Politics

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-11-23 10:31:32

RobertDyck wrote:

I've said it before, don't bully Russia. Don't expect them to back down. Just stop messing with their back yard. If they want to take out ISIS, let them. Don't poke the Russian bear.

Who's being a bully? Has the United States ever invaded Russian land? Seems to me that the Bully is Russia, so how many Russians would like to die because Putin decides to grab more land? I'd say the advantage always goes to the defender when both sides have nuclear weapons. The United States has Nuclear weapons, and so does Russia, and Russia wants to take some land from some neighboring country that doesn't have nuclear weapons and the United States says No! What if the United States was to back that up by sending troops to help Ukraine, and Russia insists on taking more land, who is risking nuclear war now! The United States is not seeking more land, Russia is, Ukraine wants help, the United States gives it, but Russia sends troops into the Ukraine and a shooting war starts. What is the worst that can happen? Lets say there is a conventional war going on between NATO and Russia, and NATO and the United States are basically mopping the floor with Russian troops, Lets say wounded and dead Russian troops are streaming back across the border into Russia, large Russian troop units are being defeated and captured by NATO forces, and the war is all but over. No one has yet entered Russian territory, but Putin is looking at his nuclear options, so what are they?

He can accept his defeat and negotiate an end to the conflict, pulling back Russian troops, or he can launch those missiles at the United States and die! Which option do you think he would pick? Which option would be less costly for Russia and for him?

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-11-23 10:32:50)

RobertDyck · 2016-11-23 20:35:03

Perhaps this will appease our Trump supporters.

SpaceNut · 2016-11-23 23:22:45

Here is the Polling calls to U.S. Muslims raise surveillance fears

Muslims across the United States feared they were being targeted for surveillance this week when they received automated polling calls asking them to press one if they identified as Muslim or two if they did not.

Dial 3 if indian, 4 for negro, 5 for russian, you get the jist...... Who made these calls?

The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet

Gee just pay a settlement payment and make the criminal charges go away......

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-11-24 02:24:46

SpaceNut wrote:

Here is the Polling calls to U.S. Muslims raise surveillance fears
Muslims across the United States feared they were being targeted for surveillance this week when they received automated polling calls asking them to press one if they identified as Muslim or two if they did not.
Dial 3 if indian, 4 for negro, 5 for russian, you get the jist...... Who made these calls?
The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet
Gee just pay a settlement payment and make the criminal charges go away......

What do you want Muslims for? Muslims want to live in the 7th century, why would they want to go to Mars? If they don't want to live in the 7th century, then why are they Muslims? Islam springs out of a religion which states that the Earth is 6000 years old. There is a certain duality that religious people have to deal with, one is the religious world which they live in on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays, and on every other days of the week except during prayer time for Muslims, they live in the 21st century.

RobertDyck · 2016-11-24 08:28:44

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

What do you want Muslims for? Muslims want to live in the 7th century, why would they want to go to Mars? If they don't want to live in the 7th century, then why are they Muslims? Islam springs out of a religion which states that the Earth is 6000 years old. There is a certain duality that religious people have to deal with, one is the religious world which they live in on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays, and on every other days of the week except during prayer time for Muslims, they live in the 21st century.

You could say the same about Christians. Most Muslims are not violent, terrorism is a perversion of that religion. Christianity has the KKK, and the KKK are about as large a proportion.

Tom, why don't you get it? Terrorist leaders are trying to convince all Muslims that they are under attack, that they have to fight Christians or die. The reason for reassuring Muslims that they aren't, so to deprive terrorist leaders from new recruits. Targeting Muslims falls into their trap. Terrorist leaders actually just want power and money, and are willing to kill to get it. It's always about power and money. In this case they perverted the religion of their part of the world to achieve their lust for power. If you fall into their trap, you turn a petty warlord into a holly leader, a messiah or prophet. There are more Muslims in the world than Christians, so turning these petty warlords into a religious prophet leading a crusade? We don't want a modern crusade; that could be very dangerous.

elderflower · 2016-11-24 08:52:47

It's not just Muslims. All religions that I am aware of can be perverted to suit the objectives of the power hungry, with horrible consequences for those designated as "not of the faith". It just happens to be Muslims at this period in history.
"Christians" have been guilty of similar things (eg Spanish Inquisition).
Also prone to similar perversion are the various isms which great leaders have exploited to the same ends- Communism, Fascism, Nationalism etc.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-11-24 11:26:19

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
What do you want Muslims for? Muslims want to live in the 7th century, why would they want to go to Mars? If they don't want to live in the 7th century, then why are they Muslims? Islam springs out of a religion which states that the Earth is 6000 years old. There is a certain duality that religious people have to deal with, one is the religious world which they live in on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays, and on every other days of the week except during prayer time for Muslims, they live in the 21st century.
You could say the same about Christians. Most Muslims are not violent, terrorism is a perversion of that religion. Christianity has the KKK, and the KKK are about as large a proportion.

There are large numbers of Muslims that believe in that perversion, I just don't believe in taking chances by bringing them here. The KKK never took over a country, like these violent Muslims have, the KKK never started a war, they were always a tiny minority.

Tom, why don't you get it? Terrorist leaders are trying to convince all Muslims that they are under attack, that they have to fight Christians or die. The reason for reassuring Muslims that they aren't, so to deprive terrorist leaders from new recruits.

Why is it our job to convince them otherwise? If their society is sick, and they are apt to believe they are under attack by phantoms and they go around attacking us because of their self-induced hallucinations, they make it into a self-fulfilling prophecy, but we aren't concerned with why they attack, or what is going on in their heads to make them attack us, only that they are.

Targeting Muslims falls into their trap. Terrorist leaders actually just want power and money, and are willing to kill to get it. It's always about power and money.

Here is what I saw, we were minding our own business and Muslims attacked us on 9/11, they knocked down the World Trade Center by hijacking airplanes with passengers inside of them and crashed them into those building killing thousands of people, and then afterwards more Muslims from the Middle East started streaming into our country to fact our wrath and prejudice they just created by attacking us on 9/11. Seems to me that the United States would not have been the best choice in destinations right after 9/11, so why did they come? I see more mosques now than I did right after the 9/11 attack, more people are dressed in burkas now than right after the 9/11 attack. I don't know why the Obama Administration decided to let these people in, there being here doesn't make us safer, they just give the FBI more people to watch who might be terrorists, and I don't think we need these people in out country all of the sudden when were are worrying about Islamic Terrorism.

