Jump to content

America didn't win the Cold War as Reagen claimed.


Recommended Posts

America just spend more money than the Soviets. Russia couldn't compete with America and went into heavy bankcrupty. That isn't winning. Plus Reagen armed America with alot of nuclear missles that USA didn't really need. But I see the principal behind him making all those weapons. He sold some of them to Iraq and Iran during their little war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason they were able to spend more is because a capitalist economy generates far more wealth than a socialist one, particularly during Reagan's period of tax cuts, downsized government and increased personal freedoms. "Spending more" isn't a root cause, it's another effect of the root cause, and that is the inherent inferiority of socialist economics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

The Cold War ending is much more complicated than that. If any one individual can claim the Lion's share of the credit, it was Gorbachev: next to him would be the Pope. The end was only possible because of the inevitable reaction of the people of the USSR after decades of repression. That will always happen to tyrannies. America's spending and weapons had little to do with it.

It seems to escape the attention of all those who are preoccupied with or fascinated by American military might that they have simply been into an "overkill" mode. There are several countries who are powerful enough in a nuclear sense. Having ten times as much means only 90% waste.

In the days of the Suez crisis, Kruschev threatened Britain and were quieted by Eden's response that "Britain had enough weapons to destroy every Soviet city." What more could be needed.

Reagan had little to do with the real impulses. Reagan inherited a booming economy and quickly spent America into recession. He left with the largest debt and deficit in US history. The pattern now repeated by Bush as he fritters away the Clinton inheritance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reagan inherited a booming economy and quickly spent America into recession. He left with the largest debt and deficit in US history. The pattern now repeated by Bush as he fritters away the Clinton inheritance.

Absolute, complete and utter rubbish.

Reagan inherited an economy in trouble, with double-digit inflation, high interest rates and high unemployment. Despite a recession in 1982, Reagan succeeded in putting an end to runaway inflation and interest rates and reduced unemployment to one of the lowest rates in US history. He was smart enough to reject the popular Keynesian economics. Median family, household and average household income all rose, year on year, from 1982 to 1989. He created 20 million jobs, wages kept up with inflation, and most of the jobs created paid at least $10 per hour. The economy grew at an annual rate of 3.5%. That rate was not reached again until the Republicans came to dominate government in 1994.

The Cold War ending is much more complicated than that. If any one individual can claim the Lion's share of the credit, it was Gorbachev: next to him would be the Pope.

Debateable. Gorbachev's main achievement was being wise enough to come to the bargaining table when it became blindingly obvious he was going to lose the Cold War.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

http://www.evalu8.org/staticpage?page=revi...iew&siteid=6431

Try this link. It is one of many that you will find to show that Reagan tripled the National Debt. You will find many more if you want to counter your other claims. Growth did indeed reach higher levels during the Reagan years: this growth was linked to higher inflation and infinitessimal real growth.Better years follwed Reagan with higher employment and actual real growth kicking in in the late 90s.

All of that may not be in this poece which, I don't think is an unduly critical one. I post it merely to show you how ridiculous is your claim that Reagan lowered the debt.

Spmewhere stored on my computer, I hav another that you will not like but I cannot recall what name I gave to the file. It demonstrates that the last six recessions in the US have followed "tax-cutting" Presidents of whom Reagan was one and Bush another though, as I remember it, the piece was dated before the Bush recession. I will post it when I do find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I post it merely to show you how ridiculous is your claim that Reagan lowered the debt.

That's a logical fallacy called a "strawman argument", because I never argued that Reagan lowered the debt.

Anyway, it's an economic fact that debt and trade deficit are not really relevant to economic performance. American national debt now is no larger, adjusting for inflation, than British debt was after the Napoleonic wars, and after the Napoleonic wars Britain entered a period of unprecedented growth, becoming an economic and industrial power the likes of which had never been seen before. It's like business. Profit is not an indicator of the health of a company.

