The disintegration of the American empire
A thread to document and make light of the social/political unraveling of this country.
I'll start:
Joe Biden, unlike Trump, didn't take cognitive test in annual exam.
Meanwhile in reality...However, despite the concerns of some conservatives, Gupta corroborated Dr. O'Connor's report that the president was healthy and fit for office.
I've taken the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (in clinic) after suffering a head injury. It's not hard to get a perfect score.
I'd guess it's harder if you don't have functioning cognition, yeah.Originally Posted by xerx
RE. the United States' disintegration: Not according to this guy. He predicts that the USA will continue on as the world's leading power, outlasting the European Union, Russia and China. It will go on to defeat Japan and Turkey in WW3 (during the 2050's) but will be credibly challenged by Mexico at some point in the 2080's. Are these the predictions of an eccentric? You decide.
Last edited by xerx; 11-22-2021 at 12:07 AM.
I think that North America is the place to be in the next 100 years, but prediction is hard.
We're in this loop of gov being in the pocket of evil fucks and people getting pissed at gov while accepting the brainwashing of evil fucks so they elect people in the pocket of evil fucks. Even when they try to fight back they just end up hitting themselves because they're under this delusion of who's right and who's wrong.
I highly doubt we'll fight Japan and Mexico.
Also, the fact we went Bush, Trump, Biden fairly close to each other smacks of being on the wrong side of our Five Good Emperors period
In 1972, the Club of Rome looked past the happy times they were living in and speculated about the limits to growth.
They issued a report, putting their money where their mouths were, and they predicted five possible future scenarios.
We seem to be hewing pretty closely to two of them, both of which predict global collapse in the mid-21st century.
You know. The century we’re in.
https://medium.com/the-bad-influence...2-6771887ae009
I think it’s pretty clear that pollution (CO2 and plastics) is rising, and the detrimental effect this has on the planet is making us all poorer, on average. After all, inflation-adjusted wages have been flat for thirty years, indicating that the increase in damages we’re doing is about equal to the increase in productivity. But the damage rate is rising fast, and it will soon cost more to get food and air and water than we can afford to pay.
But that’s average. If you are rich, you are doing pretty well, and can expect to continue to do so, because you are better organized than the wretched masses, who don’t really know what they want.
If all you want is lower taxes on your exorbitant income, that’s only one issue and you can stay on target.
If you want freedom and fairness and a decent living and a health care system that doesn’t bankrupt you with one unlucky incident, and justice for all, well, who can remember all that, eh?
Now, eventually, pollution and climate destruction will bring down us all, but it won’t happen to everyone at the same time.
When climate change hit Greenland around 1200 AD and everyone froze to death, the humans lived a year longer than their cattle and horses.
I expect that the party in the halls of the rich, everywhere in the world but especially in the States because they have the most rich, will go on for some time.
I also don’t expect to see any devastating world wars. They are too destructive to the remaining wealth. Instead, we’ll see small wars to defend the status of the wealthy in each country, along with a reduced ability to wage those wars.
I see a coming New Middle Ages that is going to last until the ecosystem can once again sustain whatever damage new economic growth imposes upon it.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 11-22-2021 at 03:53 AM.
I wonder how much longer that will be the case. China's number of billionaires is quickly catching up to the States, while China itself has surpassed the States as the wealthiest country in total.
You know, that's what was said before WW1. The theory was that trade had led to an era of unprecedented peace and wealth in Europe, and that because war would destroy so much of that wealth, no country on the continent would so foolish as to begin or become embroiled in a war on the mainland (colonial/proxy wars like the Great Game were understood to be another matter).I also don’t expect to see any devastating world wars. They are too destructive of the remaining wealth. Instead, we’ll see small wars to defend the status of the wealthy in each country, along with a reduced ability to wage these wars.
Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 11-22-2021 at 04:07 AM.
@FreelancePoliceman, it is the opinion of at least three people whose opinions I respect AND WHO HAVE BEEN CONSISTENTLY RIGHT IN THE PAST, that China’s average household income will never catch up to that of the US. At least, not until the average US household has eaten all of its pets.
I don’t know if there will be another world war; I hope not, but you never can tell.
I believe that WWI was caused by European populations overrunning Europe’s ability to grow and import food from the US. Other people have other opinions, but that’s mine, and a resource war is very plausible in the near future, especially since most of China’s food is grown on lowlands that will be threatened by rising seas.
