Here you can discuss all that you want, about who you want and this thread will not be moderated strictly so that all the users here can have their own space.
Alright, I just finished reading it, and my perspective is you brought up a bunch of well known, common sense points.
I think when discussing whether or not the USSR "worked," the first point that should be brought up is how we define a working society. The USSR did work in the sense that it was able to perpetuate itself; the system worked well enough that enough people had enough of their needs met that they were able to keep the critical institutions functioning. But the quality of life suffered tremendously.
That's the thing, it didn't work. Failed soviet governance caused the collapse of an entire sphere of influence, including what was, at one point, the most powerful country in the world(self-proclaimed). Here, we are comparing the QoL of life in both parts of the world, and that plays into how good the country overall is. The way I see it, if a government has to force its people to live in misery to survive, it has already failed in its main goal. A government should allow its people to prosper, not oppress them.
Kind regards, Donk Bytro game addict and avid CoW player. "Þ" > "th" Слава Україні!
10 Nov 2023, 00:52 (edited)
Carking the 6th wrote:
Donk2.0 wrote:
Carking the 6th wrote:
russ_russ1 wrote:
No the Green Party is a socialist party on defunding the military and destroying my alcohol
Holy shit I hope they win the next election
Defunding the military? They already have a tiny military budget, and that's landing them in hot water. While countries like the US are increasing their budgets to pick up Canada's slack, its becoming more and more apparent that they aren't in any way capable of defending themselves without the help of the rest of NATO. I'm not saying Canada should go all out on arms purchases, but at least make sure your army has guns that work, or else allies may begin to alienate themselves.
Bro against what enemy? Collapsing Russia and economically dependent China? I mean come on man, you don’t gotta disband the army but everyone is just wasting their money when the US is spending more than all their enemies combined TIMES TWO.
Although that may be true to some extent, I still think that it's important to invest in it. It's better to be safe than sorry; in this case, the American military plays a massive role in maintaining international influence. NATO is based on the US being able to defend all its members(jointly with them) and still having some military strength to spare. Suppose the US didn't have such a large military. In that case, we'd see Taiwan in CCP hands, the nine-dash line being honoured, Ukraine surrendering, and many countries beginning to drift away from the idea of a united free/democratic sphere of influence. China may be bad at doing stuff well, and its military is a prime example of that, but it will deal with that the same way as it always does, it will throw money at it, and, unfortunately, in the long run, this will probably be enough. Additionally, I don't think that the US should use its military force in an aggressive manner. Instead, I think that it is best used as a tool to help convince countries to align themselves with the West by promising defence. A large part of this should also be the US demonstrating on the world stage that it stands for what is right, not for what is best for them (ie, supporting a democratic gov in Africa instead of a revolutionary group that promises exclusive rights to natural resources). With power such as what the US wields on an international scale, comes great responsibility. It's up to American leaders to make the right choice internationally, supporting Democracy and personal freedoms, even if it may result in an outcome that may not be beneficial to the US. This an interesting subject, and it ties in a lot to politics. I'll leave it for another day.
btw if anyone is reading this and wants to see some of my other political stuff, go to my wall and scroll (a little while down) to the post carking made about highways, the one with around 70 replies, that one eventually turns into a political discussion, in which I outline some of my possible solutions for American political problems.
Kind regards, Donk Bytro game addict and avid CoW player. "Þ" > "th" Слава Україні!
10 Nov 2023, 02:19
Hi
10 Nov 2023, 02:37
chafing is a serious problem man we must find a way to stop the devil by making chafing
…it’s silly time……….:3
10 Nov 2023, 02:47
Donk2.0 wrote:
That's the thing, it didn't work. Failed soviet governance caused the collapse of an entire sphere of influence, including what was, at one point, the most powerful country in the world(self-proclaimed). Here, we are comparing the QoL of life in both parts of the world, and that plays into how good the country overall is. The way I see it, if a government has to force its people to live in misery to survive, it has already failed in its main goal. A government should allow its people to prosper, not oppress them.
The Roman Empire eventually collapsed. Does that mean it didn’t work? The British Empire and the Chinese Dynasties too. What of their success? The US and West will eventually fall or end somehow. Does that mean that everything they did and all their success was meaningless? Of course not! The Soviet Union succeeded for decades and may have made it further if Gorbachev succeeded, I don’t like your statements broadness, though your final sentence is 100% true and the main reason why egalitarianism is not only morally, but also superior for the long term survival of a institution.
