Is it time for the US to redefine its way of life?

  • News
  • Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date
In summary: Andrew J. Bacevich articulates my concerns and the fact that the US must change current policies and its lifestyle.
  • #1
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2023 Award
21,923
6,371
A question and title of a thread - Is economic collapse in the United States imminent?

The answer is no, but the current way is unsustainable. Andrew J. Bacevich articulates my concerns and the fact that the US must change current policies and its lifestyle.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/watch.html

Is an imperial presidency destroying what America stands for? Bill Moyers sits down with history and international relations expert and former US Army Colonel Andrew J. Bacevich who identifies three major problems facing our democracy: the crises of economy, government and militarism, and calls for a redefinition of the American way of life.


BILL MOYERS: You're the only author I have read, since I read Jimmy Carter, who gives so much time to the President's speech on July 15th, 1979. Why does that speech speak to you so strongly?

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, this is the so-called Malaise Speech, even though he never used the word "malaise" in the text to the address. It's a very powerful speech, I think, because President Carter says in that speech, oil, our dependence on oil, poses a looming threat to the country. If we act now, we may be able to fix this problem. If we don't act now, we're headed down a path in which not only will we become increasingly dependent upon foreign oil, but we will have opted for a false model of freedom. A freedom of materialism, a freedom of self-indulgence, a freedom of collective recklessness. And what the President was saying at the time was, we need to think about what we mean by freedom. We need to choose a definition of freedom which is anchored in truth, and the way to manifest that choice, is by addressing our energy problem.

He had a profound understanding of the dilemma facing the country in the post Vietnam period. And of course, he was completely hooted, derided, disregarded.

. . . .
and Carter was right.

Bacevich is author of The Limits Of Power: The End Of American Exceptionalism and
American Empire: The Realities And Consequences Of U. S. Diplomacy (2002),
The Imperial Tense: Problems And Prospects Of American Empire (2003) (Editor),
The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced By War (2005), and
The Long War: A New History Of Us National Security Policy Since World War II (2007) (Editor)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
"Is an imperial presidency"? We didn't have one in 2008 and haven't for at least 100 years. Bacevich sounds like a real left fielder.

...and Carter was right.
No, Carter was not right! Being right doesn't mean making a prediction that eventually comes true, it means making a timely prediction. This is similar to the people who have been predicting recessions for the past four years. You don't get a win for predicting something that happens periodically.

Carter's prediction is a little different, but one thing that you'd have to prove in order to show that he was right is that he wasn't talking about the crisis the country was in at the time. Ie, did his prediction include a 20+ year period of extremely low gas prices? If he had radically changed the way the US deals with fossil fuels back in the 1970s, it would have been irresponsible because it would have resulted in decades of reduced economic growth. Being ahead of your time isn't always a positive thing.
 
  • #4
WhoWee said:
Glen Beck thinks Obama plans on an "Imperial Presidency".

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108088

Lots of fear mongering and propaganda. That's exactly why their ratings are so high.

"I fear this government
, this administration
has so much framework already prepared, that they will seize power overnight before anybody even gives it a second thought,"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
russ_watters said:
"Is an imperial presidency"? We didn't have one in 2008 and haven't for at least 100 years.
Did you bother to listen to the interview? I think he substantiates his use of the phrase well.
russ_watters said:
Carter's prediction is a little different, but one thing that you'd have to prove in order to show that he was right is that he wasn't talking about the crisis the country was in at the time. Ie, did his prediction include a 20+ year period of extremely low gas prices?
Carter was speaking of where the path lead us, not what sights we would take in along the way.
russ_watters said:
If he had radically changed the way the US deals with fossil fuels back in the 1970s, it would have been irresponsible because it would have resulted in decades of reduced economic growth.
I think such fixation on short term conditions in disregard of the long term results Carter predicted was exceedingly irresponsible.
 
  • #6
Astronuc said:
A question and title of a thread - Is economic collapse in the United States imminent?

The answer is no, but the current way is unsustainable. Andrew J. Bacevich articulates my concerns and the fact that the US must change current policies and its lifestyle.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/watch.html

and Carter was right.

