[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse"

"Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD"

"Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy"

Woodworking and Construction Hacks

"CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination"

"NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law"

"Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing"

Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine

Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn.

After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning

Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate

Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending.

Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar”

"Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny"

"Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is"

Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner.

Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him

South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien

GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis

Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash

New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms

Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania

Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally

"It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala

Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump

Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive'

(Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

International News
See other International News Articles

Title: Hillary, Trump, and War with Russia: The Goddamdest Stupid Idea I Have Ever Heard, and I Have Lived in Washington
Source: Fred On Everything
URL Source: http://fredoneverything.org/hillary ... nd-i-have-lived-in-washington/
Published: Aug 11, 2016
Author: Fred Reed
Post Date: 2016-08-11 21:32:09 by Stoner
Keywords: None
Views: 4798
Comments: 60

Don’t look for a walk-over. The T14 Armata, Russia’s latest tank. You don’t want to fight this monster if you can think of a better idea, such as not fighting it. Russia once made large numbers of second-rate tanks. That worm has turned. This thing is way advanced and outguns the American M1A2, having a 125mm smoothbore firing APFSDS long-rods to the Abrams 120mm. (As Hillary would know, that’s Armor-piercing, fin-stabilized, discarding-sabot. You did know, didn’t you, Hill?) This isn’t the place for a disquisition on armor, but the above beast is an ver advanced design with unmanned turret and, well, a T34 it isn’t. (I was once an aficionado of tanks. If interested, here and here.)

A good reason to vote for Trump, a very good reason whatever his other intentions, is that he does not want a war with Russia. Hillary and her elite ventriloquists threaten just that. Note the anti-Russian hysteria coming from her and her remoras.

Such a war would be yet another example of the utter control of America by rich insiders. No normal American has anything at all to gain by such a war. And no normal American has the slightest influence over whether such a war takes place, except by voting for Trump. The military has become entirely the plaything of unaccountable elites.

A martial principle of great wisdom says that military stupidity comes in three grades: Ordinarily stupid; really, really, really stupid; and fighting Russia. Think Charles XII at Poltava, Napoleon after Borodino, Adolf and Kursk.

Letting dilettantes, grifters, con men, pasty Neocons, bottle-blonde ruins, and corporations decide on war is insane. We have pseudo-masculine dwarves playing with things they do not understand. So far as I am aware, none of these fern-bar Clausewitzes has worn boots, been in a war, seen a war, or faces any chance of being in a war started by themselves. They brought us Iraq, Afghanistan, and Isis, and can’t win wars against goatherds with AKs. They are going to fight…Russia?

A point that the tofu ferocities of New York might bear in mind is that wars seldom turn out as expected, usually with godawful results. We do not know what would happen in a war with Russia. Permit me a tedious catalog to make this point. It is very worth making.

When Washington pushed the South into the Civil War, it expected a conflict that might be over in twenty-four hours, not four years with as least 650,000 dead. When Germany began WWI, it expected a swift lunge into Paris, not four years of hideously bloody static war followed by unconditional surrender. When the Japanese Army pushed for attacking Pearl, it did not foresee GIs marching in Tokyo and a couple of cities glowing at night. When Hitler invaded Poland, utter defeat and occupation of Germany was not among his war aims. When the US invaded Vietnam, it did not expect to be outfought and outsmarted by a bush-world country. When Russia invaded Afghanistan it did not expect…nor when America invaded Afghanistan, nor when it attacked Iraq, nor….

Is there a pattern here?

The standard American approach to war is to underestimate the enemy, overestimate American capacities, and misunderstand the kind of war it enters. This is particularly true when the war is a manhood ritual for masculine inadequates–think Kristol, Podhoretz, Sanders, the whole Neocon milk bar, and that mendacious wreck, Hillary, who has the military grasp of a Shetland pony. If you don’t think weak egos and perpetual adolescence have a part in deciding policy, read up on Kaiser Wilhelm.