Donk2.0 wrote:
Although that may be true to some extent, I still think that it's important to invest in it. It's better to be safe than sorry; in this case, the American military plays a massive role in maintaining international influence. NATO is based on the US being able to defend all its members(jointly with them) and still having some military strength to spare.
Well I was more talking about Canada and not the US, but even then, I never said to defund the military. To be fair though, it should be cut back on and much of that money spent on the military industrial complex invested elsewhere (at least veterans man…). Remember, if you fixed the wasteful system that makes a lot of resources go to waste. If you changed the overpriced parts used, and got rid of the “spend it all or lose it system” you could still have the same amount and arguably better (since corporations aren’t cutting costs) of army for a vastly reduced sum. You could bomb 3rd work countries all over again and have enough money for better healthcare while your at it!
Donk2.0 wrote:
Suppose the US didn't have such a large military. In that case, we'd see Taiwan in CCP hands, the nine-dash line being honoured, Ukraine surrendering, and many countries beginning to drift away from the idea of a united free/democratic sphere of influence. China may be bad at doing stuff well, and its military is a prime example of that, but it will deal with that the same way as it always does, it will throw money at it, and, unfortunately, in the long run, this will probably be enough.
Currently as it stands, invading Taiwan for China would be a bigger operation than D-day with a significantly smaller advantage. This video I watched a while back is a nice source, even if it looks strange:
Even without US support, China would be bogged down and kick out, only able to cause massive damage. Furthermore, the Chinese economy would be shafted as Taiwanese Microchip manufacturing would cease, hurting China and the whole world as well (but the U.S. has already some domestic production and would be less damaged.)
Remember, China’s population is falling, it’s becoming less and less likely they will even surpass the US economy, so it’s a far smaller threat than you would think.
As for Russia and Ukraine, that is debatable if it would be as decisive as you state. For one thing, even without ANY western support, Ukraine managed to hold on for longer than expected, and would still probably do so as well. Yes, Ukraine may lose, but it’s unknown if Russia could actually even reach the west. Even if it does though, it would be a very bloody fight that would bleed Russia dry. Furthermore, Russia would have to fight a brutal insurgency that would be almost guaranteed to rise after its takeover, which would be a second Afghanistan that could force Russia to pull out from much of the west or at the very least take an endless and constant military toll. Not to mention the million often educated Russians that would still leave the country, combing with the fall in birth rates that was already taken place, expanded by the death and splitting (soldiers not able to make children with their spouses) that the war would be causing. Russia would cease to be a threat as it barely manages to hold itself together.
Point is that the major US enemies are overestimated in their strength, with China seeming to have much corruption and little experience as well. With few allies and many enemies, military force is simply not a good option for them, and we already know about Russia…
Not sure how the size of the U.S. military would effect their diplomacy that much, especially if the U.S. spent more of that money on diplomacy or economic deals with countries, also toning down on all the CIA coups, which would have led to more democracy overall in its place…
Donk2.0 wrote:
Additionally, I don't think that the US should use its military force in an aggressive manner. Instead, I think that it is best used as a tool to help convince countries to align themselves with the West by promising defence. A large part of this should also be the US demonstrating on the world stage that it stands for what is right, not for what is best for them (ie, supporting a democratic gov in Africa instead of a revolutionary group that promises exclusive rights to natural resources). With power such as what the US wields on an international scale, comes great responsibility. It's up to American leaders to make the right choice internationally, supporting Democracy and personal freedoms, even if it may result in an outcome that may not be beneficial to the US. This an interesting subject, and it ties in a lot to politics. I'll leave it for another day.
Now here I can agree with you. The United States should not be using its army for more temporary interests, such as resources or more influence (see banana republics and the dictators the U.S. propped up) but rather to help countries defend themselves, promote their stability, and allow them to make forces to protect themselves. For example, had the U.S. decided to not disband the Iraqi army, and focused on training it to be an effective force that could support a democratic government. Instead of what most Arab countries have, which basically entail the military being its own political faction with interests and the ability to take over a country (Such as Egypt). Combine that with better state-building that included international support and working with the Iraqi people, and you may have a beacon of peace and stability in the Middle East. Your third to last sentence is what should be strived for more often.
