Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   An Intimidating Level of Magnitude (Robert Wright & Henry Farrell) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6737)

Bloggingheads 05-14-2011 09:15 AM

An Intimidating Level of Magnitude (Robert Wright & Henry Farrell)
 

badhatharry 05-14-2011 10:30 AM

Re: An Intimidating Level of Magnitude (Robert Wright & Henry Farrell)
 
"The policies that got us into this mess were not brought about by public demand," says Krugman.

Perchance, is Paul talking about the stimulus and manipulation of the currency and all of the Keynesian solutions * he has been so fond of?

It's fine to cry foul, but if you don't acknowledge that you engage in the same behavior when you do, that's called hypocisy.

As for Fox News coverage of the tea party...couldn't the same be said of MSNBC coverage of the Wisconsin protests? Is it possible that the protests grew because MSNBC 'identified' with the protest'? (oops! Bob is mentioning this now.) Apparently Henry doesn't watch MSNBC. All of the talking heads there, especially Ed Shultz and Rachel Maddow, were definitely 'claiming an identity of the brand' of the the protests. As far as I can see, Fox and MSNBC are mirror images of each other.

*Our benchmark results suggest that the ARRA created/saved approximately 450 thousand state
and local government jobs and destroyed/forestalled roughly one million private sector jobs.

thprop 05-14-2011 12:11 PM

Science Saturday
 
Two weeks without a Science Saturday!!! What is going on?

Is Henry's t-shirt an attempt to make up for this?

badhatharry 05-14-2011 12:21 PM

Re: Science Saturday
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by thprop (Post 208916)
Two weeks without a Science Saturday!!! What is going on?

Is Henry's t-shirt an attempt to make up for this?


Maybe they have trouble filling this slot.

I am looking forward to some day seeing an excellent climate change debate. There certainly haven't been very many anywhere and I think Bob is missing a great marketing opportunity. Bloggingheads would be linked up the wazooo.

harkin 05-14-2011 12:32 PM

Re: An Intimidating Level of Magnitude (Robert Wright & Henry Farrell)
 
Much more realistic view of Krugman:

"Krugman's placidity and complacency in the face of the Debt Moloch is explained by his wrong interpretation of the historically low interest rates prevailing, and his apparent ignorance of the mechanism whereby government debt is monetized.....

.......Keynesians are fond of saying that government debt does not matter because "we owe it to ourselves". This is a vicious notion. The next generation will have to pay heavy, repressive and disturbing taxes, not to themselves, but to pile up surplus bank reserves. The wealth that future generations have yet to produce will be used to retire the currency now being issued against it."

ginger baker 05-14-2011 02:15 PM

Re: An Intimidating Level of Magnitude (Robert Wright & Henry Farrell)
 
yes Henry, go as far as that. The plunder and wrecking of the US is a long time coming. The concentration and unaccountability of economic and political power, the union of state and corporation amidst waning democracy and political illteracy, elitism, the inversion of public infrastructures into "private" ATMs, and good ol' sheepishness... all mobilized and ramped up, post-911. Throw in enough banal distractions, American Idol, and pathology to watch it all go down..and voila, Fascism American-style, just waiting to hit the bottom.

And Bob, its NOT a Marxist view!!! Even mainstream fixtures like Robert Dahl and Theo Lowi saw elitist power structures at work foreclosing on American democracy decades ago! But blogs a la Ygliesias and Ezra? Is THAT the big hope?

Ocean 05-14-2011 02:37 PM

Re: Science Saturday
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by thprop (Post 208916)
Two weeks without a Science Saturday!!! What is going on?

I echo the sentiment!

bjkeefe 05-14-2011 03:06 PM

Re: Science Saturday
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 208945)
I echo the sentiment!

Me, too. But if we can't have Science Saturday, having Henry is a pretty good substitute.

Ocean 05-14-2011 03:10 PM

Re: Science Saturday
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 208949)
Me, too. But if we can't have Science Saturday, having Henry is a pretty good substitute.

Yes. My comment was more about missing Science Saturday, and certainly not against Henry. He's one of my favorites.