Germany was driven into WWII by its economic treatment by its WWI enemies, who insisted that Germany pay war reparations in addition to its debt, even after its source of future wealth, the coal and industrial lands, were given to France.
Without an industrial sector, other countries lost faith in Germany’s ability to pay for anything and they insisted on receiving more and more Marks when they sold something to the Germans. Hyperinflation ensued, impoverishing Germany further.
Germany’s only recourse was to generate internal demand to keep the factories running. They did this by building weapons for their own government.
Notice that after WWII, the US, in direct contrast, insisted on canceling Germany’s debts and went further and helped them rebuild their economy, which led to the happy land that is Germany today.
Russia is currently being impoverished by its kleptocrats and can’t really win any major wars. The fact that it has nuclear weapons is a problem, but I imagine that Putin does not want to trade his wealthy old age for a radioactive casket.
China’s rulers are facing some huge problems. The country got richer by selling to the US, but its workers are beginning to want a life that is different from slavery, now that they are past starvation, but other countries are competing with China as low-wage sources, so China has to innovate.
China is also facing a declining work force and an aging population. This leads directly to a reduction in internal demand (old people don’t buy stuff). This, coupled with loss of external market share, will mean a general decline in average wealth if another source of demand for their production can’t be found.
This could lead to one of two scenarios.
One, China restores full production to its factories by building weapons to be used against…. Somebody. Anybody. This is not only bad for the world, it would be bad for China.
The second scenario would be one in which China stimulates its economy by investing in cleaner technologies. Lord knows the world needs them.
Now, we (the US) could grow our economy the same way. We could have Biden create a new stimulus program which would put rural Americans back to work in state-supported solar and wind and electric bike, etc., factories.
But will we do that? Probably not. The US government is heavily influenced by people who watch Fox News and Fox News is funded by men who own very polluting industries. Clean energy is not in their interest, so Fox shits on Biden’s stimulus packages and that c***sucker Manchin enables it.
China, in contrast, is not a Republic governed by the rich (yet), and so can implement the better path for themselves and for the world.
But once again, I have to say, prediction is hard. We don’t know how things will go.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 11-22-2021 at 05:05 AM.
The last time the Democrats controlled the presidency and Congress, do you remember what was passed? We got a massive subsidy to health insurance companies in the form of the ACA which was designed by Republicans. Meanwhile, that President's cabinet was chosen by Citibank. Why do you believe that Biden's handlers intend to do half of what they campaigned on? The Democrats promise the moon and stars, but when it's time to deliver their proposals always manage to be defeated by Republicans...or by a rotating cast of "conservative" Democrats...or a proposal just isn't sent forth in the first place. It's miraculous how consistently they're thwarted! What do they have to do before you realize they don't give a shit about you or anyone who doesn't pay them? The state of California shows what Democrats are really like: Republicans there don't control anything. Largest homeless population of all the States, it's sold out so completely to the wealthy that middle-class Californians are flooding the rest of the country, and despite having the fifth largest economy in the world you'll notice it doesn't have universal healthcare. Federally, these last two elections they tilted the scales in favor of a war criminal; next a walking corpse who was a segregationist and one of the principal architects of the prison-industrial complex in this country -- all to stop Bernie Sanders, the only candidate they had anyone even liked (I still have yet to meet IRL, or even talk online to anyone who likes Joe Biden, let alone Harris!). The only meaningful difference between them and Republicans is that Democrats tend to represent the interests of finance, real estate, and media goons; Republicans represent agriculture, heavy industry, and small-business tyrants. What they say they want to do is theater; I think everyone knows this on some level, even you.
When Biden campaigned on the promise that "nothing will fundamentally change," I for some reason don't think he meant that "Republicans will disrupt my agenda to ensure that nothing changes; darn them!"
To say that both parties do bad things does not mean that both parties have equally bad outcomes.
I have no doubt that nearly everyone involved in making policy is operating on self-interest. But I believe that there is a difference in outcomes between liberals and conservatives, or actually, between Authoritarians and non-Authoritarians.
I believe that Non-Authoritarians generate better outcomes.
