Foreign interference in our government?


Traveler
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, Scott said:

And it always will be reality as long as people except it (which will probably be until the second coming).   It doesn't mean that I have to like it though and can't speak out against it.

Feel free to speak out against corruption. We'll all agree with you. But Trump really is better than Clinton or any of the other Democrats. So if it's a choice, then the choice should be clear. In such a situation, railing against choosing the lesser evil is in a very real sense advocating for the greater evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Scott said:

And it always will be reality as long as people except it (which will probably be until the second coming).   It doesn't mean that I have to like it though and can't speak out against it.

Are you going to run then?  If you really want to do something to improve the quality of people that is what you have to do.

Because until we get high quality people willing to sacrifice their personal comfort and desires to serve... we left with picking the least objectionable bits from the cesspit 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Mores said:

As far as I can tell, you're somewhat athletic and an outdoorsman.  As such you may have never been the did who was chosen last when picking teams for a game as a kid.  Those small, awkward kids couldn't help their young bodies from being fully developed.  Why should they be judged by it?

You would be very wrong about that assumption, though I won't fault you for guessing that.

The truth is that I was never not chosen last when it came to picking teams for a game as a kid.   I was never even once chosen to be second to the last; I was always chosen last.

I was already on the youngest age scale in my grade, meaning that I was already smaller than most other kids.   I was also (to a certain extent at least) malnourished due to economic circumstances.    To add to that, since I excelled acedemically the teachers and school thought it was a good idea for me to skip 4th grade, so then I was two years younger than most of the other students in my grade, rather than just one.   That meant that instead of almost one year younger than most of the other students in my grade, that jumped to two years.

Since I skippped 4th grade, that meant that I was barely ten when I started 6th grade.   Everyone else was 11 and 12.   Add to that a degree of malnourishment, not having clothes that fit (and were very old hand me downs from cousins), and not having an available shower in the home, I was always chosen last for teams.  I also always felt unattractive and ugly as well (even as an adult), at least until I got married.

So perhaps that is one reason (but not the only one) that judging others negatively for something he or she has no control over strikes a nerve with me, but either way I still don't think that anyone should be judged negatively for something that he or she has no control over.  I agree that it happens and that we all do it to some extent, but that doesn't make it right.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Are you going to run then? 

For president?   Probably not.   I don't have the assets. 

For other (much) lesser offices, yes (and I have), though the chances of me winning are always slim.   

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Scott said:

No one should be judging a person negatively just because of his or her natural hair color.    It doesn't meant that no one does.   And if you feel you must do so, you should keep it to yourself.

Agreed.

So why do we have to settle for that?

Why can't we demand and expect more from our politicians?    

 

Because, you're in a Democratic Society of Political Parties and there are only 2 of them that can actually get the majority votes.  This is your reality.  You're not "settling for that", you're choosing the best person who matches your interests the closest among the candidates who can bubble up after a majority of voters have eliminated the others for their own personal reasons.  People with the exact same moral grounding as you are not the ONLY ones voting.  Every single American over 18 with their own very different moral grounding/ideologies/principles/non-principles have the exact same voting power as you.  THIS IS NOT SETTLING unless you call out the American Constitutional Election Process a deeply flawed system of governance that needs to be replaced under the constrictions of the Natural Man.

Therefore, calling other people out... okay, no - let's make this personal - calling ME out for passionately supporting a person who I saw was the best person who will stop the senseless foreign policy stupidity of the USA that has cost many lives especially Filipino ones because he happened to own the Miss Universe Pageant who judges women for their bikini bodies and happened to cheat on his wives - guess what, Trump cheating on his wives will not make my husband cheat on me or cause moral people to cheat on theirs - but Clinton bombing the heck out of Syria and deposing other heads of states to line her own pockets and the pockets of the "deep state" COULD make another Libya out of the Philippines and put the lives of my family on the line.  So there's really no "settling" here.  The choice is very crystal clear.