Bacevich is author of The Limits Of Power: The End Of American Exceptionalism and
American Empire: The Realities And Consequences Of U. S. Diplomacy (2002),
The Imperial Tense: Problems And Prospects Of American Empire (2003) (Editor),
The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced By War (2005), and
The Long War: A New History Of Us National Security Policy Since World War II (2007) (Editor)

Carter was probably parroting something that one of his old boss's once said a few years earlier:

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/23151"
TUESDAY, MAY 14, 1957
Whether this Golden Age will continue depends...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
WhoWee said:
Glen Beck

Why would anyone care what Glenn Beck thinks? The guy is a nut.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA7-BvVDV10
 
Last edited:
  • #8
I suppose if consuming more than one can afford is part of the American way of life, then yes, it is going to change, imo. In fact that change is already well under way.

Ivan Seeking said:
Why would anyone care what Glenn Beck thinks? The guy is a nut.

Glenn Beck is from a local town here in Washington state - Mt Vernon, about 30 miles north of Seattle. The mayor of Mt Vernon recently announced September 26 will be http://www.komonews.com/news/local/56662302.html" , and Beck will be awarded the Key to the City.

Protesters at city hall a few days ago were carrying signs saying "Change The Locks!"

:smile::smile::smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
Arg, in a seven post thread about the American way of life, we get four posts about Glen Beck. Wait, five!
 
  • #10
Astronuc said:
Andrew J. Bacevich articulates my concerns and the fact that the US must change current policies and its lifestyle.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/watch.html

I notice that the interview took place a year ago. I suppose it is debatable as to whether or not some of his predictions have come true.

ANDREW BACEVICH said:
And my view would be that the nation's assumption, that its line of credit is endless, is also going to be shown to be false. And when that day occurs it's going to be a black day, indeed.
Was that a prediction of the market crash, or is the black day still ahead?

It would be interesting to listen to an interview with Andy today, and see if he still believes some of the things he said.

Andy said:
We want to be able to pump gas into our cars regardless of how big they may happen to be, in order to be able to drive wherever we want to be able to drive.

I wonder if he liked the cash for clunkers program?
 
  • #11
OmCheeto said:
Carter was probably parroting something that one of his old boss's once said a few years earlier:

hmmmm... No comments?

Maybe I should have put in a bigger sound bite:

Rear Admiral Hyman G. Rickover said:
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/23151"
7:00 P.M. TUESDAY, MAY 14, 1957
...

Truly, the humblest American enjoys the services of more slaves than were once owned by the richest nobles, and lives better than most ancient kings. In retrospect, and despite wars, revolutions, and disasters, the hundred years just gone by may well seem like a Golden Age.

Whether this Golden Age will continue depends entirely upon our ability to keep energy supplies in balance with the needs of our growing population. Before I go into this question, let me review briefly the role of energy resources in the rise and fall of civilizations.

...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
I don't think Carter was necessarily parroting Rickhover as much as he was reflecting on the energy dependence of the US.

I was struck by Rickhover's comment: "Our country, with only 6% of the world's population, uses one third of the world's total energy input; . . . . "

Currently, the US has about 5% of the world's population and consumes about 25-26% of the energy, despite improvements in efficiency.

Coincidentally, I'm reading about the industrial revolution in Lancashire and the rise of trade and industry in cities like Liverpool during the 1700's. Lancashire had a diversified economy, and imported goods from Africa and the Americas, and exported salt, coal, and manufactured goods to the colonies as well as to the European markets. It was also at this time that slavery became an important economic component.
 
  • #13
OmCheeto said:
hmmmm... No comments?

Maybe I should have put in a bigger sound bite:
Energy Sec. Chu has a nice energy road show talk he uses which includes that 'energy slave' metaphor. Given the average work output of an adult human, and the daily energy usage of
the average American, he calculates the average American (all 300m) has 100 energy slaves.

A mention here for instance:
http://www.evworld.com/EVWORLD_TV.CFM?storyid=1354
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
I don't think anyone doubts the coming (and currently underway) standard of living pull back that the U.S. is seeing. Economists/Financiers/Politicians of all categories have expressed the notion that we will have to step aside and no longer be the sole dominant force in world politics...

and that's fine by me..
 