In this case they perverted the religion of their part of the world to achieve their lust for power. If you fall into their trap, you turn a petty warlord into a holly leader, a messiah or prophet. There are more Muslims in the world than Christians, so turning these petty warlords into a religious prophet leading a crusade? We don't want a modern crusade; that could be very dangerous.

If they attack us, we will fight back, so they are trying to convince Muslims to attack us because we are fighting back? Did that work for the Japanese? I don't care about what lies the Muslims are telling themselves before they attack us, the only part of it that is important for me is the fact that they attack us! The Japanese government told their people that we were monsters, some Japanese were so stupid that they killed themselves rather than be captured by the Americans, because they believed their lying government.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-11-24 11:38:32

elderflower wrote:

It's not just Muslims. All religions that I am aware of can be perverted to suit the objectives of the power hungry, with horrible consequences for those designated as "not of the faith". It just happens to be Muslims at this period in history.
"Christians" have been guilty of similar things (eg Spanish Inquisition).
Also prone to similar perversion are the various isms which great leaders have exploited to the same ends- Communism, Fascism, Nationalism etc.

The difference is that Christianity is a religion of Peace while Islam is a religion of War, Christianity need a lot more perversion to become violent than Islam does. As an example take the two founders of these religions, Muhammad and Jesus. While Jesus was turning the other cheek and getting nailed to a cross, Muhammad was leading armies into battle! Doesn't that tell you something about the nature of these two religions, and you want to bring more Muslims into the United States. Yes, I agree that they are no all violent, but a larger percentage of them are. The Crusades were a reaction to what the Muslims did, people being human will fight back when attacked, even Christians despite Jesus calling for them to turn the other cheek, most don't. The Spanish Inquisition can about due to a long period of Muslim occupation of Spain and Portugal, the Spaniards had to learn to fight them, and they eventually drove them off of their territory, but unfortunately they learned a few things from their former Muslim occupiers, fighting back is how you gain your freedom, they brought this attitude towards the Jews, Non-Catholics, and into the New World when they encountered Native Americans. much of Spanish cruelty was learned from the hands of their previous Muslim occupiers, and they took that cruelty they learned from the Muslims and applied it elsewhere after they won their freedom, the Spanish Inquisition was a result of what the Spaniards learned from the Muslims they fought.

RobertDyck · 2016-11-24 13:19:47

Tom, you're not "minding your own business". It started with the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan. The CIA converted tribes into an organized fighting force to resist the Soviets. But the problem is you didn't stop there, government in Washington expected the Mujaheddin was "their dog". Washington tried to give orders, and tried to pick-and-choose leaders loyal to Washington. The tribes never did become a single force, but the loose collection of tribes realized the CIA and other officials in Washington were just as bad as the Soviets. They tried to establish independence, but the CIA murdered any leaders not obedient. That's when they started fighting back. For a long time the fighting was just in the Arab world: Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. But it escalated. To make matters worse, when Bill Clinton faced impeachment over Monika, he sent attack planes into Iraq just to create a distraction. It didn't work, but how do you think people there felt about bombs dropped on their homes? Their relatives killed?

You don't like what Al Qaeda did to the World Trade Centre? Have you seen images of what their homes look like after carpet bombing by a B-52?

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-11-24 13:52:38

Yes it started with the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan and not minding its own business! If it didn't do that, none of what followed would have happened!

RobertDyck · 2016-11-24 17:18:30

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Yes it started with the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan and not minding its own business! If it didn't do that, none of what followed would have happened!

Then the guys in Washington tried to treat the Mujaheddin as "their dog". Stop trying to duck responsibility. Your country started it. Perhaps we can convince Trump to stop fucking with the Middle East.

And while he's at it, the rest of the world. Trump expressed concern over the cost of US military bases in other countries. No, NATO is not going to pay for that. It's time for the US to stop occupying western Europe. A "foreign" military base is one not within the territory of the country that owns it. There are 56 foreign military bases throughout the world, other than American ones. The US owns over 800 foreign military bases. One way to balance the budget, one way a businessman can improve the finances of the US federal government, is close most of those foreign military bases. Start with Guantanamo Bay, because Cuba has said they want it back.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-11-24 22:13:16

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Yes it started with the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan and not minding its own business! If it didn't do that, none of what followed would have happened!
Then the guys in Washington tried to treat the Mujaheddin as "their dog". Stop trying to duck responsibility. Your country started it. Perhaps we can convince Trump to stop fucking with the Middle East.
And while he's at it, the rest of the world. Trump expressed concern over the cost of US military bases in other countries. No, NATO is not going to pay for that.

The second option is to allow Poland, Ukraine, Japan, and South Korea to have nuclear weapons. If the Germans want us out of their country, we could always leave our nuclear weapons behind and give them the codes to launch them, would you prefer that?

It's time for the US to stop occupying western Europe.

But its not, Occupation is more than just operating a base on their territory with their permission. We have bases in Canada with the Canadian government's permission, do you feel your country is being occupied by the United States? If so then Canada has already lost its independence, so why do you bother voting in Canada's elections? The US has bases in Canada, that is a fact, do you call that "occupation?"

A "foreign" military base is one not within the territory of the country that owns it. There are 56 foreign military bases throughout the world, other than American ones. The US owns over 800 foreign military bases. One way to balance the budget, one way a businessman can improve the finances of the US federal government, is close most of those foreign military bases. Start with Guantanamo Bay, because Cuba has said they want it back.

Will Russia give their Crimea base back to Ukraine plus the territory they stole? If not, then I believe Trump would call that a bad negotiating position if we give tuff away for free while getting nothing in return! how about we make a trade, Cuba gets Guantanamo back if Russia hands Crimea plus that base back over to Ukraine, does that sound fair enough to you?

How did we start it? You said yourself he Soviets invaded Afghanistan, not us! If the Soviets had not invaded Afghanistan, we wouldn't have interfered, but they did! Our policy was quite clear, containment. If the Soviets pursue an expansionistic policy, we get in their way, we do not invade their territory, but we do get in the way of their invading other countries. Our job was protecting the status quo as it affects the free world, if the Soviets wanted to interact peacefully with their neighbors, we would let them do it, but if they invade, we stand in their way, and if that means arming those who would oppose them, then that is what we do!