Now, if Washington accidentally or otherwise provoked a war with Russia in, say, the Baltics or the Ukraine, and actually used its own forces, where might this lead, given the Pentagon’s customary delusional optimism? A very serious possibility is a humiliating American defeat. The US has not faced a real enemy in a long time. In that time the armed forces have been feminized and social-justice warriorified, with countless officials having been appointed by Obama for reasons of race and sex. Training has been watered down to benefit girl soldiers, physical standards lowered, and the ranks of general officers filled with perfumed political princes. Russia is right there at the Baltic borders: location, location, location. Somebody said, “Amateurs think strategy, professionals think logistics.” Uh-huh. The Russians are not pansies and they are not primitive.

What would Washington do, what would New York make Washington do, having been handed its ass in a very public defeat? Huge egos would be in play, the credibility of the whole American empire. Could little Hillary Dillary Pumpkin Pie force NATO into a general war with Russia, or would the Neocons try to go it alone–with other people’s lives? (Russia also has borders with Eastern Europe, which connects to Western Europe. Do you suppose the Europeans would think of this?) Would Washington undertake, or try to undertake, the national mobilization that would be necessary to fight Russia in its backyard? Naval war? Nukes in desperation?

And, since Russia is not going to invade anybody unprovoked, Washington would have to attack. See above, the three forms of military stupidity.

The same danger exists incidentally with regard to a war with China in the South China Sea. The American Navy hasn’t fought a war in seventy years. It doesn’t know how well its armament works. The Chinese, who are not fools, have invested in weaponry specifically designed to defeat carrier battle groups. A carrier in smoking ruins would force Washington to start a wider war to save face, with unpredictable results. Can you name one American, other than the elites, who has anything to gain from war with China?

What has any normal American, as distinct from the elites and various lobbies, gained from any of our wars post Nine-Eleven? Hillary and her Neocon pack have backed all of them.

It is easy to regard countries as suprahuman beings that think and take decisions and do things. Practically speaking, countries consist of a small number of people, usually men, who make decisions for reasons often selfish, pathologically aggressive, pecuniary, delusional, misinformed, or actually psychopathic in the psychiatric sense. For example, the invasion of Iraq, a disaster, was pushed by the petroleum lobbies to get the oil, the arms lobbies to get contracts, the Jewish lobbies to get bombs dropped on Israel’s enemies, the imperialists for empire, and the congenitally combative because that is how they think. Do you see anything in the foregoing that would matter to a normal American? These do not add up to a well-conceived policy. Considerations no better drive the desire to fight Russia or to force it to back down.

I note, pointlessly, that probably none of America’s recent martial catastrophes would have occurred if we still had constitutional government. How many congressmen do you think would vote for a declaration of war if they had to tell their voters that they had just launched, for no reason of importance to Americans, an attack on the homeland of a nuclear power?

There are lots of reasons not to vote for Clinton and the suppurating corruption she represents. Not letting her owners play with matches rates high among them.


Found this while on another site. Never heard of this guy before. Interesting take on war with Russia. I doubt Shitlerly would understand this.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 48.

#1. To: Stoner (#0) (Edited)

When the US invaded Vietnam, it did not expect to be outfought and outsmarted by a bush-world country.

During Viet Nam, the real enemy was at home in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Our military was sent there to lose.

rlk  posted on  2016-08-11   21:58:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: rlk (#1)

" During Viet Nam, the real enemy was at home in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Our military was sent there to lose. "

Exactly !

Stoner  posted on  2016-08-12   0:25:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Stoner (#3)

" During Viet Nam, the real enemy was at home in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Our military was sent there to lose. "

Exactly !

It annoys me to this day when people talk about how we lost Vietnam. The US left in in 73 WITH A VICTORY -- a real victory.

Then, 2 years later, the Democrats here gave the commies the political victory they so craved.

no gnu taxes  posted on  2016-08-12   0:37:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: no gnu taxes (#4)

It annoys me to this day when people talk about how we lost Vietnam. The US left in in 73 WITH A VICTORY -- a real victory.

Then, 2 years later, the Democrats here gave the commies the political victory they so craved.

