Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

 

*Ponders the irony that Norwegians probably don't come to the US because they think its a sh*thole country.*

 

Ayup. I mean, we're an amazing nation, but let's not pretend Norwegians are looking at  our news and going "Yeah, that's exactly where I want to go"

 

Norway is doing great. Barring a possible attack from Putin's Russia or something, it needs the US about as much a yeti needs an Air conditioner.

 

Of course the countries that have problems are where folks are coming from. That doesn't make them ****hole nations, it makes them poor nations with problems. Haiti isn't anymore a ****hole nation for having earthquakes and poverty than parts of California are ****hole for having Wildfires and PETA or Texas is for having Floods earlier and Dallas Traffic.

 

I'm against illegal immigration but sympathetic to those who try it. I am FOR Legal Immigration, particularly as part of helping those downtrodden who need help and a chance. Could we get maybe a billion bucks thrown into our processing system that helps applicants become American citizens faster? How about that, law AND the Dream. But no, Trump clearly has his idea of what's acceptable, and it looks racist, and just as bad, like if you don't come in wearing a nice suit he'd just as soon you never get into the club. 

 

Trump's a racist, if that was the limit of his disdain for his fellow humans, I'd be disgusted and worried that we had a president who fit that in the 21st Century. Say what you want about Bush Jr, but the efforts he made to help African nations speak well of him. But Trump's not JUST a racist. He's sexist. He's a classist.  He's an elitist in every way, and yet has none of the right to be smug about it. He's an uncultured swine who had pearls cast before him when he was young and used that start to bully more treasures from others and claims he's self made. He values strength above all, and attacks anyone who shows him as weak in any area. He throws folks in pits in order to stand taller, and he shows no loyalty to any unless they do something for him, while whining like a schoolboy when folks refuse to kowtow.

 

Dear Norwegians, please do yourselves a favor and don't come here for another 3 to 7 years.. We'd love to have you, but the truth is? We're not dressed in our best.

And to those countries that fall under the category of ****hole by Trump's standards? If you've seen his standards, on ethics, on honor, on decency, you'll realize you don't really WANT his approval.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I would just like to say that the people of Britain are grateful that the President is not visiting next month.  The excuse is about not opening the new embassy which he blames on the Obama administration although he did not mention that the decision to leave Grosvenor Square was by the Bush administration. The papers and other media are speculating that he would get a rough reception from the public which was a factor in his decision. 

Apparently he will also not be going to the Royal Wedding either which removes certain security problems.

People are about as happy about the Visit of Trump as about the visit of a "yearhundred Storm":

You kind of can not avoid it, you are happy everytime you do avoid it. But if you can not avoid it forever, you can at least brag about having lived through it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

1. Dedication to public service

2. Ability to listen, understand and respond to constituent concerns

3. Ability to get up to speed quickly on a variety of subject matter

4. Ability to achieve consensus, including with people who have greatly divergent goals and perspectives

5. Proven experience doing all of the above

 

More to the point, if you're going to get a brand new job in politics, starting at the very top seems a bit much, don't you think?  

 

The first four seem pretty reasonable.  How does one get proven experience when starting a career?  Presumably, all four can be demonstrated by a career outside politics.  Are we saying there should be an age restriction before entering politics, as you need to demonstrate these traits in a different career first?  What prior careers would be suitable to demonstrating these skills in a manner which the general public can clearly perceive?

 

And if one has demonstrated those skills, why shouldn't one start at the top?

 

Ultimately, it is we as voters (me in my nation, you in yours) who decide whether those criteria are the most critical, whether the candidate has demonstrated them appropriately and whether starting at the top is appropriate.  Both parties select their candidates based on who they believe has the optimal chance of winning, in my view.  That means they are selecting the candidates they expect voters will vote for, whether they are career politicians, outspoken Twitter using celebrities or whatever else the public will vote for.  Isn't that democracy?

 

Springer-Kardashian 2020!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

The first four seem pretty reasonable.  How does one get proven experience when starting a career?  Presumably, all four can be demonstrated by a career outside politics.  Are we saying there should be an age restriction before entering politics, as you need to demonstrate these traits in a different career first?  What prior careers would be suitable to demonstrating these skills in a manner which the general public can clearly perceive?