Regarding trade deficit, it's counter-intuitive but a trade deficit is a sign of a healthy economy. It means that capital is flowing into the country. The USA runs a deficit and has a healthy economy. China, Japan and Russia all run large surpluses and all have serious economic problems.

It demonstrates that the last six recessions in the US have followed "tax-cutting" Presidents of whom Reagan was one and Bush another

And do you know what else followed Republican administrations? Democrats!

I'm not stating that Democrats cause recessions, merely illustrating that you are committing a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

Do you really think that is a rebuttal? For one thing, we were not talking of a "trade deficit" but a deficit as an accumulated national debt.

As for trade deficits, it, too, is not that simple. You assume that there are offsetting inflows of capital but there may not be. The US also had current account imbalances withs overseas investments at the same time as deficits.

Is the economy successful? That is an open question with many American economists extermely concerned at its direction. High deficits lead to high interest rates and we already se the signs of those looming.

British debt indeed was high after the Napeolonic wars but the debt was largely internal. Britain also ran trade surpluses as the workshop of the world.

So, I am not committing a logical fallacy. I am pointing you in the direction of a reality based on observed facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really think that is a rebuttal? For one thing, we were not talking of a "trade deficit" but a deficit as an accumulated national debt.

A deficit is not an accumulated national debt. A national debt is a national debt.

As for trade deficits, it, too, is not that simple. You assume that there are offsetting inflows of capital but there may not be.

Oh, for Pete's sake. A trade deficit IS an inflow of capital.

So, I am not committing a logical fallacy.

Yes, you did. You claimed I said something I never did and then attacked it. That's a fallacy. Then you made another fallacy when you claimed that since recessions follow Republicans that means Republicans cause recessions.

I'll illustrate in case you still don't get it. John drank a cup of coffee. Later that day he had a heart attack. Therefore, coffee drinking causes heart attacks. That's another example of the fallacy you committed. Is that clearer now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

1) National debt is accumulated deficits.

2) A trade deficit is not an inflow of capital. An inflow of capital is required to offset the outlflow. It may not happen.

3) I said "tax-cutting Presidents. I did not say Republicans ( though they happen to be the worst offenders by a long way). In your defensive, knee-jerk reaction to anything that critises your beloved neo-cons, you assumed Republicans,

I did not commit a logical fallacy and I think you should study causation and effect more closely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

National debt is accumulated deficits.

It can be formed when repeated budget deficits drain savings. However, you can run a deficit without going into debt. Your statement is, nevertheless, false. You have effectively said, "because A can cause B, B is therefore A." That is not so.

A trade deficit is not an inflow of capital.

Yes, it is. If you have a deficit it means more is flowing into your economy than is going out. It's called an "investment surplus." A deficit is a sign of economic confidence and health because it means that foreigners are investing in the country.

You run a trade deficit with your grocery store. You buy from them, they never buy from you. Is that a problem?

I said "tax-cutting Presidents. I did not say Republicans

You said "Bush and Reagan", both of whom were Republicans. Even if you restrain yourself to "tax-cutting Presidents" you are still committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc error.

I did not commit a logical fallacy

Alright, then quote me where I said that Reagan lowered the debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

Hugo!

I suggest you stop spinning your wheels trying to find something that is not there.

A trade defivit is most emphatically not an inflow of capitat, BTW. A trade deficit means that you have spent more than you have earned. A capital inflow would be needed to cover it. That inflow may not happen and you would be staring at bankruptcy - as many countries with spendthrift policies have in the past.

Debt is accumulated deficits. It is not anything to do with a drain on savings other than that savings - and that would be limited to some sort of "rainy day" type of savings - hide the pain for a while.

That said, deficits can be a good thing to a point that is manageable. They provide investment vehicles for those who would purchase bonds rather than driving the erquity market. They are, as is the case in Canada, mainly financed by the native population, and thuse secured.

The relationship of "tax-cutting Presidencies" to Recessions is no type of error - post or ante. It is an observed phenomenon and, the cause and effect can be shown if you need a lengthy paper. It should be obvious without that. Probably all economists would agree other than the self-serving ideological parasites who make a living attempting to justify the Neo-Libs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A trade defivit is most emphatically not an inflow of capitat, BTW.