We lost the war. A Republican was President when the North overran the South.

We fought it stupidly, took bad casualties, were unable to set up a government capable of defending itself.

We lost. That's what defeat looks like: your enemy gets all of his objectives, you lose everything you fought for and all of your sacrifice was in vain. That is defeat.

It doesn't matter that we "won all the battles". The Russians won all the battles in Afghanistan too. Didn't matter. They lost the war. So did we.

And we're losing the war in Afghanistan right now too, just like we lost Vietnam, and just like the Russians lost Afghanistan before us, for exactly the same reasons.

We overestimated our abilities, we overcommitted, we bit off more than we could choose, and we lost. And in the process we killed 55,000 of our own countrymen, crippled another quarter million Americans for life, and imposed a trillion dollar debt on ourselves - for nothing.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-08-12   8:06:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Vicomte13 (#8)

We lost the war. A Republican was President when the North overran the South.

We left Vietnam with the caveat that if NV showed aggression, we'd resume bombing the shit out of them again.

Ford begged Congress to provide funding to stop the invasion of the North, and they refused.

Remember the Case-Church amendment? It was passed by a veto proof majority. It prohibited the US from taking any military action to stop NV. The fucking Democrats WANTED the communists to prevail.

no gnu taxes  posted on  2016-08-12   8:23:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: no gnu taxes, Vicomte13 (#9)

Ford begged Congress to provide funding to stop the invasion of the North, and they refused.

They were stopping North for several years. There is such thing as cutting losses and accepting defeat - it is not a shame.

America did not need Vietnam same way as French did not. The latter made a stable South with Diem at the top.

See the movie "Quiet American".

A Pole  posted on  2016-08-12   13:23:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: A Pole (#19)

There is such thing as cutting losses and accepting defeat - it is not a shame.

Maybe somebody should have told that to the SV who were tortured and murdered or had to take to the high seas on makeshift rafts after the Democrats reneged on our promises.

no gnu taxes  posted on  2016-08-13   7:57:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: no gnu taxes (#26)

Maybe somebody should have told that to the SV who were tortured and murdered or had to take to the high seas on makeshift rafts after the Democrats reneged on our promises.

So, to be clear, it was the DEMOCRATS fault that Saigon fell, even though the White House and the Supreme Court were both in the hands of the Republicans.

And this was because the Democrats were in control of Congress.

That's the assertion.

Explain to me, then, how everything that Obama has done is not the Republicans' fault, considering that the Republicans control Congress, and the Supreme Court to boot.

The Republicans have greater control over our government than the Democrats did in Nixon and Ford's day, and yet Obama advances across the board.

That is because the Obama policies are really the polices of the Republicans, right?

Ford was President and the Supreme Court was Republican when Saigon fell. Just the Democrat control of Congress is sufficient to shift blame.

By those standards, Obama is blameless, for the Republicans control Congress and have controlled the Supreme Court throughout his Presidency.

Right?

Or does the standard of blame shift so that it always rests on Democrats?

That's what partisans always do. It's why they don't have a lot of credibility. It's always the other guy's fault.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-08-13   8:02:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Vicomte13 (#28)

So, to be clear, it was the DEMOCRATS fault that Saigon fell, even though the White House and the Supreme Court were both in the hands of the Republicans.

We PROMISED we would not allow NV to take action. It wouldn't have even been that hard to prevent it either. Send a number of B-52s to turn Hanoi into a parking lot, and there is no way an invasion would have been conducted.

The Democrats had veto proof majorities in the House and Senate. Hell, even the Republicans were pretty much Democrats.

The Democrats wanted to say the US lost. They rejoiced in that mantra. It seems to be what you doing too.

Explain to me, then, how everything that Obama has done is not the Republicans' fault,

The current GOP does not have a veto proof majority.

no gnu taxes  posted on  2016-08-13   8:12:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: no gnu taxes (#29)

The Democrats wanted to say the US lost. They rejoiced in that mantra. It seems to be what you doing too.