 

19 hours ago, Scott said:

It seems that  having affairs, lying, making vulgar comments, etc., is somehow a resume for running for political office.    Of course this is nothing new, but why can't we demand better?

It seems to me that instead of excusing the behaviors and comments of the people who we vote for, we should be calling them out and asking them to do better., even if they are the person we vote for.  Instead, so many would rather just excuse their bahavior and say "well the other guy is worse".  

 

You think people voted for Trump because he cheats on his wife and make vulgar comments?  Of course not.  What is in his resume that got him elected is above par executive skills, his instinctive conservative leaning, his deep-set patriotic nationalist standing that extends to his extreme reluctance to expend American lives and extreme reluctance to extend nationality or grace to those who show disrespect to the nation's laws, his ability to sense the populist pulse over the propaganda of mainstream media, his above par economic acumen, and his extreme drive to win at any fight or competition - be it elections, legal battles, deal negotiations, etc. etc.

We don't have to excuse behaviors and comments of people we voted for as long as those behaviors and comments are ACCURATELY portrayed and not embellished for propaganda.  For example - Trump is not racist nor a white supremacist.  Trump is not sexist nor misogynist.  Trump did not belittle handicapped people for their handicaps.  Yes, Trump is vulgar.  Yes, Trump is a playboy.  Yes, Trump manipulates narratives to promote his agenda which can play fast and loose on facts.

That said - find another person - ANY OTHER PERSON - that has the resume of Trump from the first paragraph without any of the negatives from the 2nd paragraph or any other moral failings who, not only can win the majority of electoral votes but also can withstand the onslaught of socio-political fire, not only within the USA but, most importantly, that of foreign nations.  Give me a name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Because, you're in a Democratic Society of Political Parties and there are only 2 of them that can actually get the majority votes.  This is your reality. 

Unfortunately it is our reality, but I still think there is at least a partial solution which we discussed offline (though you didn't agree with it).

I'm pretty fed up with both parties and am pretty fed up with partisianship as well.   I'm also fed up with people (i'm not referring to anyone on this forum) who hate others because they belong to a different party.

To cut an paste my previous partial solution of the problems with the two parties becoming too powerful and never working together:

I still think it's a good idea for states to split the electoral votes proportionately by voters.

There are two reasons for this.   Right now it is almost pointless to vote for the Republican presidential candidate or for the Democrat candidate  if you live in Utah.    Splitting the electoral votes would help with this.

More importantly though, this would open the door for third party candidates and might even eventually open the door for a viable third party.    Right now a third party president has zero chance of getting elected. 

Even though a third party candidate has no chance of getting elected even if the electoral votes are split; in close elections, they could garner enough electoral votes to ensure that neither of the two big parties had the 270 electoral votes which would put the vote to the House and Senate (for P and VP).   That might even make the president and vice president be from both parties.   It would be my hope that that would lead to some unity, but it could lead to chaos instead.   I still hope for the former.    SInce a third party could split the vote like that, it could eventually open the door to viable third party candidates having a chance of winning.   At least in theory (my theory).  

Quote

People with the exact same moral grounding as you are not the ONLY ones voting.  

This is true, but some morals should be universal.

Quote

You think people voted for Trump because he cheats on his wife and make vulgar comments?

This isn't applicable to the past, but you can still vote for someone and demand and expect that they do better.

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2019 at 2:30 PM, Traveler said:

I am not a fan of Trump.  I do not believe if Trump is impeached, it is the end of our republic democracy – I think I could endure it.  But there is much more that concerns me about all this.  If I wanted to conquer this nation and people and control this Country’s economy – what would I do?

The best way to conquer is to first divide.  If I was a foreign power – influencing an election would not be an important goal.  The most important influence would be to fuel a political division.  If there was influence in an election – it would have as the primary goal to divide the voters and create any possible faith (support) in those elected.