My belief comes from the results of the Global Change Game, a game described in the following pamphlet:
https://www.evcforum.net/DataDropsit...oritarians.pdf
It’s a pretty long read, but the important parts are between pages 8 and 36.
Read through it when you get a chance. There is even a quiz to determine whether or not you might have Authoritarian or non-Authoritarian views.
You can find studies and books to prove that your perceived enemies are dumber, less empathetic, or otherwise fundamentally different from you no matter what political, religious, or other ideological beliefs you have. Conservatives have similar studies and books about liberals; Christians have similar books about atheists; you can find a study to indicate any theory you like. If you want to believe that about half the world is destined to be your enemy then don't expect to score many victories.
This kind of thinking is a good example of what I mean by the social disintegration of this country.
Oh, and California has a large homeless population because
1. Someone (who?) decided that taxes on property were bad, so home prices went through the roof and homes became unaffordable for the average person. And
2. California has a mild climate. Perfect for cockroaches.
If there were a road to Hawaii, they’d all be there instead.
OK, I'll bite. Who was that? How long has it been since they were in power? What have Democrats done since that time, and how has their enlightened rule alleviated the housing crisis since that time?
You're always the compassionate liberal.2. California has a mild climate. Perfect for cockroaches.
If there were a road to Hawaii, they’d all be there instead.
You still seem to be making the argument that since both sides do bad things, they are both equally bad.
I just look at outcomes which are important to me. And my DNA. Lol.
I actually believe that conservatives are MORE moral than liberals. Jonathan Haidt has stuff about that on his website YourMorals.org.
Also, China’s Authoritarian government stands a better chance of saving the world than our “Socialism for the Rich” government. Precisely because they DON’T listen to rich fuckers.
But given what we have in the States, I think the outcome will be better with a liberal government.
I could be entirely wrong about that, though. I’m already settling for letting everyone have a voice, even when some voices are multiplied by money.
Rich property owners pushed for that rule.
And I might seem liberal. I’m not very compassionate.
I think that what I’m really for is equal opportunity along with much greater equality of wealth. That’s the kind of world I’d like to live in.
And I’m only advocating for things which I think will head off bigger disasters later on down the line.
What I'm saying is nothing more than because both sides are evil, both sides are evil. Fighting over which side is the lesser evil is worse than pointless. "Elect the Democrats to violently rape you so that the Republicans don't stab you" isn't an argument I'm interested in, especially when both sides work together anyway. The parties are aligned on 90% of issues at the top, and half of the remaining 10% flip depending on which party holds power that year. The reason people become so angry about politics is because of a sense that it's all fucking theater and nothing they do really matters. It's why you get shit like Q, or people getting so mad about other people not wanting to get vaccinated, or shallow interests in random cults or new agey crap that young women especially seem to be getting into more and more these days. And even voting, as meaningless and symbolic as that is, has lost any perceived sense of legitimacy because in the last two elections both parties have told their followers the election was stolen.
I guess the fact that they support Democrats is just incidental?Rich property owners pushed for that rule.
It's a lot easier to involve yourself in the spectacle of political tribalism than to quit your job.I think that what I’m really for is equal opportunity along with much greater equality of wealth. That’s the kind of world I’d like to live in.
I'd add that they're the ones holding most of the cards WRT global warming. They're the biggest polluters, and the process of slowing it down will basically be their responsibility. It may be time to accept that the West will play a secondary role to China and other emerging powers ------ and not just when it comes to slowing down global warming. The West did kick start things, however; and, as far as I'm concerned, it has a moral responsibility to help move things along.
Last edited by xerx; 11-22-2021 at 07:34 AM.
conservatives are more moral in the sense they follow mroe stupid resctrictions they call morals. they are not more moral in the sense of valuing life and experience of life. there's a cognnitve link between persoanlity "traits" that u cant separate in 5 isolated ones just bc one some tend to be more likely coincided with others. the proof is how a particular person is. u cant have compassion without openness and the other way around. @FreelancePoliceman
i hate this so much.OK, I'll bite. Who was that? How long has it been since they were in power? What have Democrats done since that time, and how has their enlightened rule alleviated the housing crisis since that time?
create problems bc u didnt think of the future or how others fare, then blame someone for not solving it, while there have been multiple other instantions since from the profits too that create a closed loop with consequences in other places if u "remove" it which u have to solve all at the same time which is impossible, so now u have to make sacrifices to slowly undo the damage and instantiate something more sustainable, while being blamed that u aren't doing anything or being destructive instead by ppl who cant see farther than themselves.
theres so many pressures and factors. the best u can do may be a small positive difference. this would build up over time esp when doing it with forethought. u cant push for easy overt simplistic solutions and blame for the mess that U created. conservatives are entitled children who never learned to share and care while wanting everything to be done for them alone while projecting that on others. their mentality is to fight for urself alone. why would someone who doesnt care about others have any justification for being taken in consideration.