RobertDyck · 2016-11-25 06:04:31

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

We have bases in Canada with the Canadian government's permission

No, you don't. There are joint training exercises. Canada and the US jointly operate distant early warning radar cites, operated under NORAD. Canada owns/operates bases in Canada, the US owns/operates bases in Alaska. NORAD is under joint command, an American general is in command during the day shift, a Canadian general is in command during night shift. Canada has a regional base in Winnipeg. There are exchange officers, where one Canadian navy sailor is deployed to serve on a US navy ship, or army soldier serves in a US army unit, and vice versa. But the United States does not have any bases within Canada.

kbd512 · 2016-11-25 19:57:05

Rob,

There never seems to be a shortage of people willing to tell us how we should conduct our affairs, although strikingly few people here in the US are so vocal in their advice about how foreigners should conduct their affairs. I think I can voice the sentiment of many, if not most, ordinary Americans when I say that we'd much rather have our military focus on protecting our own nation instead of everyone else's.

I don't tell people from other countries how to vote, how they should spend their defense budget, or where their military forces should be located. We'd really appreciate it if everyone else extended that same courtesy to us. We cherish our relationships with our allies and we will do everything we believe is required to defend them, even when we believe they can't or won't adequately defend themselves. Opinion on exactly what should be done to defend our allies clearly varies, but somehow we end up footing the bill more often than not.

The US spends more on defense than our allies because more often than not our allies spend substantially less than they were mandated to spend as part of their defense agreements with NATO. This is generally true, not universally true. Many thanks to our NATO allies who have steadfastly abided by their defense agreements to achieve deterrence to aggression through military strength.

No Canadian, EU member, Japanese, or Korean defense programs were initiated to counter the threat posed by the latest Chinese and Russian air defense systems or tactical fighters, so the US assumed a leadership position through development and deployment of B-2's, F-22's, and F-35's. The correct moment in time to determine that you need better military aviation technology to protect your soldiers is not the moment after your soldiers' air cover is turned into twisted, burning heaps of metal falling from the skies.

SpaceNut · 2016-11-25 20:24:37

The same holds true of the Ocean going fleets of submarines and surface ships of all types to compliment those other forces which are used to protect. These are only used when part of UN efforts or through provication through treaties and or requests to do so.

As far as war times occupation that is always a problem when it takes a nation to correct behavior many decades as these are learned culture that needs to be modified for a global one compatible with all. This is were stability of government is learned and guided so that they can lead there respective peoples. This is a temporary situation that can not be avoided as we have seen again and again when we try to reduce troops do the policing until there nation does achieve that stability.

Today I was in a local mall with family doing the window shopping on the Black Friday specials which really were not all that special. There were many not from the US there as from other nations and religions partaking of the holiday shopping as well. This is America the melting pot of nations that come here to be american however it is not a nation to become a little tokyo, China ect.... as these are not assimulating america into there being and new way of life but there is nothing wrong with retaining part of there own.

SpaceNut · 2016-11-25 22:29:19

But there are draw backs to words such as deportation, or I am going to build a wall, ect...especially when you do not say just joking... so here is the next wave of Human traffickers telling migrants to get to U.S. before Trump sworn in, officials say plus I am sure when they do come for those that are here undocumented that those guns will come in real handy......

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-11-26 08:48:32

Trump would just be enforcing the law as it was written, why should that come as a terrible surprise? If you or Robert want to surround yourself with Mexicans, you could always go to Mexico rather than bring "Mexico" here.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-11-26 08:50:11)

GW Johnson · 2016-11-26 10:49:33

I normally do not want to participate in the overheated political BS sessions I see here, but I cannot let this egregious BS pass.

Tom, the entire southwestern US and California were once part of Mexico. The US obtained them by conquest. That means Mexico IS here, inherently, in a major part of our country today. The US government then made promises to the indigenous inhabitants of those regions about them retaining their land holdings, which it immediately broke, turning them into second- or third-class citizens. They were actually lucky at that, they could have suffered the genocide the Indians suffered. The ones in what is now New Mexico fared the best. California, Arizona, and by a different path Texas, fared the worst.

US history is, in many ways, as abominable as that of the Nazis (looking at genocide and slavery). It is certainly not something to be proud of, but it is something to learn from, and it is definitely something not to repeat. Your comment about "If you or Robert want to surround yourself with Mexicans, you could always go to Mexico rather than bring "Mexico" here." -- reveals a clearly-racist attitude on your part about both Mexicans and US citizens of Mexican descent.

I feel sorry for you, that ugly attitude will hamper you all your life, for as long as you keep it.

My own attitude is more like that of the first wave of Anglo settlers to Texas when it was still part of Mexico in the 1820's (and I chose that attitude, it was not what I was taught). They fitted in with the locals, who were very good people. It was a mix of Anglo settlers and local Mexicans who conducted the 1835-1836 war for independence from Santa Anna's Mexico, and only because they felt they had to. The flag over the Alamo was an 1824 version of the Mexican flag, representing a wish to be free of Santa Anna's dictatorship, not really Mexico itself. But independence was the only way out.

It was the second wave of Anglo settlers, after Texas entered the union in 1845, that brought the racist attitudes that have caused all the troubles since, and which converted Texas folk of Mexican descent to second class citizens, just like they did in the rest of the Southwest after the 1846-1848 Mexican War.

I'm sorry, but we can just do without that racist bullshit. It only leads to evil.

The problem with illegal immigration from Mexico into the US is two-fold: (1) a disparity in economic health of the two nations that makes the US look like a better prospect for poor folks trying to make a living, and (2) a longstanding idiotic immigration policy that tries to ration far too few guest worker permits. This has been going on since the mid-19th century. You must fix both to solve the problem. The first requires both nations to cooperate in many different ways. Only the second is something the US can unilaterally address. Neither alone will do the job.

No "wall" is going to stop desperate people, because expensive walls can always be defeated by cheap ladders, shovels, and bolt cutters. Trump's popular campaign slogan about building a wall is utter nonsense as a policy prescription, and anybody not brainwashed by political sloganeering knows that. The only problem is that because so many believe the slogans that we will spend billions ineffectively, before the folly of this becomes painfully plain (the Chinese made the same mistake with their Great Wall; the resources would have been better spent on more troops). And don't you believe the Mexicans can be made to pay for it; for one thing, they don't have the money. Blood out of a turnip problem. Stupid.