"Trade deficit" is actually another term for "investment surplus." There's a good paper by world-renowned economist Richard M. Salsman which shows this. Salsman argues that the media should substitute the latter term for the former, because the former term prompts public outcry from the economically uninformed, such as yourself, and leads government to make fiscally disastrous policies such as were made in the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tarriffs, supposed to stop a trade deficit but in actual fact greatly accelerating the Great Depression.

Andrew West, former Senior Portfolio Manager and Senior Vice President at Global Assets Advisors Inc., states that "trade deficits, by definition, are offset by net investment inflows" (emphasis mine).

Bruce Bartlett, Senior Fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy at the U.S. Treasury Department and Senior Policy Analyst in the Office of Policy Development at the White House, states that "when a nation has good economic prospects and attracts foreign investment, it tends to run deficits... Deficits may be a sign of strength, while surpluses are a sign of weakness."

Dr. Daniel J. Mitchell, the McKenna Senior Fellow in Political Economy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, states that "a nation isn't harmed when it imports more than it exports, which is why the trade deficit is the most dangerous statistic collected by government."

Perhaps you'd like to cite the economists who support your viewpoints.

Debt is accumulated deficits.

Debt is formed by accumulated deficits. A clay pot is formed by a potter, does that mean the pot is the potter?

A debt is formed by accumulated deficits but accumulated deficits don't necessarily cause debt. A pot is formed by a potter but a potter doesn't necessarily have to make pots. Clear?

The relationship of "tax-cutting Presidencies" to Recessions is no type of error - post or ante. It is an observed phenomenon and, the cause and effect can be shown if you need a lengthy paper.

Well, I'm going to need something other than your say-so. Unless you are a recognised expert economist, in which case, feel free to give me your resume. If you are saying that B follows A, therefore A causes B, you have to explain why that is so. Otherwise it's a logical fallacy, especially when what you are saying defies logic. It's a well-known fact, at least by economists, that taxation causes economic stagnation because it siphons money out of the economy and impinges upon the free market, so if you're arguing the complete opposite of that you will have to offer some substantial proof.

Oh, and furthermore, where I said:

Alright, then quote me where I said that Reagan lowered the debt.

I'm still waiting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

Your two citations contradict one another, do they not? The one who says that "by definition......" is closer to the fact but not entirely correct unless he said more than you cite. The offsetting capital inflows that will occur with a HEALthy economy do not always happen with an unhealthy one. How many nations have reneged on their foreign debts for precisely the reason that foreign investors will no longer throw good money after bad. It has happened a number of times where the capital inflows dry up and foreign debt grows.

How many times have the advanced nations had to forgive debt in order to give a struggling economy that cannot export enough to acieve balance on current accounts, recover? Many times.

Your citations apply only to healthy economies. That does not need the citation of economists and I would really not be bothered to look for supporting economists. It requires probably only a half brain to understand that you cannot buy more than you sell unless someone is willing to finance your purchases. That willingness would not last indefinitely without assurance of repayment.

Don't you thonk your metaphorical potter is rather a silly comparison. It should be stated as a pot needs a potter to form it; just as debts need deficits to form them? There is not the slightest argument to be made against the reality that debt is the consequence of deficits.

Do you think that "it is a well known fact" advances argument? I would rather think that it is the resort of desperation when it is not and there is - or has been - fierce dispute amongst economists over the effects of taxation on economic performance.

That argument has been more or less resolved by economists other than the Right Wing ideologues. Taxation does not cause stagnation. Indeed, there is an edge to the belief that taxation in a liberal context is concurrent with better economic performance.

I thought I had cited the comparative study of Ayrton Sen presented to an International conference of economists in Sweden. Sen demonstrated that there was no observable difference between the higher taxed advanced economies and the lower taxed. That is something most people felt and were waiting for the evidence.