TwinSwords 05-14-2011 03:24 PM

Re: Science Saturday
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 208951)
Yes. My comment was more about missing Science Saturday, and certainly not against Henry. He's one of my favorites.

Agreed. And with Bob, no less. Great combination.

Unit 05-14-2011 04:29 PM

Re: An Intimidating Level of Magnitude (Robert Wright & Henry Farrell)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 208902)
"The policies that got us into this mess were not brought about by public demand," says Krugman.

Perchance, is Paul talking about the stimulus and manipulation of the currency and all of the Keynesian solutions * he has been so fond of?

It's fine to cry foul, but if you don't acknowledge that you engage in the same behavior when you do, that's called hypocisy.

As for Fox News coverage of the tea party...couldn't the same be said of MSNBC coverage of the Wisconsin protests? Is it possible that the protests grew because MSNBC 'identified' with the protest'? (oops! Bob is mentioning this now.) Apparently Henry doesn't watch MSNBC. All of the talking heads there, especially Ed Shultz and Rachel Maddow, were definitely 'claiming an identity of the brand' of the the protests. As far as I can see, Fox and MSNBC are mirror images of each other.

*Our benchmark results suggest that the ARRA created/saved approximately 450 thousand state
and local government jobs and destroyed/forestalled roughly one million private sector jobs.

It's always a bit shocking for me when I hear a social "scientist" that is so obviously partisan. Bob was much more level headed, thankfully. Was there a groundswell of popular support for Libya? or TARP? Also who's in power matters. It's hard right now to have large grass-root movements take off on the left because the presidency is Democrat. The way I would frame this discussion is how much does the media do to give a voice the emotional masses vs. how much it helps the elites defend the status quo. That's an interesting question, but my null-hypothesis would be that the political colors don't matter as much as larger trends.

Winspur 05-14-2011 04:57 PM

Re: An Intimidating Level of Magnitude (Robert Wright & Henry Farrell)
 
Bob wonders if there can be any data to support the hypothesis of Fox News' orchestrated politics. I think a simple counting of the number of times the word "thug" was used in reference to the Wisconsin protests (on Fox) versus the number of times the same word was used in reference to last summer's tea party protests (on MSNBC) would be in order.

Simon Willard 05-14-2011 05:24 PM

Re: An Intimidating Level of Magnitude (Robert Wright & Henry Farrell)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by harkin (Post 208930)
Much more realistic view of Krugman:

"Krugman's placidity and complacency in the face of the Debt Moloch is explained by his wrong interpretation of the historically low interest rates prevailing, and his apparent ignorance of the mechanism whereby government debt is monetized.....

.......Keynesians are fond of saying that government debt does not matter because "we owe it to ourselves". This is a vicious notion. The next generation will have to pay heavy, repressive and disturbing taxes, not to themselves, but to pile up surplus bank reserves. The wealth that future generations have yet to produce will be used to retire the currency now being issued against it."

Yes. I was really taken aback at Krugman's column the other day, where he mentioned that in the typical budget year of 2007 "about half of total spending was on programs for seniors: Social Security, Medicare, much of Medicaid, and other retirement and disability programs." He goes on to argue that spending must rise because there will be a demographic shift to a more aged population. It sounds like air-tight logic. But is this really the way to run a country? Placid Krugman, as far as I could tell, made not the slightest peep of protest that this is how we should be spending money.

We are raping our young so that we can apply state-of-the-art medical care to old, unproductive geezers.

DenvilleSteve 05-14-2011 05:55 PM

Finance center states benefit from satelite states
 
I find it interesting that two of the larger states in the US, NY and CA, are doing well economically despite their being so expensive tax wise to operate a business in. My guess is one reason is they are the centers for the finance and legal functioning of the entire country. Not sure if CA matches that pattern or not. But I think what Henry was saying at the end makes sense, that Germany should make payments to the financially failing countries in the EU because Germany benefits from being the EU's finance center.

bjkeefe 05-14-2011 06:33 PM

Henry's bold proposal
 
It's tempting, isn't it?