What you want to do is sort through the illegal immigrants already here and find those that have been doing the right things since they got here. That would be working, paying taxes, and sending their kids to school in order to work and pay taxes here as well. And don't kid yourself, anybody working here pays taxes here, illegal alien or not. Those are the ones that deserve legal guest worker status. This is not something that can be finished in one or two presidential terms, but it certainly is overdue getting started.

I'm not related to folks of Mexican descent, but I enjoy having them around. The food and company is great, and they throw marvelous shindigs at weddings and the like. I have a lot of good friends who are of Mexican descent.

So I really do not appreciate your racist attitude about Mexicans, Tom. You are wrong. Wrong about those folks, wrong to hold such an evil attitude, and wrong in your ideas about walling-off the border.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-11-26 11:20:46)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-11-26 11:42:32

GW Johnson wrote:

I normally do not want to participate in the overheated political BS sessions I see here, but I cannot let this egregious BS pass.
Tom, the entire southwestern US and California were once part of Mexico. The US obtained them by conquest.

And how did Mexico obtain that land? By Conquest of course! It wasn't called the Mexican Empire for nothing you know!. Mexico by the way started out as the Capital city of the Aztec Empire, before they were conquered by the Spaniards, and you know what the Aztecs did before the Spaniards came? They made human sacrifices of their enemies to their Sun God Quezaquotal!

That means Mexico IS here, inherently, in a major part of our country today.

Well you see, that's why I don't want too many more of them coming here to take it back! Are you an ethnic Mexican by any chance? GW Johnson doesn't sound like a Mexican name, and you are a native of Texas as I recall, do you "remember the Alamo?"

The US government then made promises to the indigenous inhabitants of those regions about them retaining their land holdings, which it immediately broke, turning them into second- or third-class citizens. They were actually lucky at that, they could have suffered the genocide the Indians suffered. The ones in what is now New Mexico fared the best. California, Arizona, and by a different path Texas, fared the worst.

Perhaps you are referring to he Commanches, they were not called the "Mongols of the West" for nothing you know!

US history is, in many ways, as abominable as that of the Nazis (looking at genocide and slavery). It is certainly not something to be proud of, but it is something to learn from, and it is definitely something not to repeat. Your comment about "If you or Robert want to surround yourself with Mexicans, you could always go to Mexico rather than bring "Mexico" here." -- reveals a clearly-racist attitude on your part about both Mexicans and US citizens of Mexican descent.

What's wrong? Didn't you like that picture I posted?

I thought it was a lovely picture, quite colorful, not disrespectful at all I'd say. But we're the United States of America, not Mexico, unless Mexico wants to join our Union. I'd rather have all of it or none of it. You see if Mexico is a part of the United States of America, they won't be taking the Southwest back, and Mexicans can then come and go as they please! Wouldn't you like that?

Would you like this to be a map of the New United States of America? Canada is welcome to join as well or course, unless they don't like Mexicans!

I feel sorry for you, that ugly attitude will hamper you all your life, for as long as you keep it.
My own attitude is more like that of the first wave of Anglo settlers to Texas when it was still part of Mexico in the 1820's (and I chose that attitude, it was not what I was taught). They fitted in with the locals, who were very good people. It was a mix of Anglo settlers and local Mexicans who conducted the 1835-1836 war for independence from Santa Anna's Mexico, and only because they felt they had to. The flag over the Alamo was an 1824 version of the Mexican flag, representing a wish to be free of Santa Anna's dictatorship, not really Mexico itself. But independence was the only way out.
It was the second wave of Anglo settlers, after Texas entered the union in 1845, that brought the racist attitudes that have caused all the troubles since, and which converted Texas folk of Mexican descent to second class citizens, just like they did in the rest of the Southwest after the 1846-1848 Mexican War.
I'm sorry, but we can just do without that racist bullshit. It only leads to evil.
The problem with illegal immigration from Mexico into the US is two-fold: (1) a disparity in economic health of the two nations that makes the US look like a better prospect for poor folks trying to make a living, and (2) a longstanding idiotic immigration policy that tries to ration far too few guest worker permits. This has been going on since the mid-19th century. You must fix both to solve the problem. The first requires both nations to cooperate in many different ways. Only the second is something the US can unilaterally address. Neither alone will do the job.
No "wall" is going to stop desperate people, because expensive walls can always be defeated by cheap ladders, shovels, and bolt cutters. Trump's popular campaign slogan about building a wall is utter nonsense as a policy prescription, and anybody not brainwashed by political sloganeering knows that. The only problem is that because so many believe the slogans that we will spend billions ineffectively, before the folly of this becomes painfully plain (the Chinese made the same mistake with their Great Wall; the resources would have been better spent on more troops). And don't you believe the Mexicans can be made to pay for it; for one thing, they don't have the money. Blood out of a turnip problem. Stupid.
What you want to do is sort through the illegal immigrants already here and find those that have been doing the right things since they got here. That would be working, paying taxes, and sending their kids to school in order to work and pay taxes here as well. And don't kid yourself, anybody working here pays taxes here, illegal alien or not. Those are the ones that deserve legal guest worker status. This is not something that can be finished in one or two presidential terms, but it certainly is overdue getting started.
I'm not related to folks of Mexican descent, but I enjoy having them around. The food and company is great, and they throw marvelous shindigs at weddings and the like. I have a lot of good friends who are of Mexican descent.
So I really do not appreciate your racist attitude about Mexicans, Tom. You are wrong. Wrong about those folks, wrong to hold such an evil attitude, and wrong in your ideas about walling-off the border.
GW

RobertDyck · 2016-11-26 12:22:01

kbd512 wrote:

Rob,
There never seems to be a shortage of people willing to tell us how we should conduct our affairs, although strikingly few people here in the US are so vocal in their advice about how foreigners should conduct their affairs. I think I can voice the sentiment of many, if not most, ordinary Americans when I say that we'd much rather have our military focus on protecting our own nation instead of everyone else's.
I don't tell people from other countries how to vote, how they should spend their defense budget, or where their military forces should be located. We'd really appreciate it if everyone else extended that same courtesy to us. We cherish our relationships with our allies and we will do everything we believe is required to defend them, even when we believe they can't or won't adequately defend themselves. Opinion on exactly what should be done to defend our allies clearly varies, but somehow we end up footing the bill more often than not.
The US spends more on defense than our allies because more often than not our allies spend substantially less than they were mandated to spend as part of their defense agreements with NATO. This is generally true, not universally true. Many thanks to our NATO allies who have steadfastly abided by their defense agreements to achieve deterrence to aggression through military strength.
No Canadian, EU member, Japanese, or Korean defense programs were initiated to counter the threat posed by the latest Chinese and Russian air defense systems or tactical fighters, so the US assumed a leadership position through development and deployment of B-2's, F-22's, and F-35's. The correct moment in time to determine that you need better military aviation technology to protect your soldiers is not the moment after your soldiers' air cover is turned into twisted, burning heaps of metal falling from the skies.

