Jeremy (Discord ID: 442928000884015104), page 1
Security Advisory: Links in messages may lead to maliciously operated websites that could track your IP address and reveal your identity, or they may contain harmful files. The DiscordLeaks team does not check links and cannot make any statements about the safety of following these links.
Some ways to protect yourself are:
- Do not open files downloaded from links, and do not run any programs that try to download themselves to your computer.
- Use anonymization measures such as Tor Browser or a VPN.
If you are using the Privacy Badger or other privacy extensions, you may need to whitelist Discord and related domains in order for the images to load.
8,301 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Page 1/34 | Next
War is always changing, @AgentExeider.
I didn't realize Undoomed was here as well.
@AgentExeider, if you desire lowered taxation, then vote for candidates looking toward auctioning off those inefficiently managed, public assets, to create more jobs, new markets, and eliminating the unionist leeches, who like the scum they are, syphon off every dollar you'll pay throughout the year, during a workday in which they're paid for 12 hours of labor, though only engage in 1 hour. Once people relearn these lessons we've had to observe time and again, the current account deficits, of which artificially inflate the value of the USD, would be resolved, thereby making our goods and services more affordable to foreign consumers, propping up domestic industry and slashing foreign reliance. However, this weakens our reserve status, as current account deficits are required for banks to have an interest in holding your debt and dollars in reserve, because you obviously must finance it.
I wouldn't go as far as saying that. We do have a large national debt, but it won't be defaulted on.
Debt has a different meaning everywhere you go.
Whether or not the debts owed are toward efficient investments justifying the former is the question.
Of course it can be paid back, but no one in their right mind would want to.
We're not at that point, yet. We've still got another 50 or so years, that is, before we're unable to make payments toward the principle.
It's more complicated than that, as you have various tools available to the Fed in the form of open market operations and inter-bank loan rates, the federal funds rate, etc, which expand and contract the money supply. The idea is not to have any shortages or surpluses.
You also have the money multiplier, a regulation banks are subject to.
So, what they have on deposit, they're allowed to loan up to 10x that amount.
A reserve requirement would be your securities.
No, they're just allowed to loan up to that amount to minimize liability.
To some extent, but think about how most people take out loans, especially businesses and so on. I know it sounds rather Keynesian, but up to this point for every dollar of debt we've taken on, approximately 8 dollars of productive value have been added to the economy. Think about a local store down the road that may have initially taken out a $100,000 loan, but has a marginal revenue of about half a million, perhaps more. What if they want to expand, in doing so taking on debt, in which the opportunity cost is justified, as there is no more of an efficient allocation.
I'm just using that as a rough example, but most debtors do not take on debt without accounting for opportunity cost - it's behavioral economics 101.
So, the expense accrued over time must be justified.
The question is whether or not the scarce resources are allocated efficiently, and in private markets that is the case.
It really doesn't matter whether or not what you're saying is true, as it leads one to the same conclusion, regardless of how you get there. Public debts, on part of excess government expenditure, is a negative in my view, supported by the observation of inefficient allocations and corruption, with heavily unionized labor fitting nicely into both, while simultaneously preventing private markets from ever arising in place of where government operates, losing out on growth potential and expanding State power, even though further debt further solidifies our ability to borrow more. Technically, we can expand our national debt limitlessly, unless everyone decides to shoot themselves in the foot and collapse their own economy, or speculators enter the market, which would likely happen inevitably, but we're far off that mark. It'd take another century of borrowing before this would occur, and that's implying the economy doesn't grow over that period of time.
That's the benefit of having a reserve currency by running current account deficits, which can *only* be sustained within nations that preserve property rights, not violate them (yes, I'm referencing the PRC as a regime that'll never fit the requirements), BUT there are also negatives to be observed, as I mentioned before. You have the issue of increased evaluations of USD, so you end up with trade deficits.
Yeah, it's all the same in the end anyway.
Now... To get rid of that ACA and address the over $1 trillion in annual macro-level inefficiencies due to the government creating oligopolies within the healthcare industry by restricting market-entry and not allowing cross-state competition.