I have daydreamed about winning the lottery and putting part of the loot into Bhtv. As part of the idle speculation, I considered whether it would be appropriate to ask Bob in return for the investment/donation that certain diavloggers be invited to appear nevermore. I did not consider whether he would respond enthusiastically, as it appears he does.

I think, therefore, that Bob should put up a Severance Package Price List for all regularly appearing diavloggers.

And commenters, come to that. How much would you all pay to make, say, me, go away, hmmm?

AemJeff 05-14-2011 06:36 PM

Re: An Intimidating Level of Magnitude (Robert Wright & Henry Farrell)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Willard (Post 208957)
Yes. I was really taken aback at Krugman's column the other day, where he mentioned that in the typical budget year of 2007 "about half of total spending was on programs for seniors: Social Security, Medicare, much of Medicaid, and other retirement and disability programs." He goes on to argue that spending must rise because there will be a demographic shift to a more aged population. It sounds like air-tight logic. But is this really the way to run a country? Placid Krugman, as far as I could tell, made not the slightest peep of protest that this is how we should be spending money.

We are raping our young so that we can apply state-of-the-art medical care to old, unproductive geezers.

They'll be old soon enough, and they'll want at least the same level of care.

Wonderment 05-14-2011 06:42 PM

Re: An Intimidating Level of Magnitude (Robert Wright & Henry Farrell)
 
Quote:

We are raping our young so that we can apply state-of-the-art medical care to old, unproductive geezers.
Yes, we could just euthanize people who reach retirement age and save a ton of money. Also could be applied to the disabled young, just so we'd be immune to charges of age discrimination. Heil abolishing Medicare!


Here's an interesting article
on death panels for the young, by the way.

BornAgainDemocrat 05-14-2011 09:30 PM

Speaking of Top Down Disasters
 
Paul Krugman himself was a member of just such a small group of influential opinion makers once, back in the early 1990's. He, Paul Samuelson, Jagdish Bhagwati, Rudi Dornbusch, and a few other celebrated economists sold the nation (and President Clinton) on a policy that favored the rich and for which there was no popular demand. That policy was embodied in Nafta and Gatt, probably the two most consequential pieces of legislation of the last twenty years.

The low point was reached when Paul Samuelson, the dean of American economists, stood up in the East Room of the White House on the eve of the Nafta vote and told the country that there was no case on record of tariffs causing wages to rise -- implying that American working people had nothing to fear. But as Samuelson himself knew full well there were very good reasons to fear that removing barriers to trade with low-wage countries like Mexico and China would cause American wages to fall.

In fact a couple of years later Samuelson admitted as much in an interview in The Economist. He said that "of course" American workers were now in wage competition with workers in China, referencing his own "factor price equalization theorem."

Krugman knew all about factor price equalization theory too of course and, I suspect, now feels a little guilty about the role he played in that public policy drama. It's still not too late to fess up, Paul, if only in the name of intellectual honesty. There's a case for the re-imposition of tariffs on imports from China, at least until we can figure out how to implement a graduated expenditure tax and use the proceeds to subsidize wages.

uncle ebeneezer 05-14-2011 10:58 PM

Re: Henry's bold proposal
 
Are you trying to start a storm??

badhatharry 05-14-2011 11:04 PM

Re: Speaking of Top Down Disasters
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat (Post 208970)
The low point was reached when Paul Samuelson, the dean of American economists, stood up in the East Room of the White House on the eve of the Nafta vote and told the country that there was no case on record of tariffs causing wages to rise -- implying that American working people had nothing to fear. But as Samuelson himself knew full well there were very good reasons to fear that removing barriers to trade with low-wage countries like Mexico and China would cause American wages to fall.

In fact a couple of years later Samuelson admitted as much in an interview in The Economist. He said that "of course" American workers were now in wage competition with workers in China, referencing his own "factor price equalization theorem."

Question: there was no case on record of tariffs causing wages to rise I don't get why Samuelson would say this. It would seem that he would say, if he wanted to be reassuring that there was no case on record of the removal of tariffs causing wages to fall.