  • #15
bleedblue1234 said:
I don't think anyone doubts the coming (and currently underway) standard of living pull back that the U.S. is seeing.
I doubt it.
Economists/Financiers/Politicians of all categories have expressed the notion that we will have to step aside and no longer be the sole dominant force in world politics...
The US is not the 'sole' force on very much, though it is dominant in many.

and that's fine by me..
You step aside then.
 
  • #16
The american way already has changed and that is the problem. Where there once was frugality we now have materialism, the belief that government at best is a neccesary evil has changed to the government is all powerful and can solve any problem, the belief that no one had the right to force their neighbor into a believing as they do has become it is for their own good that I force them to change. Where once we had freedom of choice we now have freedom of a few choices.Where we once hated titles and classes we now allow government to give titles and put everyone into classes. Where we once believed in enlightenment of the mind we now believe we need to close the mind, since people can't be trusted to their own choices. Where we once hated nobility, we now allow politicians to pass their seat on to family members without a vote. Once we believed in taxes being voluntary they are now forced. Where we once believed failure was the best teaching instrument we now believe no one should fail(and therefore learn from their mistakes)Where we once believed in independence we now believe in being dependent on everyone but ourselves. Where we once believed in the power of the individual we are now told we have to set our differences aside and conform. Where we once believed government couldn't break the same rules they impose on us we now have a government that arrests citizens for doing the same thing they do(think bernie madoff and social security, both are ponzi schemes). In short once we were british then we became AMERICAN and now we've gone full circle and become british. All history of the revolution that I have read says we fought against the british so why now are we adopting all the same policies our founding generation fought and died fighting against? Government isn't our savior, government will be our demise if we continue down the road were on.
 
  • #17
Jasongreat said:
The american way already has changed and that is the problem.
I see it as a solution.
Where there once was frugality we now have materialism
I like stuff.
, the belief that government at best is a neccesary evil
As Lisab once said, "Go move to Wutchamastan, where they don't have a government, and the rule of the land is whoever shoots first wins." (Ok. I completely made that up. But she did mention something like that.)
has changed to the government is all powerful and can solve any problem
Disagree.
, the belief that no one had the right to force their neighbor into a believing as they do has become it is for their own good that I force them to change.
what?
Where once we had freedom of choice we now have freedom of a few choices.
what?
Where we once hated titles and classes we now allow government to give titles and put everyone into classes. Where we once believed in enlightenment of the mind we now believe we need to close the mind, since people can't be trusted to their own choices. Where we once hated nobility, we now allow politicians to pass their seat on to family members without a vote.
Quintuple what?
Once we believed in taxes being voluntary they are now forced.
We still have one of the lowest tax burdens of the industrialized nations.
Where we once believed failure was the best teaching instrument we now believe no one should fail(and therefore learn from their mistakes)Where we once believed in independence we now believe in being dependent on everyone but ourselves. Where we once believed in the power of the individual we are now told we have to set our differences aside and conform. Where we once believed government couldn't break the same rules they impose on us we now have a government that arrests citizens for doing the same thing they do(think bernie madoff and social security, both are ponzi schemes).
Quadruple what?
In short once we were british then we became AMERICAN and now we've gone full circle and become british.
I believe we started out as French, British, Spanish, Native American, etc.
But kraut appears to now be our dominant ancestry:
290px-Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries.jpg

All history of the revolution that I have read says we fought against the british so why now are we adopting all the same policies our founding generation fought and died fighting against?
Because the young nearly always rebel against the old. It's gods way of getting them out of the house.
Government isn't our savior, government will be our demise if we continue down the road were on.
Once again, move to Wutchamastan. And carry lots of ammunition.
 
  • #18
OmCheeto said:
I see it as a solution.

I like stuff.

As Lisab once said, "Go move to Wutchamastan, where they don't have a government, and the rule of the land is whoever shoots first wins." (Ok. I completely made that up. But she did mention something like that.)

Disagree.

what?

what?

Quintuple what?

We still have one of the lowest tax burdens of the industrialized nations.