 

And if one has demonstrated those skills, why shouldn't one start at the top?

 

Ultimately, it is we as voters (me in my nation, you in yours) who decide whether those criteria are the most critical, whether the candidate has demonstrated them appropriately and whether starting at the top is appropriate.  Both parties select their candidates based on who they believe has the optimal chance of winning, in my view.  That means they are selecting the candidates they expect voters will vote for, whether they are career politicians, outspoken Twitter using celebrities or whatever else the public will vote for.  Isn't that democracy?

 

Springer-Kardashian 2020!

#5 is more applicable to positions of higher responsibility within the government.  Ability to win elections and ability to competently govern are not, unfortunately, synonymous.  That suggests a need for voters to become more engaged in the evaluative process, to try to better gauge who will, in fact, do a better job at governance(in addition to the usual evaluations of policy proposals).  

I am talking more specifically about POTUS. It is, still, the most important political job in the world, and putting a relative novice in there is an immense risk, imo.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

The first four seem pretty reasonable.  How does one get proven experience when starting a career?  Presumably, all four can be demonstrated by a career outside politics.  Are we saying there should be an age restriction before entering politics, as you need to demonstrate these traits in a different career first?  What prior careers would be suitable to demonstrating these skills in a manner which the general public can clearly perceive?

 

And if one has demonstrated those skills, why shouldn't one start at the top?

 

Ultimately, it is we as voters (me in my nation, you in yours) who decide whether those criteria are the most critical, whether the candidate has demonstrated them appropriately and whether starting at the top is appropriate.  Both parties select their candidates based on who they believe has the optimal chance of winning, in my view.  That means they are selecting the candidates they expect voters will vote for, whether they are career politicians, outspoken Twitter using celebrities or whatever else the public will vote for.  Isn't that democracy?

 

Springer-Kardashian 2020!

 

If we're talking about Jerry Springer, he does have political experience (and a politically-linked prostitution scandal), but was born in England.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

That thought had occurred to me as well. "Why would Norwegians want to immigrate here?"

Today my local newspaper had an article comparing immigration between the US and Norway. A lot more Americans move to Norway than Norwegians move to the US. It was noted that Norwegians are unlikely to want to trade a higher standard of living, single-payer health care and state-supported college tuition for, um, a vastly increased chance of being shot?

 

If I get the chance, I'll try to track it down online.

 

Dean Shomshak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Today my local newspaper had an article comparing immigration between the US and Norway. A lot more Americans move to Norway than Norwegians move to the US. It was noted that Norwegians are unlikely to want to trade a higher standard of living, single-payer health care and state-supported college tuition for, um, a vastly increased chance of being shot?

 

If I get the chance, I'll try to track it down online.

 

Dean Shomshak

The only reason to move from Norwegian to America right now is fallng in love with a American. And even that might depend on the region you move too.

 

 

Dear me "Hermit" saying that Trump is "am uncultured swine: is very insulting. Any swine. cultured or otherwise, should feel highly insulted to have Trump included in their ranks !

Especially truffel swines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(from the In Other News thread)

 

9 hours ago, Sociotard said:

 

Bush 41, for botching the peace with Russia and the opening it left to start drawing down our presence in SK? Eisenhower, for getting us involved there in the first place?[/quote]

 

I personally lay much of the blame with Bush 43, who singlehandedly got the North Koreans to withdraw from the NPT with his stunning Axis of Evil™ speech.  But most of the people here are not amused by the guy who's doing his level best to goad Jong Un into perfecting an ICBM program that is guaranteed to target Pearl Harbor.

 

 

9 hours ago, Sociotard said:

 

Hawaii is a de facto one-party state. What're they going to do, vote for a Republican?

 

rolleyes.gifWe have these things called primaries; you may have heard of them.  Also, think really hard about why Hawaii might lean Democratic when we had a Republican governor only eight years ago.

 

 

9 hours ago, Sociotard said:

 

It's the only reason I can think to not fire the guy who did it. 