Last edited by VewyScawwyNawcissist; 11-22-2021 at 07:42 AM.
https://linktr.ee/tehhnicus
Jesus is King stops black magic and closes portals
self diagnosed ASD, ADHD, schizotypal/affective
Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
I want to care
if I was better I’d help you
if I was better you’d be better
Human Design 2/4 projector life path 1
...Look, you're Bulgarian, so I don't know what you know about our parties, but Democrats are conservatives in most meaningful senses of the word -- they're called "progressive" here only because the other party took a few years longer to become OK with the gays. Our current Democratic President's promise to rich donors was "nothing will fundamentally change." And the problems here were ones Democrats not only created but have had decades of one-party rule to fix if they wanted to. But they didn't just not fix it; the problem has been getting much worse, especially in the past few years. They don't try, and they have no intention of trying; they lie and convince gullible people they mean to solve the problems they helped create while scalping them.
I'm not a conservative, and I think sharing would be great.
USA is a sinking ship. I've been saying that for a while, now. The Americans are headed in the wrong direction. It's part of why I decided that immigrating is the best choice for me.
@Noir, take a look at "De Reditu suo".
http://theoildrum.com/node/5528
I still think that North America will be the best place to be in the next 100 years. Not because it will be great, but rather because all the other places will be so much worse.
I don't think the world is interesting enough in modern times for a super nation to just fold in on itself without some external factor that'll probably take the rest of Earth with it. Say what you want about the US, and I do say a lot about it, but it is extremely resilient in its power to repeatedly band-aid itself with late-stage capitalism and misplaced patriotism. The quality of the American experience will decay indefinitely, but I don't see America ever being toppled as the top of the food chain this millennium.
Im picking up a partisan angle to the tone of the thread, but honestly it'd take nothing short of a torching of the constitution to turn things around. Party lines mean little when everyone's complicit in the more fundamental problems.
Lol it's not even the best place to be right now. The only reason those of us from the USA even believe that is because we are pretty much kept blind and ignorant of whatever happens in the rest of the world. America is so America-centric that even in apocalypse movies, you'll hear them talk about it being the end of the country and the country is in danger, without much mention of the rest of the world. All the other countries are kept up to date about us, but not vice-versa. Subsequently, all Americans usually get exposed to, is false claims of the greatness of America. USA has become a laughing stock. Last I checked, they don't even rank #1 in anything positive anymore. Came #1 in worst at handling Corona, though.
Tbh though, this may be controversial, but I do believe that America NEEDS to crash and burn in order to make room for something better.
Honestly, even with all its problems, the USA is still doing OK compared to other major powers.
* China has a looming demographic crisis. It's wealthy coastal regions surround a poorer interior that's slightly richer than sub-Saharan Africa. China's strategic position is also bad: It's boxed in a remote corner and surrounded by hostile countries that prefer to align with the USA. Its exports and imports (especially oil) cross the straits of Malacca, which is easy to blockade. It has a lot to fear from the American and Indian navies, as well as a potentially resurgent and rearming Japan.
* Japan also has a demographic crisis, caused in part by a decades-long recession, in part by a hyper-compartmentalized lifestyle that has led to social atomization.
* Brazil is still a poor country and a political mess.
* Russia's GDP actually fell last year.
* In the UK, Brexit seems to have under-delivered. (I presume that a full recovery will take some time).
* France has tensions vis a vis existing North African immigrant populations. Reactionary thought and far-right figures have been on the rise for some time now.
I could go on, but the point is that all countries have social problems that are often deemed existential in the moment, but which aren't uniquely bad when looked at from a bigger perspective.