Quadruple what?

I believe we started out as French, British, Spanish, Native American, etc.
But kraut appears to now be our dominant ancestry:
290px-Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries.jpg


Because the young nearly always rebel against the old. It's gods way of getting them out of the house.

Once again, move to Wutchamastan. And carry lots of ammunition.


If it is such a solution why has it not solved anything and why? Or if you think it has solved problems please explain.

I also like stuff, did Benjiman Franklin have stuff? I believe he did and he was the biggest supporter of living frugally. Living frugally doesn't mean you can't have stuff it just means you live within your means. Living in debt is no better than slavery, who do you work for?

I never said I was a fan of no government, but we sure could do without a lot of what we have. Besides as an american I have the right to disagree with the government, don't I? But the way our government is set up(bound by the constitution) the government doesn't have the right to do what they want(even with a super majority, unless that majority ammends the const.). If they are, where is it enumerated in the constitution?
Using your line of reasoning why don't you move to a socialist country if you think their policies are so great. So let's look at which one of us likes law and order more, you the one who thinks the government can do whatever they feel like, or me the one who thinks the government should follow the law they are bound by and swear to uphold and to defend against all encroachments, foreign and internal?

We also have a low amount of poverty, so should we just disregard the impoverished? Just because it is already lower does that mean we still can't go lower, and as the people we would have far more power over the government if we could withold funding. How does congress control the presidents actions? By witholding his funding?

I wasnt talking race. Was race even insinuated or is that just the easiest way to discredit a point? Can't counter with reason so inject race. Were we not british citizens(regardless of race) first? And thanks for bringing up native americans, Who was it that stole their land by force? Was it a bunch of individual citizens, or was it the armies of the all powerfull government?

So rebellion of the young has no merit, its just because they want to get the old? Instead of it being gods(did he write the laws) way to get them out of the house, its more like the old peoples way of getting them out of the house, since that's who's laws they are rebelling against.

One of your what's was directed at the ponzii scheme comment, if social security isn't a ponzii scheme, what is it? The new investor paying off the old investor, isn't that in essence a ponzii scheme?

Every evil in the government today was erradicated at the inception of our new government, well erradicated is a little strong, they were layed dormant but are now being revived by the unscrupulous and the mis-informed.

As for your final statement, Could we please get some factual retorts, instead of playground antics?
 
  • #19
Ivan Seeking said:
Why would anyone care what Glenn Beck thinks? The guy is a nut.

Why would anyone care what The Young Turks think? They're a couple of whiney, mouthy children sitting in their parents' basement.
 
  • #20
Jasongreat said:
If it is such a solution why has it not solved anything and why?
Who said it hasn't?
Or if you think it has solved problems please explain.
There are an infinite number of problems to be solved. I don't have the time to explain, because infinity is really big.
I also like stuff, did Benjiman Franklin have stuff? I believe he did and he was the biggest supporter of living frugally.
So he was a mooch?
Living frugally doesn't mean you can't have stuff it just means you live within your means. Living in debt is no better than slavery,
I've been in debt since the day I bought my house. Having to go to work every day to pay off the mortgage is a pain, but it's better than being a quadriplegic in Calcutta. At least, that's how I rationalize it.
who do you work for?
a non-profit corporation.
I never said I was a fan of no government,
ok
but we sure could do without a lot of what we have.
kind of like Reagan, who said the same thing, and yet increased spending left and right.
Besides as an american I have the right to disagree with the government, don't I?
Yes. I've defended your right to do so. (pat on back, pat on back)
But the way our government is set up(bound by the constitution) the government doesn't have the right to do what they want(even with a super majority, unless that majority ammends the const.). If they are, where is it enumerated in the constitution?
Using your line of reasoning why don't you move to a socialist country if you think their policies are so great.
um. what?
So let's look at which one of us likes law and order more, you the one who thinks the government can do whatever they feel like, or me the one who thinks the government should follow the law they are bound by and swear to uphold and to defend against all encroachments, foreign and internal?