10 Nov 2023, 04:54
I wonder if any person is able to read all of those paragraphs without skipping a beat from the previous parts.
10 Nov 2023, 05:45
Masked Phantom wrote:
I wonder if any person is able to read all of those paragraphs without skipping a beat from the previous parts.
The power of literacy is grand…
10 Nov 2023, 05:52
Carking the 6th wrote:
The Roman Empire eventually collapsed. Does that mean it didn’t work? The British Empire and the Chinese Dynasties too. What of their success? The US and West will eventually fall or end somehow. Does that mean that everything they did and all their success was meaningless? Of course not! The Soviet Union succeeded for decades and may have made it further if Gorbachev succeeded, I don’t like your statements broadness, though your final sentence is 100% true and the main reason why egalitarianism is not only morally, but also superior for the long term survival of a institution.
The thing is, with the Soviet Union and the collective East, there really wasn't a "golden age". The biggest soviet success was probably WW2, but that came at the cost of tens of millions of lives, so pretty much an entire generation. The British Empire flourished for 200 years, the same as many of the other examples you gave. You're forgetting that the soviet collapse wasn't something that happened as a result of decisions made in 1985, it was in the works since 1945 at least. I'm not saying that they had no successes, but the ones they did came at a painfully high price and oftentimes weren't even as much as they were made out to be (have you read Orwell's Animal Farm? You'd understand if you did). Also, the response was broad because of what I was responding to, which was also quite general.
Carking the 6th wrote:
Well I was more talking about Canada and not the US, but even then, I never said to defund the military. To be fair though, it should be cut back on and much of that money spent on the military industrial complex invested elsewhere (at least veterans man…). Remember, if you fixed the wasteful system that makes a lot of resources go to waste. If you changed the overpriced parts used, and got rid of the “spend it all or lose it system” you could still have the same amount and arguably better (since corporations aren’t cutting costs) of army for a vastly reduced sum. You could bomb 3rd work countries all over again and have enough money for better healthcare while your at it!
I don't know if I'd want to reduce funding, but one thing that we need is to be able to audit the military. That's where we will see just how bad the situation is. The US should be getting MUCH more for its money than it is right now. Btw, veterans benefits are pretty good rn I think. The military is having trouble with recruitment, so they are relying on big financial incentives. Still, a worthy cause. I agree with this for the most part.
Carking the 6th wrote:
urrently as it stands, invading Taiwan for China would be a bigger operation than D-day with a significantly smaller advantage. This video I watched a while back is a nice source, even if it looks strange:
For this entire section, I think you misunderstood what I was saying (although it's my fault for not making it as clear as I should have). I don't mean the US engaging in combat directly, more so it's believed ability to uphold security guarantees. In a TON of cases in recent history, the US threat of retaliation in response to something has been enough to avoid a conflict. If it weren't for US support in the 50s and 60s, Taiwan would have been taken by the PRC then. It's the mere fact that the US promised to defend it in the case of an attack that deterred it. If it weren't for that, the PLA wouldn't have had too much difficulty invading. In modern times, I agree with the videos you sent(I watch that exact content creator myself) and articles. Taiwan is now ready to resist Chinese influence(unlike in the 50s and 60s, without US support). The US military has been instrumental in the deterrence of conflicts around the world. It's hard to say how many were avoided, but I can say for certain, the world would be a very different place. In modern times, It's still the case. Why should the Philippines and Vietnam align themselves with the West against China if they know that they won't be protected? China is closer, holds more regional influence, and is quite capable of taking both of them down, but won't... because of possible US intervention. A dealbreaker for many US allies is defence agreements. If the military is scaled down, that advantage is lost. Vietnam and the Philipines probably won't end up in a conflict with China, but they would probably give in to demands, seeing no other alternative. This can't be forgotten: there are many dozens of cases where wars could have occurred, but didn't/won't because of security guarantees. That's what I'm talking about here.
Carking the 6th wrote:
Even without US support, China would be bogged down and kick out, only able to cause massive damage.