Or was he trying to say that protectionism in the form of tariffs was no guarantee that wages would rise?

Ocean 05-14-2011 11:07 PM

Re: An Intimidating Level of Magnitude (Robert Wright & Henry Farrell)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 208961)
Yes, we could just euthanize people who reach retirement age and save a ton of money. Also could be applied to the disabled young, just so we'd be immune to charges of age discrimination. Heil abolishing Medicare!

Yikes!

badhatharry 05-14-2011 11:23 PM

Re: Speaking of Top Down Disasters
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat (Post 208970)
It's still not too late to fess up, Paul, if only in the name of intellectual honesty.

FYI, Krugman did fess-up after a fashion. His excuse is that people misunderstood the real reason for NAFTA.

"Bottom line? Free trade was pushed not because of any sincerely anticipated economic benefits, but to serve an extraneous foreign policy agenda. To his credit, Krugman later admitted the utter chicanery of it all, writing in The New Democrat in 1996 that:

The agreement was sold under false pretences. Over the protests of most economists, the Clinton Administration chose to promote NAFTA as a jobs-creation program. Based on little more than guesswork, a few economists argued that NAFTA would boost our trade surplus with Mexico, and thus produce a net gain in jobs. With utterly spurious precision, the administration settled on a figure of 200,000 jobs created—and this became the core of the NAFTA sales pitch.
NAFTA was sold in Mexico as Mexico’s ticket to the big time. Mexicans were told they were choosing between gradually converging with America’s advanced economy and regressing to the status of a backwater like neighboring Guatemala.""


source

Wonderment 05-14-2011 11:30 PM

Re: Henry's bold proposal
 
Quote:

I think, therefore, that Bob should put up a Severance Package Price List for all regularly appearing diavloggers.
I bid 1000 pesos mexicanos for guess who.

bjkeefe 05-14-2011 11:51 PM

Re: Henry's bold proposal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 208990)
I bid 1000 pesos mexicanos for guess who.

Cheese 'n' rice. Reason gave him an eight-page interview?

My associates and I bid 2000 quatloos.

Actually, why should we bid on him? He rarely ever comes on anymore. We should save our money for the obnoxious and too-frequent.

bjkeefe 05-14-2011 11:55 PM

Re: Henry's bold proposal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer (Post 208976)
Are you trying to start a storm??

Amazingly, I had never heard of that. (Thought I was aware of everything to do with S. King.)

bjkeefe 05-14-2011 11:58 PM

Re: An Intimidating Level of Magnitude (Robert Wright & Henry Farrell)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Winspur (Post 208956)
Bob wonders if there can be any data to support the hypothesis of Fox News' orchestrated politics. I think a simple counting of the number of times the word "thug" was used in reference to the Wisconsin protests (on Fox) versus the number of times the same word was used in reference to last summer's tea party protests (on MSNBC) would be in order.

Good one.

badhatharry 05-15-2011 12:08 AM

Re: Speaking of Top Down Disasters
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat (Post 208970)
That policy was embodied in Nafta and Gatt, probably the two most consequential pieces of legislation of the last twenty years.

Now you've got me thinking about NAFTA. Here's an interesting article

Wonderment 05-15-2011 12:51 AM

Re: Henry's bold proposal
 
Quote:

Reason gave him an eight-page interview?
Well worth it's weight in electrons to hit pay dirt like this about fictitious Mexicans fictitiously drunk in a fictitious bar that Mickey's been told about and whose fictitious sentiments about a ficticious reconquista" he wants us to take "seriously":

Quote:

Reconquista is a little—a little extreme. If you talk to people in Mexico, I’m told, if you get them drunk in a bar, they’ll say we’re taking it back, sorry. That’s not an uncommon sentiment in Mexico, so why can’t we take it seriously here?

bjkeefe 05-15-2011 12:54 AM

Re: Henry's bold proposal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 209010)
Well worth it's weight in electrons to hit pay dirt like this about fictitious Mexicans fictitiously drunk in a fictitious bar that Mickey's been told about and whose fictitious sentiments about a ficticious reconquista" he wants us to take "seriously":

LOL!

