, nothing more. Unless some secret diary comes out that shows otherwise he was considered a hard liner. A true cold warrior like Brehznev and Reagen. His death was good for the world. There is nothing in his past that predicts Perestroika, at least nothing I am aware of.

    The economy was much worse under Gorbachev then his predecessors. He wanted to reform the economy without going capitalist. A pipe dream if ever. If American defense spending killed the Soviet economy then it was under Brehznev's premiership. Since virtually everyone but you agrees the Soviet Union's bad economy took a large turn for the worse under Brehznev. Therefore it was Nixon, Ford and Carter who are the heroes not Reagan.

    Where have you read the CIA's estimates are right. Almost no one believes those estimates. When the CIA first started having doubts in the 80's over their previous estimates it was a political bombshell and the administration was not happy with it (either they were angry over being duped or they thought the CIA was right before and wrong now). The defense spending was taking off and no one wanted to make enemies with a popular president. 

    Gorbachev liked Reagan personally. He managed to get the arms reductions he wanted with Reagan. Gorbachev was a relative peacenick. He has always considered Reagan a good president and a good leader. Unlike his generals he never believed for a second that Reagan would launch a surprise attack against the Soviet Union.

    Gorbachez destroyed the Soviet Union from the inside. I have never read a non political piece that believed that. Gorbachev combined free elections (sort of) with free speech and complete economic incompetence. A perfect storm. If Gorbachev could have made any of his hair brained economic ideas work he may have saved socialism, but expecting massive western investment into a centrally planned economic system is ludicrous. Why invest millions into the Soviet Union for minor returns which could be taken at any time by a corrupt beaurocracy when you can invest millions in the west and get a solid return year after year.  

    By the way, anytime you wish to defend the Reagan's admistration Lebanon policy, Haig and Kilpatricks bungling of the Falklands war, Reagans support of Apartheid and third world dictators, arms for hostages, Iran Contra and the silly Grenada invasion bring it on.

    Like I stated before I think the first Bush was a rather underrated president who was brilliant on foreign policy. Much of Clinton's foreign policy success was because of the good work of Bush in devolping good relations with virtually everyone. He was probably the most pro palestinian president in American history. He was very pro Arab and unlike his son he was not liked or trusted by the Israeli's at all and he was an admirer of Mandela. A great moment in Republican party history is when a large block of moderate Republicans joined the democrats in overturning Reagan's veto of the Anti- Apartheid act and as usual Reagan was wrong. The act was not only moral and correct it contributed to the ending of Apartheid and the communists did not take over Africa.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bradysgirlforreal. Show Bradysgirlforreal's posts

    Re: DUCK DYNASTY.. thoughts? i say

    How the hello does a Duck Dynasty post turn into freakin politics post and on a Pats message board-holy cow?  BTW I can honestly say I have not watched one Duck Dynasty episode--and all these reality TV shows are NOT REAL-(ity)!! Advertisers stealing your souls and creating Consumption of crap we all dont even need--wake up Sheeple?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share