Absolutely
Carking the 6th wrote:
As for Russia and Ukraine, that is debatable if it would be as decisive as you state. For one thing, even without ANY western support, Ukraine managed to hold on for longer than expected, and would still probably do so as well. Yes, Ukraine may lose, but it’s unknown if Russia could actually even reach the west. Even if it does though, it would be a very bloody fight that would bleed Russia dry. Furthermore, Russia would have to fight a brutal insurgency that would be almost guaranteed to rise after its takeover, which would be a second Afghanistan that could force Russia to pull out from much of the west or at the very least take an endless and constant military toll. Not to mention the million often educated Russians that would still leave the country, combing with the fall in birth rates that was already taken place, expanded by the death and splitting (soldiers not able to make children with their spouses) that the war would be causing. Russia would cease to be a threat as it barely manages to hold itself together.
I don't mean it that way. The entire cause of the war is Ukraine's intention to ally itself with the West, something it probably wouldn't have wanted to do if the US wasn't there to support it. Additionally, you must remember, Ukraine's military budget is 40 billion, while the aid they've received is 100 billion, that's a big difference. Although Ukraine would have probably had the ability to defend itself on its own, its offensive capability is certainly the result of foreign aid. Also, tying to what I said before, the entire continent would have likely looked a lot different if the US didn't have a world-class military, namely with the possible reluctance of post-soviet countries to join NATO(if that would have even become a thing) and the EU. Russia would have had much less of an issue picking off Moldova, Georgia, and other countries that receive/d aid or are part of NATO now. I also don't think that what you stated would be the result of a successful invasion would transpire. Putin would have used brutal tactics to suppress the Ukrainians and keep them at bay. If Russia was seeing real success on an international scale, we would probably be seeing a modern 1939 Germany right now.
Carking the 6th wrote:
Point is that the major US enemies are overestimated in their strength, with China seeming to have much corruption and little experience as well. With few allies and many enemies, military force is simply not a good option for them, and we already know about Russia…
They are, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. By preparing for the worst, we are even better prepared for the best. China may not be in a strong position militarily right now, but in 2050, who knows? They are building 5th gen(probably garbage, but still functional) 5th gen fighters at a faster rate than ever done by the US or anything else. This, combined with massive investments in navy and other things, suggests that 30 years from now, the situation may be very different.
Carking the 6th wrote:
Not sure how the size of the U.S. military would effect their diplomacy that much, especially if the U.S. spent more of that money on diplomacy or economic deals with countries, also toning down on all the CIA coups, which would have led to more democracy overall in its place…
Security guarantees go a LONG way. As I said, a dealbreaker for many countries.
Carking the 6th wrote:
Now here I can agree with you.
Very good. Novel+
Kind regards, Donk Bytro game addict and avid CoW player. "Þ" > "th" Слава Україні!
10 Nov 2023, 11:23
Carking the 6th wrote:
Masked Phantom wrote:
I wonder if any person is able to read all of those paragraphs without skipping a beat from the previous parts.
The power of literacy is grand…
Give me that power, now...
I realized the power I held, Power! The power to rule! To make the world grovel at my feet! We will begin with a reign of terror. A few murders here and there, murders of great men, murders of little men, just to show we make no distinction. ꧋ꦔꦺꦴꦤꦺꦴꦪꦺꦴꦔꦺꦴꦤꦺꦴ꧈ꦤꦔꦶꦁꦎꦗꦺꦴꦔꦺꦴꦤꦺꦴ꧉ Carking's alt.
10 Nov 2023, 12:22
Donk2.0 wrote:
The thing is, with the Soviet Union and the collective East, there really wasn't a "golden age". The biggest soviet success was probably WW2, but that came at the cost of tens of millions of lives, so pretty much an entire generation. The British Empire flourished for 200 years, the same as many of the other examples you gave. You're forgetting that the soviet collapse wasn't something that happened as a result of decisions made in 1985, it was in the works since 1945 at least. I'm not saying that they had no successes, but the ones they did came at a painfully high price and oftentimes weren't even as much as they were made out to be (have you read Orwell's Animal Farm? You'd understand if you did). Also, the response was broad because of what I was responding to, which was also quite general.
The 60’s through up to the 80’s were a bit of a golden age. Compared to previous time periods, life was significantly better, and the QOL was higher than basically all non-western countries. Just like Gaul or India, colonies such as Poland were not better off, and just like women in China or the Middle class in the British Empire many did not have easy lives, but significantly better than the past. It’s semi redundant to say that it was doomed to collapse from the start. So was the British Empire thanks to its immense diversity and treatment of non-whites, and same thing with Rome and its Oligarchical system. There was notable success, like being the first humans into space, highly advancing the medical and submarine (what would you call that?) fields, etc. You can’t discount all of this because life sucked compared to the west. Life sucked in the entire third world, the west was not the gold standard here and didn’t stave off millions of deaths and a madman dictator just a few decades prior. I think I have seen animal farm before, but it feels more like Stalin, who was only one era in the countries history.