The relationship of tax-cutting presidencies to recessions follows from the above. Tax cutting leads to less productive expenditure and investment. That is the simple answer in a complex chain of economic events.

The differences that are clear are the lower unemployment and poverty rates in the higher taxed societies.

That again should not be too difficult to understand. When taxes are reduced, they do not necessarily go to productive uses. There is what economists term "leakage." leakage is significant and always skews to the higher end even when the reductions are not deliberately geared towards the higher earners.

When a government taxes for social needs, the money is almost all spent in more productive ways and leads to greater investment. I am sure you understand the relationship of investmentt to taxes.

It baffles me to understand how your argument that repeated budget deficits merely drain savings is an argument against the obvious creation of debt. Is it not simply part of the process? Draining savings is losing savings and building to a debt.

As for your continued references to Reagan, I inderstood that you implied that he had lowered the debt as part of your glowing endorsement of his disastrous economic policies. He did no, of course. How could he when he was spending like a drunken sailor and using a "line of credit" to pay for his excesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The offsetting capital inflows that will occur with a HEALthy economy do not always happen with an unhealthy one.

That's not what the experts I cited claim, and I also note you have no citations of your own. The onus is on you to prove that. Because you say it doesn't make it so.

debt is the consequence of deficits.

That's not what you said. You said:

Debt is... deficits.

Not the same thing. "Is" does not mean "caused by", at least in any dictionary I own.

That argument has been more or less resolved by economists other than the Right Wing ideologues.

Which economists? What were their names and what publications are you referring to?

Indeed, there is an edge to the belief that taxation in a liberal context is concurrent with better economic performance.

Ah, so you must believe that the Swedish or Norwegian economies outperformed the American economy. Doubtless you have figures to back this up. I'll wait.

The differences that are clear are the lower unemployment and poverty rates in the higher taxed societies.

The USA has around 11% of the populace below the poverty line. Canada has about 17%. Norway has 25%. The differences are indeed clear, unfortunately, they completely refute what you are arguing.

Once again, referring to Reagan, you should note the sudden drop in unemployment after he instituted his sweeping tax cuts. And once again, the evidence is clear, and it clearly refutes your arguments.

Still waiting for your proof. Or does it all contradict what you claim, as your proof so far has?

The relationship of tax-cutting presidencies to recessions follows from the above.

It's been acknowledged now that the last American recession began under Clinton. John Kerry actually said so in one of his more recent speeches.

It baffles me to understand how your argument that repeated budget deficits merely drain savings is an argument against the obvious creation of debt.

Again, quote me where I said that. You've made yet another strawman argument.

As for your continued references to Reagan, I inderstood that you implied that he had lowered the debt as part of your glowing endorsement of his disastrous economic policies.

Ah, so you assumed I said something I didn't. What does that teach you about making assumptions? Perhaps you should re-examine your ideas in light of this revelation. Don't make assumptions. Seek knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

Your figues on realtive poverty show that you simply make up anything to support your supposed arguments. The US has a poverty rate two points above that of Canada based on the old (same measures - more on the formula adopted by Statscan a few years ago. You also inflated Norwegian poverty rates bu a factor of about ten. What absurdity.

The rest of your arguments are becoming more and more nonsensical. I do not need to provide any citations to "prove" what I say about deficits. The slightest intelligence allied to a little common sense would vindicate me. To claim that to buy more than you sell is equal to a capital inflow is so ridiculous as to defy rationality. It simply means a trade deficit which, if the country is lucky, will be offset by foreign investment.

As for national debt and deficits, that is what I said. I have just run out of ways to phrase the fact that every time you have a deficit, you increase the debt. If you cannot grasp that then you are indeed lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your figues on realtive poverty show that you simply make up anything to support your supposed arguments. The US has a poverty rate two points above that of Canada based on the old

The old formula is invalid. It simply averages the income and declares all those below a certain point "poor." Here's how it fails. If you gave everybody in the country a $50,000 p/a raise, or if you gave everybody in the country a million dollars, you would still have exactly the same percentage of people below the poverty line. That makes no sense, and this can easily be seen in the absurd figures it generates, for instance, that Slovakia and Hungary have far, far less poverty than Australia or the UK (1-2% as opposed to 12-20%). New measures based upon local purchasing power and local commodity prices are far more accurate.