Listen to what Tom is saying here. He's trying to tell Canada how to spend our money, how much we're supposed to spend, and where we're supposed to send out troops. If the US wants to be "leader of the free world" then expect the rest of that "free world" will have strong opinions about what that leader is demanding. If you don't want the rest of us to tell the US what to do, then stop trying to tell us what to do. If you don't want us to have an opinion, then stop trying to be leader.

Tom has repeated the same crap that a lot of Republicans have stated. Some Democrats as well, but not so many. He claimed the rest of NATO hasn't spent enough on military. The rest of us have stated the US spends far too much on military. Our economies are deeply intertwined. The US does more trade with Canada than any other country, period. Has since World War 2; possibly before that. Canada has a smaller population, and correspondingly smaller economy. We do as much trade with the US as the US does with Canada, so Canada is even more dependent on the US than the US is on Canada. But we both depend on each other. If the US economy goes into full depression, it will pull the rest of the world with it. So yes, we demand the US doesn't do something stupid that will destroy our economy. Overspending on military to drive the US into full bank collapse? The US did that in 2008; politicians talk about "recovery" but they keep repeating the same mistakes.

No, Canada isn't going to spend as much on military as Republicans in the US demand. People like Tom keep demanding that Canada and other NATO countries spend more on military. Those in Canada and NATO countries keep demanding that the US spend less! The US must stop wasting money on useless military spending, and focus on its own economy. Don't like us telling the US what to do? Then stop telling us what to do.

kbd512: I just blamed it on Tom, but in your post, you did the same thing. Since World War 2, the US has tried to tell the rest of NATO how much we're supposed to spend, and where we're supposed to deploy our forces. If you don't like us telling you what to do, then stop trying to tell us what to do.

As for fancy military technology, Russia and China are not threatening Canada or western Europe. Their air defence systems defend themselves from attack, they don't threaten us. The US developed F-15 fighters a number of years ago, so Russia developed "Flanker" fighters to counter them. They aren't a threat to Canada. They could be considered a threat to Europe, but UK/Germany/Spain developed the Eurofighter Typhoon, France developed the Dassault Rafale, and Sweden developed the JAS-39 Gripen. So Europe hasn't sat still.

Besides, Canada developed the Avro Arrow. When Russia demonstrated the Tu-95 Bear bomber in 1952, the Canadian air force developed requirements for a new all weather interceptor in 1953. This new fighter was intended to shoot down the Bear bomber. Canada paid for development of this new fighter, and intended to pay for it by selling the fighter to our NATO allies. A Canadian company called Avro developed the Arrow, 5 prototype aircraft with the a pair of J75 engines were test flown in 1958. However, production aircraft were intended to have a new engine, the mark 2 had a pair of Orenda PS-13 Iroquois engines. One prototype mark 2 aircraft was complete in 1959. The aircraft didn't have engines inserted, but a pair of engines were on a stand immediately behind it. All they had to do was push the engines inside, bolt in place, connect fuel lines, connect electrical control cables. It would have taken technicians 8 more hours to do that, and that work was going to be done first thing the following morning. That's when the order came to scrap it.

The Arrow as designed to supercruise at mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet. Canadian air force requirements said it had to be able to fly mach 2.0 in flat level flight using after burner at 50,000 feet, but the Arrow as able to fly mach 2.5. The fastest US fighter jets at the time had a top speed of mach 1.6. Canadian air force requirements said it had to endure 3G turns, but the Arrow as designed for 9G positive or 3G negative acceleration. Fighter jets today are designed for 9G positive or 3G negative. US fighter jets in the 1950s would radio radar data to an air base, where a computer would process it and radio back results to be displayed to the pilot. The Arrow had everything onboard. This meant US fighters had no radar once they flew out of radio range of an air base, but the Arrow was designed to fly in Canada's northern territories where there are very few bases, almost none. The Arrow as the first fighter to use fly-by-wire. The first US fighter to use that was the F-16 which first flew in 1974. Air interceptor missiles in the 1950s required fighter pilots to use radio to "fly" the missile into enemy aircraft. There were proposals for a "fire and forget" targeting system, but it was never completed. Canada's fighter program included developing "fire and forget" targeting for AIM-7 Sparrow missiles. The Avro Arrow was the best fighter jet for it's day. In fact the only US fighter jet capable of matching the Arrow in every way is the F-22 Raptor, and that's a 21st century aircraft.

Bottom line: Canada developed the best fighter jet in the world at the time. The US panicked, demanded Canada scrap it. The US put heavy pressure on NATO allies to not buy any from Canada if we did finish it. France placed an order for Orenda PS-13 Iroquois engines to be installed in their Mirage fighters, but they wouldn't buy any Arrow fighters. So we went through this before, why would we do it again?

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-11-26 13:43:25

RobertDyck wrote:

kbd512 wrote:
Rob,
There never seems to be a shortage of people willing to tell us how we should conduct our affairs, although strikingly few people here in the US are so vocal in their advice about how foreigners should conduct their affairs. I think I can voice the sentiment of many, if not most, ordinary Americans when I say that we'd much rather have our military focus on protecting our own nation instead of everyone else's.
I don't tell people from other countries how to vote, how they should spend their defense budget, or where their military forces should be located. We'd really appreciate it if everyone else extended that same courtesy to us. We cherish our relationships with our allies and we will do everything we believe is required to defend them, even when we believe they can't or won't adequately defend themselves. Opinion on exactly what should be done to defend our allies clearly varies, but somehow we end up footing the bill more often than not.
The US spends more on defense than our allies because more often than not our allies spend substantially less than they were mandated to spend as part of their defense agreements with NATO. This is generally true, not universally true. Many thanks to our NATO allies who have steadfastly abided by their defense agreements to achieve deterrence to aggression through military strength.
No Canadian, EU member, Japanese, or Korean defense programs were initiated to counter the threat posed by the latest Chinese and Russian air defense systems or tactical fighters, so the US assumed a leadership position through development and deployment of B-2's, F-22's, and F-35's. The correct moment in time to determine that you need better military aviation technology to protect your soldiers is not the moment after your soldiers' air cover is turned into twisted, burning heaps of metal falling from the skies.
Listen to what Tom is saying here.