Donk2.0 wrote:
For this entire section, I think you misunderstood what I was saying (although it's my fault for not making it as clear as I should have). I don't mean the US engaging in combat directly, more so it's believed ability to uphold security guarantees. In a TON of cases in recent history, the US threat of retaliation in response to something has been enough to avoid a conflict. If it weren't for US support in the 50s and 60s, Taiwan would have been taken by the PRC then. It's the mere fact that the US promised to defend it in the case of an attack that deterred it. If it weren't for that, the PLA wouldn't have had too much difficulty invading. In modern times, I agree with the videos you sent(I watch that exact content creator myself) and articles. Taiwan is now ready to resist Chinese influence(unlike in the 50s and 60s, without US support). The US military has been instrumental in the deterrence of conflicts around the world. It's hard to say how many were avoided, but I can say for certain, the world would be a very different place. In modern times, It's still the case. Why should the Philippines and Vietnam align themselves with the West against China if they know that they won't be protected? China is closer, holds more regional influence, and is quite capable of taking both of them down, but won't... because of possible US intervention. A dealbreaker for many US allies is defence agreements. If the military is scaled down, that advantage is lost. Vietnam and the Philipines probably won't end up in a conflict with China, but they would probably give in to demands, seeing no other alternative. This can't be forgotten: there are many dozens of cases where wars could have occurred, but didn't/won't because of security guarantees. That's what I'm talking about here.
China tried to take Vietnam after the Vietnam war and failed. An invasion of the Philippines would lead to endless gurrilla war and defeat. You don’t need 3x the size of the Chinese navy to have allies, they’ll hate China either way. The US in the long term has more pressing domestic issues that require attention, and auditing the military in order to reduce funding would allow you to upkeep a similar size while having the ability to manage a growing list of internal concerns. What’s the point of more planes when you have all this homelessness? Who needs another carrier when you can better education? You don’t need excessive force to help other countries, especially considering they have defended themselves before anyway.
Donk2.0 wrote:
I don't mean it that way. The entire cause of the war is Ukraine's intention to ally itself with the West, something it probably wouldn't have wanted to do if the US wasn't there to support it. Additionally, you must remember, Ukraine's military budget is 40 billion, while the aid they've received is 100 billion, that's a big difference. Although Ukraine would have probably had the ability to defend itself on its own, its offensive capability is certainly the result of foreign aid. Also, tying to what I said before, the entire continent would have likely looked a lot different if the US didn't have a world-class military, namely with the possible reluctance of post-soviet countries to join NATO(if that would have even become a thing) and the EU. Russia would have had much less of an issue picking off Moldova, Georgia, and other countries that receive/d aid or are part of NATO now. I also don't think that what you stated would be the result of a successful invasion would transpire. Putin would have used brutal tactics to suppress the Ukrainians and keep them at bay. If Russia was seeing real success on an international scale, we would probably be seeing a modern 1939 Germany right now.
Germany had a huge industrial, leadership and tactical advantage over the west in 1939. Its population was outpacing France. European Germany was almost equal in population to European France and Britain combined! Russia is outnumbered over 3 to 1 by the EU alone, and has a GDP about 8 times larger. Throw in America and you get twice the population and 10x the economy. Without the US they may be a bit poorer, but just looking at the fact the EU exists as a framework and the Nordic militaries (which are huge, conscription and heavily advanced domestic forces) exist shows that Europe would easily be fine. In fact they could rather easily support Ukraine themselves with a stronger military industry, having the same effect we see today. As for brutal tactics, the Nazis failed to pacify Poland with all their brutality, and this would be a bit less brutality and much stronger resistance. Your attacking a place larger than Afghanistan with a far weaker country than the USSR…
Donk2.0 wrote:
They are, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. By preparing for the worst, we are even better prepared for the best. China may not be in a strong position militarily right now, but in 2050, who knows? They are building 5th gen(probably garbage, but still functional) 5th gen fighters at a faster rate than ever done by the US or anything else. This, combined with massive investments in navy and other things, suggests that 30 years from now, the situation may be very different.