I do not need to provide any citations to "prove" what I say about deficits. The slightest intelligence allied to a little common sense would vindicate me.

So you are saying that the five internationally renowned economists I cited have no intelligence and no common sense? Interesting. Please tell me what makes you more of an expert in economics than these five men. Please also tell me how a man without the "slightest intelligence" can attain the positions these men have.

Slightest intelligence allied with a little common sense usually produces the wrong answer in complex matters. For instance, the sun appears in the east, moves slowly across the sky and then disappears in the west. An intelligent man, examining the empirical evidence, would conclude that the sun was moving around his apparently static viewpoint. But astronomy, like economics, is complex and frequently counter-intuitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Reagan was responsible for the win and end to the Cold War, it happened under his watch and President's should be credited with both good and bad that has happened during their tenures. We have a president now who wont take any blame for anything bad under his watch but, is quick to point out the good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

The "old" formula and the "new" are pre-tax and post-tax. They do produce very different results. They, at the time of introduction, gave a lower than LICO number of about 13% for Canada compared to the previous figure of around 17%. It was a cynical political ploy to pretend progress on the poverty front.

Those other countries do indeed have lower poverty rates than Canada and the US: most (almost all) developed countries do. The four worst among the developed nations are: The USA; Canada" Britain; Australia. The US is the worst. Don't ask for citations: if you are really concerned, there are hundreds of sources and reports. There is also the Fraser Institute whose denizens are handsomely payed to try to claim the opposite: that the Moon really is blue.

Your five "experts" may indeed be expert at something and, if they are, then you are quoting them selectively. That is the great danger for those who insist on supports of that kind. One liners do not tell a story. It is far better to use one's intelligence to sort out fact from fancy. I do not believe it possible that they, as economists, could construct any model to support the view that Father Christmas controls international trade. There must be far more to their writings.

I pointed out to you how one specifically referred to a "healthy" economy.

You again miss the point about the use of intelligence allied to common sense. Any who think the earth is ststionery and that the Sun moves around it, are not examining the empirical evidence. There repeating the limites information that they have gathered. Empirical evidence always pointed to the opposite. Galileo was not the first, or only, to make the obvious public. Even the Church authorities who prosecuted him knew the truth. They just did not think it advisable to have the masses aware since it could lead to questioning of the Faith.

That is the problem with a discussion like this. The ignorant are ranged on the side of faith and will not learn. The obvious is a little too deep and they prefer limited citations - particularly if those citations are presented with the blessing of authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "old" formula and the "new" are pre-tax and post-tax.

That is not true. The old formula was found to be giving wildly inaccurate figures, so a new formula was devised. The main difference is that the old formula can, with income statistics to hand, be calculated in a few minutes. The new takes a lot of research because it not only involves incomes in local currency but also costs of living, in local currency. The lesson is that you can't take shortcuts.

Don't ask for citations

Why? Because - let me guess - you couldn't find one with both hands if it bit you in the face?

If what you are saying is so obvious and true it should be ridiculously easy to find a wealth of sources that will confirm it. I can say that the earth orbits the sun, and if challenged I could produce reams of evidence and expert opinion to corroborate my allegations. But you have absolutely nothing.

One liners do not tell a story.

Quite right. I gleaned those snippets from papers and essays written by these men because I did not want to waste bandwidth quoting the entire article. Instead, I took a line or so that represented the entire argument.

I pointed out to you how one specifically referred to a "healthy" economy.

What he is saying is that a trade deficit is very probably a sign that the economy is healthy, whereas an unhealthy economy is highly unlikely to have a trade deficit at all. Any exceptions, should they be found, would be exactly that - exceptions.