 

 

We're much more interested in solving the problem and making sure it doesn't happen again.  Make no mistake, my neighbors are rightfully pissed off and it may well come to firing someone in order to send a message.  But we're not dumb enough to can the guy who made a mouse typo and expect that to solve anything.  That's what happens in the private sector when the CEO needs a scapegoat to deflect criticism.  This is clearly a project management and software development failure, that we will learn more about in the coming days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us go over what will happen if you were in charge and would fire that guy, Sociotard:

1) He sues agaisnt it. Because nowhere in his contract does it say "doing a missclick" is worth a instant firing. Especially for a worker that worked without flaw for decades.

2) You loose in every instance. Because that is how stupid your "I want him fired" was to begin with.

3) You get fired for wasting a ton of time and taxpaxer money on a petty revenge scheme. Also because you made yourself into a toxic factor for the workplace environment, that nobody wants to work with.

4) Hopefully we still got energy left to deal with the actuall issue, wich is a mix of design, workflow and approval issue.

 

Sorry, but I rather skip 1-3.

You can go quit your job, if you really want too get out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Old Man said:

rolleyes.gifWe have these things called primaries; you may have heard of them.  Also, think really hard about why Hawaii might lean Democratic when we had a Republican governor only eight years ago.

The comment about primaries is valid.  More difficult than a swing state election or a "top two" primary like California, but possible.

I hadn't heard how the Republican Governor went?

 

Quote

We're much more interested in solving the problem and making sure it doesn't happen again.  Make no mistake, my neighbors are rightfully pissed off and it may well come to firing someone in order to send a message.  But we're not dumb enough to can the guy who made a mouse typo and expect that to solve anything.  That's what happens in the private sector when the CEO needs a scapegoat to deflect criticism.  This is clearly a project management and software development failure, that we will learn more about in the coming days

 

Somewhat valid. I looked at the 'fix' that was implemented, and it still looks awful and not user friendly, so I am not persuaded your government has succeeded on that front either.

AAuL1Ms.img

Look at that jumble!  Note the false alarm button on top. That's the fix. That button didn't exist before, and that's why it took 38 minutes to correct, while the Japanese were able to correct way faster.

 

But the jumble remains. It isn't any more user friendly.

 

1 hour ago, Christopher said:

Let us go over what will happen if you were in charge and would fire that guy, Sociotard:

1) He sues agaisnt it. Because nowhere in his contract does it say "doing a missclick" is worth a instant firing. Especially for a worker that worked without flaw for decades.

2) You loose in every instance. Because that is how stupid your "I want him fired" was to begin with.

3) You get fired for wasting a ton of time and taxpaxer money on a petty revenge scheme. Also because you made yourself into a toxic factor for the workplace environment, that nobody wants to work with.

4) Hopefully we still got energy left to deal with the actuall issue, wich is a mix of design, workflow and approval issue.

 

Sorry, but I rather skip 1-3.

You can go quit your job, if you really want too get out of it.

You're thinking like a European.  Most US employers are At Will. They barely need a reason at all to fire somebody. There are some protections for firing somebody for being gay or having the wrong political views, but very limited.  There are exceptions to this for upper management and when Unions are involved. Which is why I posted what I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Christopher said:

Honestly, I feel we should be able to Critizes Trump without someone bringing up "one party state" and "big conspiracy" stuff.

 

Trump the human being in power is a issue, that has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat. Or even being American. I am not a American, and I am worried sick about that guy.

Hawaii is a one party state. The same way Idaho is a one party state.  Hawaii has two Senators and two Representatives. All are Democratic. At the state level, their Senate has 25 members, all Democratic, and their House has 51 members, 46 Democratic.

So there is very little chance a Republican challenger could promise to address the bad alert system and win. Remember when Roy Moore, who has a long and awful history, would have won if he hadn't been caught going after underage girls? Same thing, with the parties flipped. The Democrats in Hawaii can get away with almost anything and still get elected.

Old Man's comment that another Democrat could challenge in the primary is valid. It isn't easy, but possible.