The only problem is I'm not saying it here, the person quoted is kbd512.

He's trying to tell Canada how to spend our money, how much we're supposed to spend, and where we're supposed to send out troops. If the US wants to be "leader of the free world" then expect the rest of that "free world" will have strong opinions about what that leader is demanding. If you don't want the rest of us to tell the US what to do, then stop trying to tell us what to do. If you don't want us to have an opinion, then stop trying to be leader.

You ever hear the expression "Divide and Conquer?" Do you want to be divided and Conquered, I don't think Putin would be as tolerant of your opinions as we are, where he to conquer you! Canada stands between the United States and Russia, which is why we want to make sure that Canada is contributing to the Continental Defense. If you want to go your own way and be conquered by Russia, then that is a problem for us. An Army has a unified command for a reason. You don't believe in a Unified command?

Tom has repeated the same crap that a lot of Republicans have stated. Some Democrats as well, but not so many. He claimed the rest of NATO hasn't spent enough on military.

Out of one side of your mouth, you are saying that the United States has bases everywhere and is occupying those countries where it has bases, out of the other side of your mouth, you complain about the United States insisting that Canada and our allies spend more on defense, are you trying to have your cake and eat it too? You see our defenss require that our allies spend enough on defense so they can defend themselves from our enemies, if they do not, then we at least ask them toallow us to have bases on their territories, if they won't do that, then they become vulnerable to being conquered by our enemies, and then they become military targets and subject to bombing by our forces, just as Occupied France was during World War II. Do you want to be an easy conquest for Russia, so American troops can go into your country and kick the Russians out again, liberating your cities at tremendous cost to us and to your cities?

The rest of us have stated the US spends far too much on military.

How do you know, the only person who knows for sure is our enemies, Al Qaeda for instance believes we have not spend enough on our military, otherwise they would not have attacked the World Trade Center and he Pentagon on 9/11! The Japanese thought the Roosevelt Administration wasn't spending enough on the Military, otherwise they would not have attacked Pearl Harbor. Whenever an enemy attacks, he is saying we are not spending enough on our defenses, otherwise thy would not attack!

Our economies are deeply intertwined. The US does more trade with Canada than any other country, period. Has since World War 2; possibly before that. Canada has a smaller population, and correspondingly smaller economy. We do as much trade with the US as the US does with Canada, so Canada is even more dependent on the US than the US is on Canada. But we both depend on each other. If the US economy goes into full depression, it will pull the rest of the world with it. So yes, we demand the US doesn't do something stupid that will destroy our economy. Overspending on military to drive the US into full bank collapse? The US did that in 2008; politicians talk about "recovery" but they keep repeating the same mistakes.

If a New Cold War is breaking out, then we are not overspending on the Military. We need to spend enough on the military to establish peace, if there is not peace, then we are not spending enough!

No, Canada isn't going to spend as much on military as Republicans in the US demand. People like Tom keep demanding that Canada and other NATO countries spend more on military.

You complain that the US dominates NATO too muhm then why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Russia is a piker, its economy in only the size of Germany, and it has a larger population and doesn't export cars and chemicals like Germany does, so why does Western Europe allow that little puke of a country under Putin push it around?

Those in Canada and NATO countries keep demanding that the US spend less!

At the Start of a New Cold War? You should have talkedto us about that ten years ago when there war peace! The problem with liberals is that its always a time to spend less on the Military, when peace breaks out, when a new Cold War Starts, when terrorists attack, for them it is always time to slash spending on the Military!

The US must stop wasting money on useless military spending, and focus on its own economy. Don't like us telling the US what to do? Then stop telling us what to do.

We would like a stronger NATO, what we suggest is for NATO's own good! Canada's main strategy is to call on the US for help if it ever is attacked by Russia, and that is after you suggest that we cut our military spending!

kbd512: I just blamed it on Tom, but in your post, you did the same thing. Since World War 2, the US has tried to tell the rest of NATO how much we're supposed to spend, and where we're supposed to deploy our forces. If you don't like us telling you what to do, then stop trying to tell us what to do.

Europe has a combined GDP that is greater than the United States, all we're asking is that it spend on its militaries in proportion to their economy, the same as we are. What good is NATO if its main strategy is to call on the US for help when it gets in trouble. If you want an independent Europe, then the logical thing to do would be for those members of NATO to increase their defense budgets! Lets not look so vulnerable to the Russians, so they don't attack!

As for fancy military technology, Russia and China are not threatening Canada or western Europe.

That's pretty selfish of you! Why do you wish to regionalize Europe by using the term "Western" Are you offering Russia a bite of Eastern Europe as a peace offering? Do you want Russia to build Death Camps in Poland? The charter of NATO states that an attack on one is an attack on all! And Poland is a larger country than Canada you know that? Poland has more people, and so you are willing to sacrifice those people's freedoms to protect Canada, how "Noble" of you!