It is far better to use one's intelligence to sort out fact from fancy.

Why not use the intelligence of those who know far more about the subject than you do? Do you attempt to repair your own car or take it to a mechanic? Would you attempt to perform surgery on yourself or go to a doctor? If there was a rabid dog in your back yard, would you take it on with a broomstick or call the Humane Society?

Empirical evidence always pointed to the opposite.

Oh? Tell me what empirical evidence an average man can observe that tells him the earth orbits the sun.

The obvious is a little too deep

It is obvious to you because you desperately want to believe it. The more we debate, the more it becomes obvious that you have no facts, evidence, or citations, that you have read precious little on the subject and are so staggeringly arrogant that you believe your layman's point of view is more accurate than that of those who have spent a lifetime in study of the field you are arguing about.

The ignorant are ranged on the side of faith and will not learn.

This is an ad hominem argument and, because of your ineptitude, could be levelled against you as easily as your opponents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

1)Look up the meaning of ad hominem. You misuse it.

2) If you think my description of LICO is wrong and that there is a simplification, then you are not even reading the Fraser Institute. Nobody but one who does not even know what it is never mind how it is calculated, could make such an absurd statement.

I find your assertion that you used one liners to represent the entire arguments somewhat amusing if it were not so obviously silly. It is that unles your sources are actually high school students and the source their essays.

I really do not know what is the point of this. Your repetition of the logical absurdity that to buy more than you sell means that someone gives you the balance indicates to me that you can do no more than read snippets whose omport you completely fail to grasp.

Of course there are many examples of countries, in the past, that have gone that route and suffered the consequences of trade deficits when the financing loans dried up. That you cannot grasp that is quite beyond reasonable expectation in any argument or discussion.

Then, how do you know that I do not know more than yor "sources?" I have hundreds of books related to this and some day I may read some more of them instead of merely using them as reference. I do not claim that I do know more, but it is a reasonable assumption that I do if your sources actually say what you claim they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, Eureka, I'm forced to say that, were what you say so self-evident, and were there "many examples" as you even just said, you should be able to produce mountains of corroboration and list a few of these "many examples."

You have provided none and cited nothing, so I have to tell you that until you have some evidence behind your arguments or some sign that you have read any decent texts on this subject - or any texts at all - I will refuse to debate this any further. We are not even debating the issue at hand. I am forced to contest with you the principles of debate and argument, which you categorically refuse to acknowledge as you trail-blaze new paths of idiocy.

It's a waste of time, and as this isn't the first time you've done this on this forum I can only conclude you are a troll. I would urge other forum members not to waste their time with you either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

I would be happy to not debate with any so pig-headed. You cannot accept simple realities. As for trolling, whatever that means, I would suggest that it is more appropriate to apply that to one who blindly asserts as truth something that is so evidently stupid and purports to post expert support with a few snippets out of context.

You might want to consider - so that you do not go away having learned nothing - the number of countries that have devalued their currencies to escape the trap you assert does not exost. There was Britain some decades ago; there is Argentina recently. Ther have been many others. There have also been nations that have reneged on their debt entirely. There have been nations that have had their debt forgiven in whole or in part. The evidence is so overwhelming that I have to admire, in a way, your willingness to keep proclaiming the reverse.

Further, debating requires the use of intelligence and understanding. It is not the posting of a few staements as a "revealed truth" and insidting on the posting of contradictory snippets as "argument."

Debate comes from the exchange of ideas and opinions not from the exchange of citations. They may be useful but they are peripheral.

There is also the evidence of your refusal to even agree to what LICO is. Even though you have only to look it up at one of the Scatscan sites or the many hundreds or more links to this term that is constantly in the News.

Who is the troll?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must be crazy. It was Carter. He did it right after he laid the groundwork for Iran to go fundementalist by pushing the Shah to make reforms and then not supporting him after things got out of whack. The Soviet Union got scared that he might help them out too and gave up.

Regan. LOL like the Soviets figured America was strong or something. Right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...