We also have a low amount of poverty, so should we just disregard the impoverished? Just because it is already lower does that mean we still can't go lower, and as the people we would have far more power over the government if we could withold funding. How does congress control the presidents actions? By witholding his funding?

I wasnt talking race. Was race even insinuated or is that just the easiest way to discredit a point? Can't counter with reason so inject race. Were we not british citizens(regardless of race) first? And thanks for bringing up native americans, Who was it that stole their land by force? Was it a bunch of individual citizens, or was it the armies of the all powerfull government?

So rebellion of the young has no merit, its just because they want to get the old? Instead of it being gods(did he write the laws) way to get them out of the house, its more like the old peoples way of getting them out of the house, since that's who's laws they are rebelling against.

One of your what's was directed at the ponzii scheme comment, if social security isn't a ponzii scheme, what is it? The new investor paying off the old investor, isn't that in essence a ponzii scheme?

Every evil in the government today was erradicated at the inception of our new government, well erradicated is a little strong, they were layed dormant but are now being revived by the unscrupulous and the mis-informed.

As for your final statement, Could we please get some factual retorts, instead of playground antics?

hmmm... You might want to lay off the caffeine for a bit.

Just chant my name for a few minutes: Ommmmmmm... Cheeeeeee... Toooooe...
repeat ad infinitum.
 
  • #21
Cheeto, you've posted nothing in here but short, arrogant, meaningless retorts to just about everything. You add nothing to the conversation whatsoever but smart-alecky crap. If you're going to post then you should do so with substance as per the forum rules. This isn't the first time, either.

@Topic: I don't see why changing our lifestyles is going to make everything "better". This entire video is about nothing but bashing conservatives and pushing a collectivist society based on individual sacrifice.

but we will have opted for a false model of freedom. A freedom of materialism, a freedom of self-indulgence, a freedom of collective recklessness. And what the President was saying at the time was, we need to think about what we mean by freedom. We need to choose a definition of freedom which is anchored in truth, and the way to manifest that choice, is by addressing our energy problem.

What does materialism, self indulgence, and recklessness have to do with freedom? Freedom is just freedom. The freedom to climb as far as you can fall. The freedom to make your own choices and the responsibility of living with them.

Are they suggesting we pass legislation that dictates how much "stuff" you can consume? How "materialistic" you can be? This entire video is about bashing conservatives and conservative policy and to be honest it just doesn't make any sense. Does this mean that we can't have success with liberty because people are too self indulgent and materialistic?

I'm just not getting the connection with freedom and oil. All I see is yet another person haphazardly throwing the word freedom around.
 
  • #22
tchitt said:
I'm just not getting the connection with freedom and oil. All I see is yet another person haphazardly throwing the word freedom around.

Perhaps it is freedom in the "drug addict" sense. The addict is a slave to the drug.

Tying in oil and freedom:

George W. Bush said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11110276/"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
tchitt said:
Why would anyone care what The Young Turks think? They're a couple of whiney, mouthy children sitting in their parents' basement.

The link was for the Beck clip. The Young Turks, whoever they are, had nothing to do with it. The Beck clip stands on it own. He is a nut and anyone who watches his daily nonsense is probably brainwashed by now.
 
  • #24
mheslep said:
Energy Sec. Chu has a nice energy road show talk he uses which includes that 'energy slave' metaphor. Given the average work output of an adult human, and the daily energy usage of
the average American, he calculates the average American (all 300m) has 100 energy slaves.

A mention here for instance:
http://www.evworld.com/EVWORLD_TV.CFM?storyid=1354

300 million people*100 energy slaves per person = 30 billion energy slaves.

Obviously the term "energy slave" is more to stir political emotions than to bring across any point involving how much of the world's resources we're consuming
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
Yeah, I've got energy employees, if I had slaves I'd save a lot of cash.
 
  • #26
Ivan Seeking said:
The link was for the Beck clip. The Young Turks, whoever they are, had nothing to do with it. The Beck clip stands on it own. He is a nut and anyone who watches his daily nonsense is probably brainwashed by now.

Did you think him bashing bush was nonsense(he has repeatedly), or is it just non-sense when it is exposing your guy for who he is? I don't agree with him 100% of the time, probably around 80%, so my brainwashing has a little ways to go yet.
 