Their air defence systems defend themselves from attack, they don't threaten us. The US developed F-15 fighters a number of years ago, so Russia developed "Flanker" fighters to counter them. They aren't a threat to Canada. They could be considered a threat to Europe, but UK/Germany/Spain developed the Eurofighter Typhoon, France developed the Dassault Rafale, and Sweden developed the JAS-39 Gripen. So Europe hasn't sat still.
Besides, Canada developed the Avro Arrow. When Russia demonstrated the Tu-95 Bear bomber in 1952, the Canadian air force developed requirements for a new all weather interceptor in 1953. This new fighter was intended to shoot down the Bear bomber. Canada paid for development of this new fighter, and intended to pay for it by selling the fighter to our NATO allies. A Canadian company called Avro developed the Arrow, 5 prototype aircraft with the a pair of J75 engines were test flown in 1958. However, production aircraft were intended to have a new engine, the mark 2 had a pair of Orenda PS-13 Iroquois engines. One prototype mark 2 aircraft was complete in 1959. The aircraft didn't have engines inserted, but a pair of engines were on a stand immediately behind it. All they had to do was push the engines inside, bolt in place, connect fuel lines, connect electrical control cables. It would have taken technicians 8 more hours to do that, and that work was going to be done first thing the following morning. That's when the order came to scrap it.
The Arrow as designed to supercruise at mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet. Canadian air force requirements said it had to be able to fly mach 2.0 in flat level flight using after burner at 50,000 feet, but the Arrow as able to fly mach 2.5. The fastest US fighter jets at the time had a top speed of mach 1.6. Canadian air force requirements said it had to endure 3G turns, but the Arrow as designed for 9G positive or 3G negative acceleration. Fighter jets today are designed for 9G positive or 3G negative. US fighter jets in the 1950s would radio radar data to an air base, where a computer would process it and radio back results to be displayed to the pilot. The Arrow had everything onboard. This meant US fighters had no radar once they flew out of radio range of an air base, but the Arrow was designed to fly in Canada's northern territories where there are very few bases, almost none. The Arrow as the first fighter to use fly-by-wire. The first US fighter to use that was the F-16 which first flew in 1974. Air interceptor missiles in the 1950s required fighter pilots to use radio to "fly" the missile into enemy aircraft. There were proposals for a "fire and forget" targeting system, but it was never completed. Canada's fighter program included developing "fire and forget" targeting for AIM-7 Sparrow missiles. The Avro Arrow was the best fighter jet for it's day. In fact the only US fighter jet capable of matching the Arrow in every way is the F-22 Raptor, and that's a 21st century aircraft.
Bottom line: Canada developed the best fighter jet in the world at the time. The US panicked, demanded Canada scrap it. The US put heavy pressure on NATO allies to not buy any from Canada if we did finish it. France placed an order for Orenda PS-13 Iroquois engines to be installed in their Mirage fighters, but they wouldn't buy any Arrow fighters. So we went through this before, why would we do it again?

RobertDyck · 2016-11-26 15:45:31

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

You ever hear the expression "Divide and Conquer?" Do you want to be divided and Conquered, I don't think Putin would be as tolerant of your opinions as we are, where he to conquer you!

Canadians tend to be humble, but only until someone punches us in the face. I described something that really happened to me in a bar. A friend was a security guard, often when we got together he wanted to hang out in the bar closest to his house. It was one of the roughest bars in the city; I'm 6' tall, but I'm not one to fight, so I would never even enter that place if I wasn't with my security guard friend. A couple times bar fights broke out, I stayed out of it. One time was different, bar patrons formed a circle around the two men who fought. My friend joined the circle. Again, I stayed out of it. When my friend came back, I asked what was that all about. He said the men were fighting over a girl. He knew the girl so wanted to ensure she didn't get hurt. The bar owner threw one of the fighters out, but let the other stay. The fighter who remained came over to our table to challenge my friend. It was a cheap bar, only had 8-foot long folding tables. Long tables mean the fighter couldn't easily come around the table to get me. I stayed quiet to keep out of it. My friend refused to fight the guy, said he didn't want to be thrown out. My friend folded his arms and put his elbows on the table. To end the conversation he turned his head away. As soon as he did so, the fighter stood and cold cocked my friend on the back of the head. Did I mention my friend was ex-military? He was briefly with the Canadian airborne regiment, a unit that doesn't take shit from no-one. My friend moved so fast it was a blur. He grabbed the guy by his jacket and pushed him back. I had to walk around the table to find where they went. My friend had the guy on his back on another table, held him down by the jacket with his left hand while pounding his face with his right. My friend pounded his face into hamburger.

This really happened, but I used it as a metaphor for Canadian foreign policy. Canadians are polite, courteous, respectful, humble; in every way international boy scouts. However, if you land a blow on a Canadian, you better make the first one count because it's the last one you'll ever get.

Russia may be a cold country like Canada, but if they tried to invade, they would fail as badly as when Napoleon tried to invade Russia. Or Nazi Germans tried to invade Russia. The United States tried to invade Canada in 1812. At that time Canada was a colony of Britain, so Britain send their troops to counterattack deep within the United States while Canadian forces defended. The result was the US army had their ass handed to them.

In land area, Canada is second only to Russia. Canada has more land area than China. Our population may be 1/10th the United States, or 1/5th Russia, but we're tough. We're small, but tough. Russia wouldn't dare.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Canada stands between the United States and Russia, which is why we want to make sure that Canada is contributing to the Continental Defense. If you want to go your own way and be conquered by Russia, then that is a problem for us. An Army has a unified command for a reason. You don't believe in a Unified command?

We believe in cooperation. That does not mean we are a doormat. As for Russia, if they tried it would be like when Napoleon invaded Russia. Only this time they're Napoleon.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

If a New Cold War is breaking out, then we are not overspending on the Military. We need to spend enough on the military to establish peace, if there is not peace, then we are not spending enough!

It's politicians in your country who are picking a fight. Not Russia. Hopefully Trump will stop the crap. I'm hoping he really will "drain the swamp".

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

You complain that the US dominates NATO too muhm then why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Russia is a piker, its economy in only the size of Germany...so why does Western Europe allow that little puke of a country under Putin push it around?

You won't make friends with talk like that. Russia produces some really impressive stuff. Of course a lot of the impressive military stuff came from Ukraine, which is one reason Putin doesn't want to lose Ukraine. To answer your question, Canada doesn't want to intimidate anyone. We don't want to threaten. And most importantly, we don't want to overspend on the military like the US. Take Canada's lead, reduce reduce reduce. Be friends with everyone, so you don't need to spend copious gobs of cash for weapons to threaten everyone.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

The problem with liberals is that its always a time to spend less on the Military

You realize that I'm a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party of Canada? Other Liberals think I'm too right-wing: I'm libertarian, I believe in smaller government, reducing spending, balanced budgets, reduce debt, reduce taxes. But you make me sound left-wing.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

We would like a stronger NATO, what we suggest is for NATO's own good! Canada's main strategy is to call on the US for help if it ever is attacked by Russia, and that is after you suggest that we cut our military spending!