If any foreign government(s) are attempting to influence anything in this country – it is succeeding in dividing the country and convincing the citizens that nothing in the government (elected or bureaucratic) can be trusted.  I wonder - if our country is facing the greatest crisis of it short history?  Even greater than any war fought?

The question is not so much who is right or who is wrong - the question is - How will we unite such divided political agendas. 

 

The Traveler

I am a terribly flawed human being and Christian but.......

I do happen to have a theory on this that could be somewhat offensive, but it might just work.  

Back in 2012 I read and shared a prediction that Mr. Mitt Romney had some sort of 'Mantle of Darius' on his

life and political career?????

So what is a "mantle of Darius"... .I am not entirely certain but..... if the USA Democratic Party were to choose Mr. Mitt Romney as their

candidate in the 2020 election the entire political formula of the USA could be altered.

The seven hundred and ten trillion dollar worldwide Derivatives market could be look on as a prop in a proposed semi-reality science fiction film series

set supposedly in 2012 to 2020 and yes...  George Soros voting machines could be used as props to create an artistic conflict.

Here is another proposed prop for the proposed series that actually has some potential because it seems to me that much as the question by Messiah Yeshua - Jesus to the Scribes and Pharisees regarding taking lives on the Sabbath....... so also..... an extreme set of circumstances can lead us toward a rather dramatic or drastic response.

 

"Could a Utah State Dollar save the USA Dollar?"

 

Have you seen any of the following films:

1. The Future of Food
2. Food Inc
3. The World According to Monsanto.

If so..... then you know that the USA dollar to some degree is linked to and backed up by a plan to control the world's production of food in such a way that could eventually produce global famine.


"George Soros says that America must give up the dollar and accept world currency."



Back in 1994 I found out that President Lincoln had saved American taxpayers four billion dollars in interest payments and since that time I have been wondering what alternative was available to improve monetary policy that would not scare the investors on Wall Street.

A Utah State Dollar could perhaps be the answer!????!!!
 
"Know! You need to judge every person favorably, even someone who is completely wicked, you need to search and find any little bit of good. By finding in him a little good and judging him favorably you actually bring him over to the side of merit and you can return him in teshuva" (Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, LM 282)

Matthew 5:44
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"
 
Edited by DennisTate
to kill a link that is dead....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2019 at 3:00 PM, Scott said:

You would be very wrong about that assumption, though I won't fault you for guessing that.


So perhaps that is one reason (but not the only one) that judging others negatively for something he or she has no control over strikes a nerve with me, but either way I still don't think that anyone should be judged negatively for something that he or she has no control over.  I agree that it happens and that we all do it to some extent, but that doesn't make it right.  

OK, since my assumption was wrong, let me ask you this question:  After the game was over, did those same people who chose you last treat you differently?  Were you "less of a human being" simply because you were smaller than others?

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started this thread to illustrate the fate of a nation, society or people that cannot find grounds upon which to be united.  What I find interesting about current events is that Russia is painted as this monster that this a threat the the rest of the world.  I find this idea interesting because last year I was in Russia and it appeared to me that the citizens of that country not only love their government more than we do ours - they trust their leaders much better than we do.  Generally the individuals I encountered were happy to talk about what their government and leaders were doing in glowing terms.

I have yet to encounter a single individual in this country that has good things to say about their political leaders.  If an individual has any liking at all for Trump - they seem to despise  any leaders of the other party (think Pelosi and Schiff) or vice versa - anyone that thinks Pelosi and Schiff are honest - hates Trump.

I am suggesting that it matters less who is more or less right as the fact that there is so little trust.  I submit that our leaders (both Republicans and Democrats) are doing more to divide this country than to unite it.  The more we are divided the more we are likely to fail - both ourselves and those we despise. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I started this thread to illustrate the fate of a nation, society or people that cannot find grounds upon which to be united.  What I find interesting about current events is that Russia is painted as this monster that this a threat the the rest of the world.  I find this idea interesting because last year I was in Russia and it appeared to me that the citizens of that country not only love their government more than we do ours - they trust their leaders much better than we do.  Generally the individuals I encountered were happy to talk about what their government and leaders were doing in glowing terms.