Thus, the American Dream died.
If only we had implemented those paywalls in time, @PhiloFusor the Omitted.
Getting rid of Net Neutrality *might* have saved Blockbuster for a few more years, @PhiloFusor the Omitted.
Besides, local infrastructure is inefficiently managed, as the government owns most of it and contracts in with a single ISP to lock out competition, thereby artificially driving up costs and generally creating a shit market that's inefficient and without innovation. We should've all been on fios decades ago.
```Network neutrality, or simply net neutrality, is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all Internet communications equally, and not discriminate or charge differently based on user, content, website, platform, application, type of equipment, source address, destination address, or method of communication.
With net neutrality, ISPs may not intentionally block, slow down, or charge money for specific online content. Without net neutrality, ISPs may prioritize certain types of traffic, meter others, or potentially block traffic from specific services, while charging consumers for various tiers of service.```
@HurtChain, so essentially, we get to subsidize the left's 24/7 couch potato consumption of feminist propaganda on Netflix.
Yeah, it looked like he blew a tire.
Trump has more energy than I have.
I don't know how he deals with the politics of today.
At most, I can only engage for a few months, then I have to take my leave for a while.
Yeah, but I'm referencing the mainstream media and the left, which may as well be synonymous with one another.
Is that really his chef?
Andre Rush has been a chef at the White House since 1997, apparently.
That's a great example of government entrenchment, but he is a rather loyal and patriotic veteran.
I type in meat tenderizer, and this is what I came up with.
Yeah, I can't say I've ever seen anything like that before.
Yeah, that makes sense, Philo.
Well, it won't matter once you're dead!
Settle down now, @HurtChain. Don't get too excited!
In a couple of weeks, that professor will likely lose his credentials for speaking an obvious truth every conflict theorist is aware of, but decidedly buries it.
And likewise, @ETBrooD. My worst experiences were with the blacks, however, and they're the majority in the inner-city public schools, at least in the South. We didn't have any issues with immigrants, though, but that's due to their remaining a minority, so their social influence wasn't enough that it'd conflict with the majority group or others. As you know, the mainstream social norms and values that're reinforced among what's normalized as "black culture," in America, are rather insidious and counter to economic and social wellbeing.
No, there are variations in how different groups behave, based on what behaviors are normalized and reinforced among the groups. Here in the U.S., for example, we have the issue of black kids being bullied by their peers (fellow blacks) for participation at school, which is obviously counter to logic as they'll have less economic mobility by proliferating such norms throughout their culture by associating it with their music, films, etc.
Many groups will also rebel against the predominant norms associated with the majority group, even if it harms their own interests. It's a very common behavior.
Because those behaviors are reinforced among peers.
It is the greatest contributing factor to how an identity group behaves, as people within the group have greater influence on one another than those perceived to be on the outside. Ascribed status, such as race and gender top the hierarchy in this regard.
Would anyone here avoid a 20-man sized group toting ISIS flags?
I'd pick up my AR and start shooting.
It's an extreme example, but that's based on what you know of them.
So, that's a form of discrimination, is it not?
Fair enough, but we all know who it is most strongly associated with, the pattern so to speak.
And, you are still basing your decision upon material observations, however.
Because, if it is a behavior that is normalized and reinforced as a value among the group, race inextricably becomes the way to resolve the problem, as it is then a social cancer to the group that can only be addressed by socializing them with peers and propaganda rejecting the behaviors. You'd have to use people from their own group to do it.
If anything, I'm the one defending race as something you should recognize, because it can be leveraged to resolve problems among the groups by encouraging positive cultural icons of their group to influence them into conformity to the norms and values of the majority.
Anecdotes are not reflective of statistical accuracy, Joker... You know this.
What would be the more accurate view would be to identify what behaviors not fit for a civilized society are most predominantly associated with a specific group, then use positive cultural icons to reinforce alternative behaviors that are.
But, this extends into a much larger debate to be had.