Bull shit! Never forget, after the US demanded Canada cancel the Avro Arrow, the only defence against Tu-95 Bear bombers were Canadian pilots flying obsolete American fighter jets. Canada had CF-101 Voodoo fighters. The official and trained tactic was if Bear bombers were seen coming over the North Pole, Canadian Voodoo fighter would fly to the US air force base in Bangor Maine, swap out their weapons for AIR-2 Genie missiles with nuclear warheads, and fly to the Bear bombers. American fighter jets would cover Canadian Atlantic provinces because our fighter jets would be engaged. To ensure the nuclear tipped missiles destroy Russian bombers, the fighter had to be within the blast radius. That means this was a suicide mission. This is the Canadian equivalent to kamikaze. Canadian fighter pilots knew they would be asked to sacrifice themselves.

Canada asked the manufacturer of an American fighter aircraft to upgrade to meet Canadian requirements so Canadian pilots would no longer have to sacrifice themselves. Canadian air force generals and aircraft engineers asked the manfacturer of the YF-17 to upgrade their aircraft to Canadian requirements. It still wouldn't meet the requirements for the Avro Arrow, but enough that Canadian pilots wouldn't have to fly a suicide mission. The result was so radically modified you couldn't call it YF-17 anymore; the result was called F-18 Hornet. But Canada couldn't afford to purchase enough aircraft to meet what the manufacturer thought was necessary to pay the bills. So they went to the US Navy. They modified it further to become a carrier aircraft.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Europe ... we're asking is that it spend on its militaries in proportion to their economy, the same as we are.

Europe and Canada is asking the US to reduce your military spending to match the proportion we are.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Why do you wish to regionalize Europe by using the term "Western"

Western Europe doesn't need US protection. They can take care of themselves. I'm asking you to remove all US military bases from Western Europe. Eastern Europe does still need help; from all of NATO, not just the US.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-11-26 16:06:58

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
You complain that the US dominates NATO too muhm then why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Russia is a piker, its economy in only the size of Germany...so why does Western Europe allow that little puke of a country under Putin push it around?
You won't make friends with talk like that. Russia produces some really impressive stuff. Of course a lot of the impressive military stuff came from Ukraine, which is one reason Putin doesn't want to lose Ukraine. To answer your question, Canada doesn't want to intimidate anyone. We don't want to threaten. And most importantly, we don't want to overspend on the military like the US. Take Canada's lead, reduce reduce reduce. Be friends with everyone, so you don't need to spend copious gobs of cash for weapons to threaten everyone.

Russia already lost Ukraine. Ukraine is a part of Europe with a population that is greater than Canada's, Poland is also a country that is bigger than Canada, these aren't small countries, they may look small to you on a map of Europe, but most of Canada is tundra, most of its land is empty frozen real estate. I see you take care of your cousins in Holland, that are in "Western Europe", but not my cousins that live in Poland in a country more populous than yours!

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-11-26 16:08:48)

SpaceNut · 2016-11-26 16:29:05

GW my Grand mother was a resident Texan of many years as it helped to keep her healthy due to the high new hampshire climate moisture content which would cause her to have pneumonia when she came to visit for long periods of time. She lived a short distance from El Paso, Played Accordian, sang, played the harmonica and love the country and western sound she loved Texas and the people there in.
By the way My hertiage is French, Canadian French, American Indian (Black Foot I believe) of which great grand dad lived in Penacook NH and was a full blooded Indian from what I am told and yes there is a little english in there as well. So America is a Melting pot when we get past the differences.

RobertDyck · 2016-11-26 16:59:18

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Russia already lost Ukraine. Ukraine is a part of Europe with a population that is greater than Canada's, Poland is also a country that is bigger than Canada, these aren't small countries, they may look small to you on a map of Europe, but most of Canada is tundra, most of its land is empty frozen real estate. I see you take care of your cousins in Holland, that are in "Western Europe", but not my cousins that live in Poland in a country more populous than yours!

Ah. So it's about Poland. Ok.

I said remove all US military bases in western Europe. Move some of that equipment and personnel to eastern Europe, but move most of the equipment to the continental US, and give US military personnel an honourable discharge. Since you are obsessed with Poland, that does include moving some US military equipment and personnel from western Europe to Poland.

Ps. My ancestors started in Holland, moved to a part of what was then Prussia but is now part of Germany, then moved to Poland for about 3 generations, then moved to what was then southern Russia after they conquered and annexed eastern Ukraine. That area is now again part of eastern Ukraine. My ancestors moved to Canada, leaving in 1879 and arriving in Canada in 1881. My ancestors were part of the Chortitza colony, specifically the town of Schoenhorst. That is today the town of Ruchaivka, in Zaporizka Oblast, east Ukraine. That's west of the city of Zaporizhia.

::Edit:: I guess I should add, my ancestors on my father's side are Mennonite. My ancestors on my mother's side are Scott, English, Irish, and Welsh. That's pretty much all the British isles. My mother's ancestors have been in Canada since before Confederation, that means before Canada became a country. If you count those born here as first generation, then I'm fifth generation Canadian.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2016-11-26 23:45:31)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#226 2016-11-23 10:31:32

Re: Politics

#227 2016-11-23 20:35:03

Re: Politics

#228 2016-11-23 23:22:45

Re: Politics

#229 2016-11-24 02:24:46

Re: Politics

#230 2016-11-24 08:28:44

Re: Politics

#231 2016-11-24 08:52:47

Re: Politics

#232 2016-11-24 11:26:19

Re: Politics

#233 2016-11-24 11:38:32

Re: Politics

#234 2016-11-24 13:19:47

Re: Politics

#235 2016-11-24 13:52:38

Re: Politics

#236 2016-11-24 17:18:30

Re: Politics

#237 2016-11-24 22:13:16

Re: Politics

#238 2016-11-25 06:04:31

Re: Politics

#239 2016-11-25 19:57:05

Re: Politics

#240 2016-11-25 20:24:37

Re: Politics

#241 2016-11-25 22:29:19

Re: Politics

#242 2016-11-26 08:48:32

Re: Politics

#243 2016-11-26 10:49:33

Re: Politics

#244 2016-11-26 11:42:32

Re: Politics

#245 2016-11-26 12:22:01

Re: Politics

#246 2016-11-26 13:43:25

Re: Politics

#247 2016-11-26 15:45:31

Re: Politics

#248 2016-11-26 16:06:58

Re: Politics

#249 2016-11-26 16:29:05

Re: Politics

#250 2016-11-26 16:59:18

Re: Politics

Board footer