Last edited by xerx; 11-23-2021 at 04:01 AM. Reason: a few words
I've thought about moving to a place like New Zealand, where they speak English and they have a fairly technologically advanced civilization. With laws. I probably couldn't make the same living there that I do in the States, but the living that I could make might be tolerable.
My problem with islands, however large, is that I secretly expect that at some time in the next few centuries, air and sea travel will not be common. Maybe not existent at all, and I don't want my offspring to be stuck on a place that will lead to inbreeding and limited social interaction.
Borneo was isolated from large land masses for a long time, and the people there became cannibals.
I'm not a big fan of living in Europe, either, because everyone in Asia and Africa can walk to your city. Despite being a liberal, I recognize that most of my wealth comes from the fact that I compete with a small labor pool. That would not be the case if everyone living in a drying climate decided to walk to Germany. As they are doing right now.
Australia is a dead continent, with soils so poor that the population there already exceeds what they can grow to support it.
South America has a tradition of being undemocratic and I have no reason to expect that to change.
No, North America is the place to be. A changing climate will make things worse here, and won't actually improve things in Canada or Mexico, but the continent has all the natural resources you could ask for and a relatively low population. It also isn't a place that can be reached by the rest of the world by walking. I therefore rate it as having the highest potential for being self-sustainable with a fairly good level of individual income.
When coastal cities begin to sink, the mass of rich liberal folk will migrate towards the interior. They will bring their liberal notions with them. They will infuse the Bible Belt with homosexuality and socialism. And conservatives will bitterly regret their decision to ignore global warming.
Based on what I’ve seen of Bible-Belt preachers, the Bible Belt is already infused with homosexuality and socialism.
But I’ve never once heard a Conservative say that they regret anything.
Half their family may have died after they attended an unmasked Trump rally (“We killed Herman Cain”), but the family members were old and they got a little inheritance from them and anyway they were making America great again, so it’s all good.
And Colorado used to be a red state before all the radical liberal skiers moved there and turned the state blue.
LOL, OK. Maybe they'll take less kindly to abortionist Satanism.
"Half their family." You're living in a fantasy.
If conservatives killed Herman Cain, did liberals kill Colin Powell?
Regret? What, exactly, do you expect Republican voters to have done about climate change? Plant more trees? Nancy Pelosi has never met an increase to the military budget she hasn't voted for, even though the military pollutes more than 100 countries combined. As always, the rich do whatever they want, and everyone else has to deal with it. Gloating that the rich will continue to fuck over the poor is about par for the course for American liberalism, though, and this is yet another example of what I mean. Your attitude is common. Hoping to trigger, or in this case price out of housing, about half the country not because you even get anything from it, but simply because it hurts them, isn't a recipe for a healthy culture.
I'm not defending the wealthy elites, Democrat or Republican. But you are correct that I'm hoping to trigger half the country. Because becoming terrified is the first step to doing something about one's predicament; among other things, by electing candidates that are less beholden to big oil.
In spite of what is commonly believed, the United States is still a Democracy. Voters have exceptional ability to elect outsider candidates (Donald Trump is proof of that). If voters didn't have that much power, they wouldn't be inundated by propaganda trapping them into staying home and watching TV.
Both major parties suck here. The conservatives might not be so bad if the Democrats weren't so stupid. The Democrats will admit the problems in this country but manage to make them worse by trying to make a Nanny state.
I love paying $4.50 a gallon.
Senile muppet.
The mind is restless and difficult to restrain, but it is subdued by practice
-Krishna
An "outsider candidate?" Trump was a billionaire whose wedding was attended by the Clintons, his campaign cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and to point out the obvious, he was the GOP nominee. There was only one other choice, and she was a war criminal and an actual demon. If someone like Jill Stein gets elected I'll believe the term "democracy" means anything.
As for propaganda, where the fuck do you live where you're seeing propaganda not to vote? Every election season everywhere I've ever lived you can't turn on the radio for five minutes without one side or another telling you to vote. I have never heard anyone on radio, TV, or any other mass medium say not to vote; to the contrary they barely shut up about the supposed importance of the ritual. So the natural question to ask is: why do the rich spend so much money trying to convince people that voting does work?