By 2050, the population of China is expected to go down by 100 million, halving by 2100. America will continue growing until 2080. This fall will also combine with older people on general, reducing military and working age populations and putting greater strain on them to take care of the old. This leads to them not having time to make children, which continues the cycle. China is only becoming weaker and weaker, and it’s likely that the CCP could very well collapse before this. China is not going to more powerful than the US in 2050, and it likely won’t ever reach its place as an enemy and authoritarian state (this whole decline is man made, by the CCP.)
Donk2.0 wrote:
Security guarantees go a LONG way. As I said, a dealbreaker for many countries.
True, but that same military also ruined the Middle East and the US in the Middle East. That powerful military damaged relations with Latin America as well. Not exactly being used a force for good yet, considering many of the actions and mistakes it has seen. But maybe if it sticks to its principles, then we can expect the military to be a positive force for US diplomacy.
10 Nov 2023, 12:22
Kadeko wrote:
Carking the 6th wrote:
Masked Phantom wrote:
I wonder if any person is able to read all of those paragraphs without skipping a beat from the previous parts.
The power of literacy is grand…
Give me that power, now...
You just used it?
10 Nov 2023, 13:18
If China striked first and hit Taiwan then Guam with 60-70% hit rate, America would take a bit to recover knowing that the American Economy is not good atm. China would suffer heavy losses landing on the beaches of Taiwan because they’d face urban combat, and 24 million angry people with guns
…it’s silly time……….:3
10 Nov 2023, 13:19
If China striked first and hit Taiwan then Guam with 60-70% hit rate, America would take a bit to recover knowing that the American Economy is not good atm. China would suffer heavy losses landing on the beaches of Taiwan because they’d face urban combat, and 24 million angry people with guns
id say approximate casualties: 750,000k for China, 625,000 for Taiwan, and 200,000-250,000 for America about 4-5months into the war if fighting gets heavy.
…it’s silly time……….:3
10 Nov 2023, 13:53
which seem like heavy casualties until you realize China has 300 million troops
"Hate, union, freedom, justice, equality, war, peace, violence, blood. It is but a perfect mixture on destiny and our lives. It is for the mass we trust and for the mass we contribute, or to selfishly to personal greed we follow, it is up to your choices on what mixture you want. My mixture is a bit of everything with madness and humility in it, the virtues will black and sinful, just like I per say." - Kaiser Luther Ernst Willienburg.
10 Nov 2023, 13:55
Carking the 6th wrote:
Kadeko wrote:
Carking the 6th wrote:
Masked Phantom wrote:
I wonder if any person is able to read all of those paragraphs without skipping a beat from the previous parts.
The power of literacy is grand…
Give me that power, now...
You just used it?
I mean an incredible power of literacy where I could focus on reading for more than 1 hour?
I realized the power I held, Power! The power to rule! To make the world grovel at my feet! We will begin with a reign of terror. A few murders here and there, murders of great men, murders of little men, just to show we make no distinction. ꧋ꦔꦺꦴꦤꦺꦴꦪꦺꦴꦔꦺꦴꦤꦺꦴ꧈ꦤꦔꦶꦁꦎꦗꦺꦴꦔꦺꦴꦤꦺꦴ꧉ Carking's alt.
10 Nov 2023, 13:56
which is sarcastic by the way
you're a moron if you actually believe that
"Hate, union, freedom, justice, equality, war, peace, violence, blood. It is but a perfect mixture on destiny and our lives. It is for the mass we trust and for the mass we contribute, or to selfishly to personal greed we follow, it is up to your choices on what mixture you want. My mixture is a bit of everything with madness and humility in it, the virtues will black and sinful, just like I per say." - Kaiser Luther Ernst Willienburg.
10 Nov 2023, 14:28
Hmmm
10 Nov 2023, 14:30
Kadeko wrote:
Carking the 6th wrote:
Kadeko wrote:
Carking the 6th wrote:
Masked Phantom wrote:
I wonder if any person is able to read all of those paragraphs without skipping a beat from the previous parts.
The power of literacy is grand…
Give me that power, now...
You just used it?
I mean an incredible power of literacy where I could focus on reading for more than 1 hour?
we must find a way to stop the devil by making chafing