  • #27
mheslep said:
Arg, in a seven post thread about the American way of life, we get four posts about Glen Beck. Wait, five!

Now we're at 9 of 27 - too funny!:rolleyes:
 
  • #28
Jasongreat said:
Did you think him bashing bush was nonsense(he has repeatedly)...
I wouldn't be surprised much of it was, but you'd have to provide specific examples for one to reasonably answer such a question.
 
  • #29
Jasongreat said:
Did you think him bashing bush was nonsense(he has repeatedly), or is it just non-sense when it is exposing your guy for who he is? I don't agree with him 100% of the time, probably around 80%, so my brainwashing has a little ways to go yet.

I thought he was an idiot the first time I saw him. Party affiliations have nothing to do with it.

Even if 80% of what he says makes sense, and I'm not saying the number is anywhere near that high, the other 20% nonsense invalidates him as a reliable reference. Why don't you watch people who don't cry during their broadcasts for starters.

Have Obama's shock troops [Americor] taken over Washington yet, or whatever they are supposed to take over, as Beck suggests may happen?
 
Last edited:
  • #30
Ivan Seeking said:
I thought he was an idiot the first time I saw him. Party affiliations have nothing to do with it.

Even if 80% of what he says makes sense, and I'm not saying the number is anywhere near that high, the other 20% nonsense invalidates him as a reliable reference. Why don't you watch people who don't cry during their broadcasts for starters.

Have Obama's shock troops [Americor] taken over Washington yet, or whatever they are supposed to take over, as Beck suggests may happen?

I think 80% is generous - maybe 20% REALLY makes sense?

However, it appears he was on target with Van Jones, Acorn/SEIU, and the Tea Parties.
Even NBC estimated turnout over 100,000 and some estimates were at 1.7 million total.
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/B13902D9-2EBE-46A7-8257-44425E3B3146/

There are a lot of tax paying people in this country who identify with Beck and feel as though they don't have any representation in Washington. Nancy Pelosi calling these people names and Axelrod dismissing the weekend march is a big mistake - 2010 elections will be very interesting.
 
  • #31
WhoWee said:
... and the Tea Parties.
Even NBC estimated turnout over 100,000 and some estimates were at 1.7 million total.
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/B13902D9-2EBE-46A7-8257-44425E3B3146/
17X ? That's a nice safe range.:-p
 
  • #32
mheslep said:
17X ? That's a nice safe range.:-p

Maybe the weatherman did the estimate?:confused:
 

Related to Is it time for the US to redefine its way of life?

1. What factors should be considered when redefining the US way of life?

The factors that should be considered when redefining the US way of life include economic stability, social justice, environmental sustainability, cultural diversity, and political stability. These factors are interconnected and must be balanced in order to create a sustainable and equitable way of life for all Americans.

2. How does the US way of life compare to other countries?

The US way of life differs from other countries in many ways, including its emphasis on individualism, consumerism, and capitalism. However, it also shares similarities with other developed countries in terms of technological advancement, access to education and healthcare, and democratic values.

3. What are the potential benefits of redefining the US way of life?

Redefining the US way of life has the potential to create a more equitable and sustainable society. It can lead to a better distribution of wealth, improved social services, and a healthier environment. It can also promote cultural diversity and inclusivity, and foster a more peaceful and stable political climate.

4. What challenges may arise when redefining the US way of life?

There are several challenges that may arise when redefining the US way of life. These include resistance from those who benefit from the current system, lack of political will and cooperation, and the need for significant changes in policies and societal norms. It may also require a shift in mindset and values for individuals to adapt to a new way of life.

5. How can individuals contribute to redefining the US way of life?

Individuals can contribute to redefining the US way of life by educating themselves on the issues and actively participating in the democratic process. This can include voting for leaders who prioritize social and environmental issues, supporting sustainable and ethical businesses, and engaging in community initiatives that promote inclusivity and equality. It also involves making personal lifestyle changes, such as reducing consumption and promoting sustainable practices.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
66
Views
9K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
73
Views
11K
Replies
20
Views
3K
Back
Top