Even if you completely trust the integrity of elections in this country (which both sides attacked the last two elections when the opposing side won): The ACA, Libya, selling weapons to al-qaeda (the real scandal of Benghazi, which even Republicans either ignore or never learned from their media), California's current condition; all of this is what you get when Democrats are given control. Voting for Democrats doesn't fix shit. At least ten years ago you could say they were better than Republicans in the sense that, standing for nothing, they weren't aspirant theocrats, but now that Republicans and evangelicals are decoupling, there's nothing fueling the Republican voter base but rage and spite. So now we have two completely ideologically vacuous factions facing off against each other, frenzied by the media telling them how important it is for one side to win so they can accomplish...what?
Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 11-23-2021 at 09:26 AM.
I live in California. Because of housing prices we have to commute and now we can barley afford to drive to work.
The mind is restless and difficult to restrain, but it is subdued by practice
-Krishna
Donald Trump was an "outsider" in the sense that the party establishment hated him. Nobody in Republican establishment (Lindsay Graham, et al.) wanted him to get elected. He may not have been Karl Marx, but he was still an outsider in the sense of being disruptive to the status quo. That still means something. It means that a determined electorate can change things.
As for "propaganda", I meant that Americans are inundated by TV and other dopamine addictions, addictions that boring campaign flyers can't compete against. While I can't prove this (it will sound conspiratorial), I believe that certain media moguls (like Rupert Murdoch) have a direct aim of transforming the country into an amusement park, and that people's low attention spans aren't entirely the haphazard product of interaction with technology.
That all may be true, but the United States still has a primary system. And a determined electorate can use that to change the shape of the political parties themselves.
OK, so a determined electorate can get a billionaire who's friends with his opposing candidate elected if he wins the Republican nomination. And it has to be the Republican nominee, because as Sanders' campaigns showed us all, Democrats just cheat whenever a candidate the leadership doesn't like gets too popular.
If those conditions are met, people can disrupt the status quo by putting another faction of the bourgeoise in some degree of power. What astounding change! After all, Trump did...well, I'm not sure. Assassinated an Iranian, I suppose. Presided over the further decline over this country. Built some fences near Mexico. Real power to the people moment there.
TVs themselves are telling people to vote, and it's not like voting is difficult, especially if you mail in. As for Rupert Murdoch, liberal cable news is no better, and Democrats control probably 90% of MSM. Maybe there's a conspiracy to make Americans stupider, but both sides tell them to vote and spend obscene amounts of money trying to convince people how important it is.As for "propaganda", I meant that Americans are inundated by TV and other dopamine addictions, addictions that boring campaign flyers can't compete against. While I can't prove this (it will sound conspiratorial), I believe that certain media moguls (like Rupert Murdoch) have a direct aim of transforming the country into an amusement park, and that people's low attention spans aren't entirely the haphazard product of interaction with technology.
Are you saying that the GOP is the only authentic voice of democracy in this country, or are you telling me that this is what democracy in action looks like? Because that video is what happens to candidates who genuinely threaten the status quo.[COLOR=#333333]That all may be true, but the United States still has a primary system. And a determined electorate can use that to change the shape of the political parties themselves.
Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 11-23-2021 at 10:03 AM.
Well yeah, you're comparing the US to all kinds of places (and problems), including a Third World country with extremely high crime rates, poverty, and a currency that is worth less than x5 the USD...and has a complete idiot, Bolsonaro, in charge (the one president who may actually be worse than Trump, and tried saying that Brazilians have a natural immune system against COVID as an excuse to avoid shutting things down, but thankfully the individual states closed things anyway). What you're not comparing to is places like Norway, Netherlands, Iceland, New Zealand, Canada, etc. which are some of the places considered to be the best countries in the world to live in presently.
Idk, this logic is such a mess I wanted to facedesk...politely...with a friendly smile. :/
You're saying that just because they all have problems, that means the USA is doing okay.
1) Other countries listed are not equivalent in rank (as already mentioned), and there are other 1st world countries not listed.
2) Others having something crappy going on =/= USA not having enough going on for it to be sinking, nor USA doing OK. It's like someone saying, "This car's tire is low." Then someone responding, "well, these other random cars have [problems of varying severity], and one of them has a flat tire, so I think this low tire is OK." It doesn't make sense, does it? You wouldn't say that, you'd simply put air in the tire to repair it, so it doesn't end up flat.
Idk, I don't have much time today or else I'd add my other points. I think this is sufficient for making my point though.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