It's almost hard to imagine how he didn't win a Senate seat as a Democrat.

Unit 05-15-2011 01:06 AM

Re: Speaking of Top Down Disasters
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat (Post 208970)
Paul Krugman himself was a member of just such a small group of influential opinion makers once, back in the early 1990's. He, Paul Samuelson, Jagdish Bhagwati, Rudi Dornbusch, and a few other celebrated economists sold the nation (and President Clinton) on a policy that favored the rich and for which there was no popular demand. That policy was embodied in Nafta and Gatt, probably the two most consequential pieces of legislation of the last twenty years.

The low point was reached when Paul Samuelson, the dean of American economists, stood up in the East Room of the White House on the eve of the Nafta vote and told the country that there was no case on record of tariffs causing wages to rise -- implying that American working people had nothing to fear. But as Samuelson himself knew full well there were very good reasons to fear that removing barriers to trade with low-wage countries like Mexico and China would cause American wages to fall.

In fact a couple of years later Samuelson admitted as much in an interview in The Economist. He said that "of course" American workers were now in wage competition with workers in China, referencing his own "factor price equalization theorem."

Krugman knew all about factor price equalization theory too of course and, I suspect, now feels a little guilty about the role he played in that public policy drama. It's still not too late to fess up, Paul, if only in the name of intellectual honesty. There's a case for the re-imposition of tariffs on imports from China, at least until we can figure out how to implement a graduated expenditure tax and use the proceeds to subsidize wages.

Lifting barriers is the opposite of top-down, it's the barriers that are top-down. Also the case for free-trade has little to do with job-creation or job-destruction.

badhatharry 05-15-2011 01:28 AM

Re: Speaking of Top Down Disasters
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 209015)
Lifting barriers is the opposite of top-down, it's the barriers that are top-down. Also the case for free-trade has little to do with job-creation or job-destruction.

But the larger point is that Samuelson, Krugman and BornagainDem think/thought that the effects of NAFTA could be predicted and ultimately measured accurately. I'll post this again hoping one of you economics types will read it.

Quote:

How could anyone possibly measure the full impact across all Americans when so many other factors were changing at the same time and so much of the effect of expanded trade was impossible to observe directly and measure? I told him I was happy to tell him the logic of why I thought expanding trade was good for most Americans but I had to admit that I was unable to quantify that impact in any meaningful way.

osmium 05-15-2011 03:28 AM

I am 5'6"
 
I have met both Bob and Henry IRL. Bob is over 8 feet tall.

I think being tall makes you seem smarter. It's always an uphill slog...

Unit 05-15-2011 04:08 AM

Re: Speaking of Top Down Disasters
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 209018)
But the larger point is that Samuelson, Krugman and BornagainDem think/thought that the effects of NAFTA could be predicted and ultimately measured accurately. I'll post this again hoping one of you economics types will read it.

I know that post very well. That's why I said the case for free-trade is not about (measuring) lost jobs or gained jobs.

Winspur 05-15-2011 11:41 AM

Re: Henry's bold proposal
 
I would pay good money to excommunicate Rich Lowry or Ramesh Ponnuru.

bjkeefe 05-15-2011 11:56 AM

Re: Henry's bold proposal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Winspur (Post 209048)
I would pay good money to excommunicate Rich Lowry or Ramesh Ponnuru.

Oh, let's not be so harsh as to call it excommunication. Think of it as more like a buyout incentive for early retirement.

I'd contribute to the first fund and not to the second, if you're interested. I almost never mind Ramesh, even if I often disagree with him.

badhatharry 05-15-2011 12:01 PM

Re: Speaking of Top Down Disasters
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 209032)
I know that post very well. That's why I said the case for free-trade is not about (measuring) lost jobs or gained jobs.

gotcha.

BornAgainDemocrat 05-15-2011 12:36 PM

Re: Speaking of Top Down Disasters
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 208977)
Question: there was no case on record of tariffs causing wages to rise I don't get why Samuelson would say this. It would seem that he would say, if he wanted to be reassuring that there was no case on record of the removal of tariffs causing wages to fall.