I have yet to encounter a single individual in this country that has good things to say about their political leaders.  If an individual has any liking at all for Trump - they seem to despise  any leaders of the other party (think Pelosi and Schiff) or vice versa - anyone that thinks Pelosi and Schiff are honest - hates Trump.

I am suggesting that it matters less who is more or less right as the fact that there is so little trust.  I submit that our leaders (both Republicans and Democrats) are doing more to divide this country than to unite it.  The more we are divided the more we are likely to fail - both ourselves and those we despise. 

 

The Traveler

You're not supposed to trust your government.  That's the baseline concept of the creation of the US Constitution - keep the government as small as possible because they're not trustworthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, anatess2 said:

You're not supposed to trust your government.  That's the baseline concept of the creation of the US Constitution - keep the government as small as possible because they're not trustworthy.

I disagree - I believe that for any society or government to continue there must be trust.  Even in a family.  To me the constitution is a document that binds representatives (because we are a republic) to the citizens in a relationship of trust.  My wife and I own a number of places that we rent.  We require that our tenants read and sign a rental agreement.  This is so we can have trust.  Some say - why have a rental agreement?  just rent to those you trust.   I have learned that most people can be trusted if there is a clear agreement concerning what is expected.  Likewise very few people can be trusted when what is expected is not clear.

Trust can only exist when it is understood what is expected - both of citizens and of representatives.   I believe that concurrent with freedom is responsibility.  I do not understand what is meant by keeping a government as small as possible or how that is different from a government being as big as absolutely necessary.   In my mind - it does not matter how big or small a government is - if there is not a clear understanding of what is expected of citizens and government officials - there will be major problems, disagreements and perhaps even civil war.  

But thank you for you notion of governments and trust - I understand better why you support Trump and I don't - It is because neither one of us trust him.  😁

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I disagree - I believe that for any society or government to continue there must be trust.  Even in a family.  To me the constitution is a document that binds representatives (because we are a republic) to the citizens in a relationship of trust.  My wife and I own a number of places that we rent.  We require that our tenants read and sign a rental agreement.  This is so we can have trust.  Some say - why have a rental agreement?  just rent to those you trust.   I have learned that most people can be trusted if there is a clear agreement concerning what is expected.  Likewise very few people can be trusted when what is expected is not clear.

Trust can only exist when it is understood what is expected - both of citizens and of representatives.   I believe that concurrent with freedom is responsibility.  I do not understand what is meant by keeping a government as small as possible or how that is different from a government being as big as absolutely necessary.   In my mind - it does not matter how big or small a government is - if there is not a clear understanding of what is expected of citizens and government officials - there will be major problems, disagreements and perhaps even civil war.  

But thank you for you notion of governments and trust - I understand better why you support Trump and I don't - It is because neither one of us trust him.  😁

 

The Traveler

I absolutely disagree.  @anatess2 is correct.  You can have belief in a system, but not "the government".  The government isn't a family.  The Constitution sets up a system of government, but it doesn't "bind" any individual.  We see that daily in the corruption we root out.  

A rental agreement doesn't provide trust.  A rental agreement, like the Constitution, exists because there ISN'T trust.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I absolutely disagree.  @anatess2 is correct.  You can have belief in a system, but not "the government".  The government isn't a family.  The Constitution sets up a system of government, but it doesn't "bind" any individual.  We see that daily in the corruption we root out.  

A rental agreement doesn't provide trust.  A rental agreement, like the Constitution, exists because there ISN'T trust.  

Doctrine and Covenants section 134

Quote

1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

...

7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.

8 We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public peace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment.

...