 

I have said nothing about any conspiracy.

 

Criticizing Trump is valid. I've linked to National Review and American Conservative a few times, and while those are very Republican magazines, they aren't kind to President Trump.

 

But blaming Trump for everything is just as silly as when people kept saying "Thanks, Obama". Trump is an idiot and he sabre rattles, but all of our Presidents sabre rattle. Hillary was a notorious hawk, and I guarantee she'd rattle sabres too. She'd just have done it smarter, and not eviscerated the State Department.

 

Trump didn't build this system, he didn't push the button, the North Koreans would be testing their missiles even if Hillary won, and Hillary would have had 'tough rhetoric' too, so I really don't see how a different president would have lessened this panic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sociotard said:

Hawaii is a one party state. The same way Idaho is a one party state.  Hawaii has two Senators and two Representatives. All are Democratic. At the state level, their Senate has 25 members, all Democratic, and their House has 51 members, 46 Democratic.

So what are the Republicans doing to fix Gerrymandering? Nothing? They are using it jsut as well?

Sounds like that is not a Partisan issue. So why drag it out, other then to muddy the water?

 

1 hour ago, Sociotard said:

So there is very little chance a Republican challenger could promise to address the bad alert system and win. Remember when Roy Moore, who has a long and awful history, would have won if he hadn't been caught going after underage girls? Same thing, with the parties flipped. The Democrats in Hawaii can get away with almost anything and still get elected.

How is a faulty UI design comparable to Statuory Rape in severity?

What thing exactly did the Democrats in Hawai do that you think they should be voted off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Christopher said:

So what are the Republicans doing to fix Gerrymandering? Nothing? They are using it jsut as well?

Sounds like that is not a Partisan issue. So why drag it out, other then to muddy the water?

It isn't a gerrymandering problem.  Well, not mostly.  Hawaii is a very liberal state. However they cut district lines, Hawaii's government would be almost all Democratic. It isn't a partisan issue.

 

I brought it up in direct response to the claim that if any head should roll, it should be the head of an elected official and not the mere bureaucrat.  My point was that voting out a Democrat was nigh-impossible in Hawaii (Old Mans pointed out that the Primary could still do that, which is mostly true). 

 

Quote

How is a faulty UI design comparable to Statuory Rape in severity?

What thing exactly did the Democrats in Hawai do that you think they should be voted off?

*sigh* they aren't comparable. That was my point. I'm saying that a Democrat in Hawaii would only lose to a Republican if the Democrat was caught with a Roy-Moore level allegation or worse. Being caught with a shoddy government system isn't comparable. In a more balanced State, a Republican could hold this fiasco up and promise to fix it and maybe win with just that. It takes way more in a one-party state.

 

I think somebody deserves to be fired for this. People could have died in the panic. Future warnings (like a tsunami or storm or volcano) will get less credibility, and people could die. That is serious, and should be met with serious consequences. That means firing. I said the guy who hit the button, and maybe his manager too. Put a little fear in the department to make sure it doesn't happen again. Then Old Man said if anyone should be fired, it should be an elected official. I pointed out that ousting a Democrat in Hawaii is very difficult.

 

I worked at an agrichemical company. One of the workers was told to hose down the dock. He put the coupler up to the Phosphoric Acid by accident and made a very expensive cleanup problem. He got very fired, because it was a big mistake that cost the company a lot of money and embarrassed them. The same applies here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sociotard said:

Hawaii is a one party state. The same way Idaho is a one party state.  Hawaii has two Senators and two Representatives. All are Democratic. At the state level, their Senate has 25 members, all Democratic, and their House has 51 members, 46 Democratic.

So there is very little chance a Republican challenger could promise to address the bad alert system and win. Remember when Roy Moore, who has a long and awful history, would have won if he hadn't been caught going after underage girls? Same thing, with the parties flipped. The Democrats in Hawaii can get away with almost anything and still get elected.

 

Do not for a minute think that being a one-party state means job security for any particular Democrat.  It may look like that from thousands of miles away, but there is plenty of disagreement and infighting among our local politicians.  After a decade of birtherism, racism, immigration hostility, and sellouts, the Republicans here had no choice but to switch parties if they wanted to stay in office.