I don't rejoice in it. But yes, when the US goes into major wars without the necessary constitutional declaration of war that we need to bind our laws, our private contracts and our civil society to the specific national security and censorship and rationing and taxation and mobilization rules of wartime, then it is important that the US lose the police action.

It is important that the United States be punished with defeat every time we go to war without formally declaring it, formally binding the people to total war, formally binding the economy to 90% taxation, massive mobilization, and censorship to maintain morale.

War is a bloody and terrible thing, and it's supposed to be hard to do it. It's supposed to require enough support of the people to require Congress to declare it. To win modern war means that the profit-seeking activity of peacetime must stop, and all excess of private profit beyond regular subsistence needs to go into the war effort, to massively mobilize and win the thing. That way fewer people die and fewer people are crippled.

America has pretended that we can have a full throttle private profit-seeking capitalist economy, with accumulation of wealth and regular uncensored life, AND at the same time send professional troops over to die and be killed.

When we have done it, and it's all we have done since 1945, we always lose. We always will. It is very important to rub Americans' noses in their defeats and disasters, again and again and again, so that they will SEE the insanity and stupidity of our approach to police actions, and so that we will understand that we're not great enough, strong enough, or good enough at war to actually WIN anything unless we go all out. Then (and only then) do we win.

We lost Korea. We lost Vietnam,. We lost Iraq. We're in the process of losing Afghanistan. We "won" Kosovo...meaning we established a Muslim state in Europe - so, it was an easy win, because we fought FOR evil that time. We lost. And we're going to keep on losing.

And whenever we enter into police actiona instead of declaring wars, we always will lose, and that's a good thing. Because it would be terrible if America got away with winning wars on the cheap. We engage in a lot of them, and if we actually won and got advantage out of them, we'd engage in even more police actions.

As it is, though, we always lose and spend a fortune, and have "wounded warriors" and terrible political turmoil internally. And this is the just punishment of an arrogant nation that does not even follow its own Constitution, which requires a declaration of war.

Instead, we just let Presidents commit us to mass murder on executive orders, and then we always get our asses handed to us in the end, with grand strategic debacles - like Vietnam, or Iraq - or endless deployment, expense and drain, for nothing, as in Korea, Kosovo and Afghanistan.

We're trying to have our way in the Ukraine. We were wrong from the beginning. Putin has been right all along there. We are frustrated and not winning. And that's good.

Aggressive imperialism is evil, and when we do it, it's good that we lose. That SHOULD teach us the lesson that we were stupid to get involved in it in the first place.

When Americans want to pretend we WON wars that we lost, that's just trying to save face, which ends up just giving cover for the same aggressive morons to do it AGAIN, and AGAIN.

We had our ass handed to us in Vietnam, and the whole world knows we lost. We propped up a government, fought for almost a decade, lost 55,000 and had a quarter million crippled, went into debt over a trillion dollars, all to abjectly lose everything. The Soviet Union got the benefit of our naval base at Cam Rahn Bay. Because we were defeated. Like Napoleon at Waterloo. Didn't matter that he won almost all the battles before that, did it? The image of Vietnam is of people hanging onto the skids of the last helicopter out of Saigon, as the last Americans fled for their lives with their tail between their legs.

We got whomped.

We lost it all.

We should not have been there in the first place.

If we were going to be there, we needed to declare war.

If we were going to fight the wrong fight, against the wrong enemy, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, then at very least we needed to declare and spend the money and lose the profit and accept the restrictions on our own liberties necessary to win.

We didn't. So we lost. And it's good that we did. Teach us a lesson. Maybe. If we'll learn it.

We didn't learn it. Which is why we went into Iraq and lost it to the Iranians in the end. And why we followed the USSR into Afghanistan, where we're just waiting to get exhausted enough to retreat, defeated, and let the country go back to the Taliban who sheltered Bin Laden.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-08-13   12:00:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Vicomte13 (#32)

Did the Soviet Union fall or did it not?

We won.

The only thing we lost is the promise to protect the SV people.

no gnu taxes  posted on  2016-08-13   12:15:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: no gnu taxes (#35)

Did the Soviet Union fall or did it not?