11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

 

Verses 1-3 seems to me to indicate that we ought to be able to trust our government and it officers.  I believe governments are people - and as I said - In almost all situations where trust is lost it is because what is expected is not well understood - I believe this is even true in marriage.  In order that what is expected is well understood - excellent communication is required.  A contract (rental agreement) is nothing more than an attempt to excellently communicate expectations clearly.

Even G-d establishes all things through covenants (another word for contract).  For some their word is as binding as a signed document - but regardless, it is never wise to assume expectations - I cannot think of a single factor that creates more mistrust than unfulfilled expectations that were not communicated well.  Evil, I believe to the the great exception - but by its nature, evil intends to deceive and not communicate its expectations.   Goodness and honesty require expectations to be clearly communicated.  And as one of my old missionary companions would say - "The faintest of pencils (or ink of pen to @zil ) is clearer than the brightest of memories."

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Doctrine and Covenants section 134

Verses 1-3 seems to me to indicate that we ought to be able to trust our government and it officers.  I believe governments are people - and as I said - In almost all situations where trust is lost it is because what is expected is not well understood - I believe this is even true in marriage.  In order that what is expected is well understood - excellent communication is required.  A contract (rental agreement) is nothing more than an attempt to excellently communicate expectations clearly.

Even G-d establishes all things through covenants (another word for contract).  For some their word is as binding as a signed document - but regardless, it is never wise to assume expectations - I cannot think of a single factor that creates more mistrust than unfulfilled expectations that were not communicated well.  Evil, I believe to the the great exception - but by its nature, evil intends to deceive and not communicate its expectations.   Goodness and honesty require expectations to be clearly communicated.  And as one of my old missionary companions would say - "The faintest of pencils (or ink of pen to @zil ) is clearer than the brightest of memories."

 

The Traveler

So you trust all people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Grunt said:

So you trust all people?

Anyone that is transparent, willing to sign and make efforts to abide by a contract - especially a fixed contract - fixed either by oral tradition or writing.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/24/2019 at 2:51 PM, Traveler said:

Doctrine and Covenants section 134

Verses 1-3 seems to me to indicate that we ought to be able to trust our government and it officers.   

It says nothing of the sort.

 

On 12/24/2019 at 2:51 PM, Traveler said:

 

I believe governments are people - and as I said - In almost all situations where trust is lost it is because what is expected is not well understood - I believe this is even true in marriage.  In order that what is expected is well understood - excellent communication is required.  A contract (rental agreement) is nothing more than an attempt to excellently communicate expectations clearly.  

Governments are systems established and implemented by flawed people.  You are speaking out of American privilege where government corruption is limited by the bounds of the Constitution that is currently still upheld by tradition/culture of the majority.  This will not always be the case - and it has been crumbling for decades now.  Never trust your government and never give it more power.  The history of the Philippines should give you lots of lessons on the matter. 

A contract is not an attempt to excellently communicate expectations clearly.  A contract is an attempt to protect your investment and have the force of law behind you to take the renter to court because you don't trust the renter not to rip out the cabinets and sell all your appliances.

 

On 12/24/2019 at 2:51 PM, Traveler said:

Even G-d establishes all things through covenants (another word for contract).  For some their word is as binding as a signed document - but regardless, it is never wise to assume expectations - I cannot think of a single factor that creates more mistrust than unfulfilled expectations that were not communicated well.  Evil, I believe to the the great exception - but by its nature, evil intends to deceive and not communicate its expectations.   Goodness and honesty require expectations to be clearly communicated.  And as one of my old missionary companions would say - "The faintest of pencils (or ink of pen to @zil ) is clearer than the brightest of memories."

 

The Traveler

A covenant cannot be compared to a government contract.  Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's... give to God what is God's.

Regardless of how well you communicate your expectations there are tons of people in the American Prison System because people don't care what your communique says about the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/24/2019 at 2:04 PM, Grunt said:

I do understand that there are individuals who will sign or otherwise agree to a contract with no intention to keep their agreements.   I have worked in the rental business since I  was a teenager working for my father.  That is an excess of 50 years. I have only had 3 breaches of contract that required legal action - two when I was working for my father and one since I have been on my own.  I have rented to convicted felons with no problems.  