Or was he trying to say that protectionism in the form of tariffs was no guarantee that wages would rise?

He was being disingenuous. As for his motivation, I suspect it was a cosmopolitan concern for the welfare of Third World societies which over-rode his concern for the welfare of working families in America. I can't prove that though. The fact that it favored the rich in this country was a side issue with him more than likely. It wasn't a side issue with the Republicans however. :) Without the liberal cover of economists like Samuelson and Krugman and liberal media like the NYT -- look up their coverage -- Nafta and Gatt would never have garnered the Democratic votes to pass. And Clinton would never have been persuaded.

badhatharry 05-15-2011 01:01 PM

Re: Speaking of Top Down Disasters
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat (Post 209060)
It wasn't a side issue with the Republicans however. :) Without the liberal cover of economists like Samuelson and Krugman and liberal media like the NYT -- look up their coverage -- Nafta and Gatt would never have garnered the Democratic votes to pass. And Clinton would never have been persuaded.

Well that's because, maybe, free trade is part of their principles. I know it sounds naive to think that any politician has principles but it could happen.

What I find interesting is that Krugman admitted that the whole idea had another agenda...again, the manipulation of the economy. That is his core principle.

brucds 05-15-2011 01:08 PM

Re: An Intimidating Level of Magnitude (Robert Wright & Henry Farrell)
 
I actually read most of that meager attempt at scholarship that badhat posted about the "job killing" stimulus, which of course came from a Mankiw link - which renders it suspect to begin with. It was pretty thin, even to my non-academic eyes. Here's a critique that pretty much destroys it...

http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2...y-million.html
Quote:

On page 20 of their paper (Table 4), Conley and Dupor have a table that shows their main result: the number of jobs that they estimate to have been created or destroyed by the stimulus. In all private sectors, the estimates are negative. BUT, check out the confidence intervals in Table 4. With one exception, the upper limits of all the confidence intervals are highly positive. This despite the fact that they use a less-rigorous 90% confidence interval (instead of the standard 95%).

This means that Conley and Dupor's results are statistically insignificant. Bluntly, what they have found is nothing. Formally, if we use their model to test the hypothesis that the stimulus caused a net increase in private-sector jobs, we will not be able to reject the hypothesis.

Conley and Dupor tweak their model with some alternative specifications. No change. As you can see in Table 7 and Table 9 (p.23-4), upper 90% confidence limits continue to be strongly positive. If the authors really did leave the intercept term in their regression equation, then that's probably why they got insignificant results; if not, then there's some other problem with their instruments or their specification, or maybe just the data itself.

But, given the lack of any statistically significant findings, this paper does not deliver the results that it advertised. Conley and Dupor's abstract should read "We find no evidence for a significant effect of the ARRA on job creation." That would be scientifically honest, but would not turn a lot of heads. Instead, the abstract makes the more politically incendiary claim that the ARRA destroyed jobs, which the authors actually did not find. They do leave themselves an escape rout by using the word "suggest," but I am not satisfied. In my opinion this is a paper that overstates its findings.

My guess is that papers like this get attention because of politics, not because of science. Mankiw linked to this paper without comment, evaluation, or qualification. But he could have just as easily linked to this paper by Daniel J. Wilson, which uses a methodology similar to that of Conley and Dupor, but finds strongly positive (and often strongly significant) effects of the stimulus (and yes, Wilson uses an intercept term).

Why did Mankiw pick the Conley-Dupor paper for a shout-out, and ignore the Wilson paper? Does he think that papers claiming that the ARRA was effective get an inordinate amount of attention? Is he trying to make the blogosphere more "fair and balanced"? Or does he just have a bone to pick with fiscal stimulus in general?

AemJeff 05-15-2011 01:13 PM

Re: Henry's bold proposal
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 209052)
Oh, let's not be so harsh as to call it excommunication. Think of it as more like a buyout incentive for early retirement.

I'd contribute to the first fund and not to the second, if you're interested. I almost never mind Ramesh, even if I often disagree with him.

With the exception of his adventures on Regnery, I agree.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.