We won.

We weren't fighting the Soviet Union, we were fighting the North Vietnamese, and many South Vietnamese. The Vietnamese drove us out of their country, and are still ruling it. The Vietnamese won the Vietnam war, and the Americans lost it.

The Vietnam war, like Korea, was more of a proxy war with Communist China than with the Soviet Union. The Chinese fought us to a draw in Korea. And they achieved their objectives in Vietnam.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-08-13   23:00:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Vicomte13 (#37) (Edited)

The Vietnam war, like Korea, was more of a proxy war with Communist China than with the Soviet Union. The Chinese fought us to a draw in Korea. And they achieved their objectives in Vietnam.

Chairman Mao is on record for saying he wondered why we did anything as foolish as assassinate Diem.

rlk  posted on  2016-08-13   23:46:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: rlk (#39)

Chairman Mao is on record for saying he wondered why we did anything as foolish as assassinate Diem.

The whole war was a foolish fiasco. Wrong war, against the wrong enemy, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-08-14   8:03:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Vicomte13 (#40)

The whole war was a foolish fiasco. Wrong war, against the wrong enemy, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

According to you with suppression of valid information contradicting your subversive argument.

rlk  posted on  2016-08-14   12:39:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: rlk (#41)

My argument isn't subversive. That's the language of then old, dead fools like Nixon who pretended that the people who didn't agree with their idiotic approach to war and their destructive choices of "national interests" were "subversives".

Truth is, Nixon and the rah-rah gang did more to damage America permanently, by saddling us with debt in imperial wars we lost, and by their illegal behavior that rightly destroyed the ability to have faith in the trustworthyness of our government.

My argument is that of a patriot. Vietnam was stupid because we lost. We killed 55,000 Americans losing. We crippled a quarter million Americans losing. We wrecked our domestic peace with a class-based draft, for a war we lost. And we spent a trillion dollars (two trillion in modern money) losing,

You try to hang a fig leaf on the intellectual, military, political, economic and moral failure of your political belief system and the things you supported and still support. YOU are the subversive, and it is people like you, with your imperial beliefs but bungling serial incompetence, that laid this country low.

Had the country followed my belief system, Vietnam would be what it is, but we would have those 55,000 people and their kin, and those 250,000 limbs, and that $2 trillion, and our institutions would not have been trashed by shits like Nixon and LBJ and their military supporters.

My way would have left us stronger. Your way left us cratered in a smoking hole so bad that 40 years on you STILL have to lie about it and do a fan dance with the facts, and pretend that the people who oppose your tomfoolery are the "subversives".

You are the subversive. I am the patriot.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-08-14   12:49:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: Vicomte13 (#42)

My argument is that of a patriot. Vietnam was stupid because we lost.

If we had won, would it have been an intelligent war?

We killed 55,000 Americans losing. We crippled a quarter million Americans losing.

And if we would have won, how many more casualties?

We wrecked our domestic peace with a class-based draft,

We had the same draft since before WWII.

You're outing yourself again with the 'class based' crap. At best, you're a socialistic patriot.

tpaine  posted on  2016-08-14   13:59:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: tpaine (#44)

You're outing yourself again with the 'class based' crap. At best, you're a socialistic patriot.

The draft during Vietnam was class based. Go to college? Don't have to go to 'Nam. It was a good dodge for white boys. No luck for black boys.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-08-14   19:06:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: Vicomte13 (#46)

The draft during Vietnam was class based. Go to college? Don't have to go to 'Nam. It was a good dodge for white boys. No luck for black boys.

That's strange. I'm white and I was drafted out of a chance to attend medical school. The bitch in charge of the local draft board said she thought I needed the discipline of being in the army.

rlk  posted on  2016-08-14   21:06:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: rlk (#47)

Guess you didn't have the connections of a Clinton or a Cheney.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-08-14   21:57:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 48.

#49. To: Vicomte13 (#48)

Or a Trump.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-08-14 22:02:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 48.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com