 

2 hours ago, Sociotard said:

 

I have said nothing about any conspiracy.

 

Criticizing Trump is valid. I've linked to National Review and American Conservative a few times, and while those are very Republican magazines, they aren't kind to President Trump.

 

But blaming Trump for everything is just as silly as when people kept saying "Thanks, Obama". Trump is an idiot and he sabre rattles, but all of our Presidents sabre rattle.

 

Lol no.  Obama didn't saber rattle; he tried to get North Korea back to the table.  Clinton almost went to Pyongyang.  Axis of Evil speeches and button size comparisons are purely a GOP phenomenon.

 

2 hours ago, Sociotard said:

 

Trump didn't build this system, he didn't push the button, the North Koreans would be testing their missiles even if Hillary won, and Hillary would have had 'tough rhetoric' too, so I really don't see how a different president would have lessened this panic.

 

There is no way Hillary's "tough rhetoric" would even approach the level of personal insults and deliberate provocation that Trump has issued.  Remember that there are no diplomatic back channels with North Korea, especially now that State has been destroyed; what they see on TV and Twitter is how they perceive reality.  We're also acutely aware that a shooting war with North Korea would be a great way to distract people from any Russia investigations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sociotard said:

I think somebody deserves to be fired for this. People could have died in the panic

Who has enough guilt on this to be fired?

 

There was this one Episode of JAG you should be watching. A lot of people did a lot of small things not quite right wich in the sum resulted in one aircraft pilots death.

Nobody was sued. The ships jag officer even asked "wait, we are suing anybody?"

There simply was not nearly enough guilt in any one person to justify ruining someones live over it. The problematic process had to be fixed. Nothing else could be done.

 

Shit happens. Get over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sociotard said:

Somewhat valid. I looked at the 'fix' that was implemented, and it still looks awful and not user friendly, so I am not persuaded your government has succeeded on that front either.

AAuL1Ms.img

Look at that jumble!  Note the false alarm button on top. That's the fix. That button didn't exist before, and that's why it took 38 minutes to correct, while the Japanese were able to correct way faster.

The number of options is a result of this one agency having to deal with that many issues.

What is even a Amber Alert? (edit: Apaprently, child abduction)

Tsunami Warning makes sense.

Landslide?

High Surf Warning?

Nuclear Launch Detected?

 

How do all of those even belong to one agency?

 

 

This is already a massive improvement from a UI design Standpoint. They:

Added the False Alarm Option

Turned a ComboBox + Button click into a simple click

And all that in 2 days.

 

Selecting and issuing the order is now one action. And those options are distinct in their position on the screen. So the chance to pick the wrong option again was cut by at least 90%. This is about the best thing a programmer can do with such a proably decade old system on short notice. And claiming it is not a improvement (better at avoiding this issue) is a blatant lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sociotard said:

 

I think somebody deserves to be fired for this. People could have died in the panic. Future warnings (like a tsunami or storm or volcano) will get less credibility, and people could die. That is serious, and should be met with serious consequences. That means firing. I said the guy who hit the button, and maybe his manager too. Put a little fear in the department to make sure it doesn't happen again. Then Old Man said if anyone should be fired, it should be an elected official. I pointed out that ousting a Democrat in Hawaii is very difficult.

 

I agree that someone probably needs to be fired or fined for what happened, but I'm against summary firings for the sake of public relations, and I'm not cool with at-will employment in general.  As it is the flunky who clicked the link has been reassigned, but as the image you posted earlier shows, this is much more of a UI problem than anything else.

 

15 minutes ago, Sociotard said:

 

I worked at an agrichemical company. One of the workers was told to hose down the dock. He put the coupler up to the Phosphoric Acid by accident and made a very expensive cleanup problem. He got very fired, because it was a big mistake that cost the company a lot of money and embarrassed them. The same applies here.