This is not to say that I have not had problems with tenants - there are several every year.  But the problems almost never goes beyond a review of our contract.  The great lesson to me is not to have an iron clad contract but rather to be the best landlord I can and rent to good tenants that can be trusted.  I use the contract for the primary purpose to weed out poor tenants that cannot be trusted (contrary to the attitude expressed by @anatess2).  I use contracts to find the best trust-able tenants; not as a legal means to force poor tenants to behave better or be trustworthy.  I have learned that trying to force poor tenants to be loyal to contracts is nothing more than a waist of time.  I will lose much more than what is possible to gain in any legal settlement.  I use contracts to avoid such things. There are several points of our 10 page contract that I review with all the tenants pending on impressions I have of the tenant.  Some are in regards to services I pay for but do not provide - like utilities.  It is not uncommon for a particular tenant to add a section of their own - which I will review.   One of the worse red flags is someone that thinks their pet ought to be an exception to our contract requirements for pets (which includes service animals).

But like I said - in well over 99% of my experiences with contracts - the primary cause of failure is misunderstanding of expectations.   I have said before that two types of individual to whom I have great prejudices are politicians and corporate executives.  And in both cases I believe it is because individuals in these positions have narcissistic expectations - they do not realize or otherwise think that they have responsibilities beyond their individual expectations for themselves - they feel little or no obligation towards others that they depend upon.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I do understand that there are individuals who will sign or otherwise agree to a contract with no intention to keep their agreements.   I have worked in the rental business since I  was a teenager working for my father.  That is an excess of 50 years. I have only had 3 breaches of contract that required legal action - two when I was working for my father and one since I have been on my own.  I have rented to convicted felons with no problems.  

This is not to say that I have not had problems with tenants - there are several every year.  But the problems almost never goes beyond a review of our contract.  The great lesson to me is not to have an iron clad contract but rather to be the best landlord I can and rent to good tenants that can be trusted.  I use the contract for the primary purpose to weed out poor tenants that cannot be trusted (contrary to the attitude expressed by @anatess2).  I use contracts to find the best trust-able tenants; not as a legal means to force poor tenants to behave better or be trustworthy.  I have learned that trying to force poor tenants to be loyal to contracts is nothing more than a waist of time.  I will lose much more than what is possible to gain in any legal settlement.  I use contracts to avoid such things. There are several points of our 10 page contract that I review with all the tenants pending on impressions I have of the tenant.  Some are in regards to services I pay for but do not provide - like utilities.  It is not uncommon for a particular tenant to add a section of their own - which I will review.   One of the worse red flags is someone that thinks their pet ought to be an exception to our contract requirements for pets (which includes service animals).

But like I said - in well over 99% of my experiences with contracts - the primary cause of failure is misunderstanding of expectations.   I have said before that two types of individual to whom I have great prejudices are politicians and corporate executives.  And in both cases I believe it is because individuals in these positions have narcissistic expectations - they do not realize or otherwise think that they have responsibilities beyond their individual expectations for themselves - they feel little or no obligation towards others that they depend upon.

 

The Traveler

I rest my case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Hmmmmmmm - I thought there was a disagreement?  Glad to now understand there was none.

 

The Traveler

We did.  We were discussing the government.  I gave specific examples that established your ideology was incorrect.  You ignored them and went on about your landlord experience.  I assumed it was because you realized your position was wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Don't you have any infantry blue ink?

"infantry blue" means nothing to me.  Off to google.  Hmm.  In some pictures, it looks like a baby blue, in which case, the answer is "no".  In other pictures, it looks like a grey-blue, in which case, Diamine Misty Blue or Sailor Sou Boku (in a dry pen) might, maybe come close.

d-misty-blue-1.jpg

dsc_7457.jpg?w=739

 

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
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.

Loading...
 Share