 

Even phosphoric acid guy deserves a little due process.  Was the phosphoric acid tank clearly labeled?  Is he really the one who hooked up the hose?  What is a tank of phosphoric acid doing on the dock?  Was every reasonable precaution in place, or is powerful acid routinely entrusted to the lowest paid guys in the org?  Not that I think your company is run poorly, but handling toxic fluids is exactly the kind of thing that private companies are notorious for fumbling and covering up.  I'd love to have been able to vote out the CEO of BP in 2010, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Christopher said:

The number of options is a result of this one agency having to deal with that many issues.

What is even a Amber Alert? (edit: Apaprently, child abduction)

Tsunami Warning makes sense.

Landslide?

High Surf Warning?

Nuclear Launch Detected?

 

How do all of those even belong to one agency?

 

 

This is already a massive improvement from a UI design Standpoint. They:

Added the False Alarm Option

Turned a ComboBox + Button click into a simple click

And all that in 2 days.

 

Selecting and issuing the order is now one action. And those options are distinct in their position on the screen. So the chance to pick the wrong option again was cut by at least 90%. This is about the best thing a programmer can do with such a proably decade old system on short notice. And claiming it is not a improvement (better at avoiding this issue) is a blatant lie.

 

I wouldn't call this a massive improvement.  I give them some credit for adding the false alarm button but clearly nothing has been done to address the confusing UI in the first place.  It also looks suspiciously like the whole thing is being run out of Firefox (or Internet Explorer), which is making the IT security voice in my head cry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More photos from HIEMA are coming out.  It doesn't look good.  Passwords on post-its on the monitor.  Skype and web browsers running on the systems.  False alarm might be a blessing in disguise if it puts a spotlight on an area that needs cleaning up, and this situation needs cleaning up.  Anyway, the problems go way beyond the low level staffer here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Old Man said:

Lol no.  Obama didn't saber rattle; he tried to get North Korea back to the table.  Clinton almost went to Pyongyang.  Axis of Evil speeches and button size comparisons are purely a GOP phenomenon.

 

Okay, lets start with Obama ordering an increase in cyber attacks on North Korea. Not practice for a possible cyber attacks, but actual cyber attacks.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/04/world/asia/north-korea-missile-program-sabotage.html

 

And a few quotes

Obama 2015



He said North Korea is "erratic enough" and the country's leader, Kim Jong Un, is "irresponsible enough that we don't want them getting close."

"But it's not something that lends itself to an easy solution," Mr. Obama said. "We could, obviously, destroy North Korea with our arsenals. But aside from the humanitarian costs of that, they are right next door to our vital ally, Republic of Korea."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-obama-north-korea-challenge-south-china-sea-aggression/

 

I'll give it to No-Drama Obama, he carefully added a "but we won't" to his "we could kill you". He was more the type to speak softly and use a clandestine sabotage stick. We've already talked about Bush 43. How about Bill Clinton?

 

Clinton 1993



"I know of no one who seriously believes that the United States and [South Korea] would be defeated in a war of aggression by North Korea if they were to attack," he said. "And I made it as clear as I could that if they were to do that, they would pay a price so great that the nation would probably not survive as it is known today."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-is-hardly-the-first-president-to-threaten-north-korea-with-overwhelming-force/article/2634970

Much more saucy!

 

I reiterate, all US Presidents have threatened North Korea to some extent or another.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing you quoted is a threat, merely a statement of defensive resolve.  Contrast those with directly calling Kim Jong Un "Rocket Man", "maniac", and "sick puppy", famously threatening "fire and fury", or promising that he would get China to make him "disappear in one form or another very quickly".  The difference could not be more plain.  Looking at Trump's statements, you can't even blame North Korea for going balls out with their nuclear program; they have almost no choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure they do: knock it off.

 

If they'd knocked it off 10 or 20 years ago nobody would care about them in the slightest any longer.  They'd be just another 2nd or 3rd world country that gets ignored by policy unless it draws attention to itself. Trump would be railing against someone else, if he were even president in a different climate.

 

Being ignored, though, would lead to its people getting a chance to stop and think about just how badly they're treated.  Kim, like his father, must rattle  his saber or risks losing his head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×