Whether or not we desire cultural reforms and such.
I think everyone is just too paranoid we're going to declare a final solution, rather than have a reasonable dialogue that doesn't require genocide.
So, race altogether is avoided as a result.
Well, ET, that's the historical trend of recognizing racial differences, rather than reforming the culture associated with the race. Thus, you have a fear of discussing race with clear eyes.
That is true, but you have the issue of minority groups also becoming hegemonic in some ways, directing popular culture. Take pop and rap culture in America, for example. Sometimes it doesn't always work out that way, especially if you don't take steps to fill the vacuum beforehand.
You know there's a study showing all races experience adrenaline rush/fight or flight responses when they see a member of another race? I believe this was aired on Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman, if my memory serves me just.
The black man is always trying to differentiate himself from the white man by wearing a funky ass suit.
That's just a common behavior I see among blacks, which is a byproduct of their non-conformity.
C'mon, I'm trying to throw some humor into it.
It's a subtle truth I laid out that examples their non-conformity.
It's all I could find in the GIFs. Discord doesn't afford me the luxury of having decent memes at my instantaneous disposal. 😉
You mean where all the degenerates were rounded up and sterilized?
Did Duterte really round up most of the drug dealers and addicts, executing them, or was it merely a political stunt to wipe out opposition?
@!GPT, I grew up on Dirty Harry. 😉
I've heard the press is corrupt out there, too, @Ayylmao.
Sounds like you're ripe for a revolution.
I'd have to see your sources on that, @Jokerfaic.
No gossip magazines from the grocery store's checkout aisle, please. 😄
From what I've heard of him so far, that would fit his character, @Ayylmao.
Is there a recording of his self-proclamations?
A shift toward federalism will be positive.
I hear Mao was rather fond of trannies, himself.
I'd blame the Eastern world first.
As for your YT idea, go for it, man.
There's an information gap, as it relates to the Philippines. That may just be your niche.
I'd use as many platforms as you can.
Tarl Warwick still uses YT, in tandem with Minds and Bitchute, among many others.
It's a good way to subvert your audience over to the alt-tech platforms.
I still prefer my M-72 LAW. What is that you've got there, @Kaiser Pepsi Man, an AT4?
That reminds me of Operation Infektion.
Nostalgia for the Cold War. <:smugon:512048583806025739>
According to the Soviets, we manufactured an "AIDS VIRUS TO EXTERMINATE ALL THE BLACKS" at Fort Detrick.
Did we manufacture him, too, @!GPT?
Federalism has been slowly eroded over time, in the U.S., the most prominent a Wilsonian-progressive, 17th Amendment. I've previously written in great length as to why popularly elected Senators was a negative, but to name just a few:
1) The House was meant to remain the only unstable chamber within the Congress, subject to the public tenacity district by district and localizing politics, leaving the Senate stable and apolitical, thereby preserving the sovereignty of various constitutional mechanics the Senate provides for. Take the Judiciary, the politicization of the Kavanaugh appointment, while examining all previous appointments over the past century, since the Amendment was ratified. They're mostly progressive, populist, and willing to stand for the Federal government's violation of property rights and expansion, among other key issues, such as allowing for unions to conduct racketeering, blackmail, and economic terrorism, for example;
2) The 17th Amendment made it easy for wealthy coastal areas, of greatest economic scale, to influence and dictate Senate elections to the rest of the rest of the country. Without a 17th Amendment, any influence must be made at the local, district-level House as that's the constituency they're held to account, while they were the ones to appoint Senators. It's also more difficult for, what has become a Corporate State, to dictate the elections of 435, 2-year term House seats, than it is to dictate the 100, 6-year term Senate seats. Local interests in New York or Florida shouldn't dictate the elections of 25 fly-over States. This is why minimum wage and other labor laws, for example, have been accepted by a Senate, at the cost of economic development for the inner-country majority, while all economic interests are saturated around economies of scale (economic fascism), burdening the rest of the country with market-entry barriers and various other forms of regulation that have regulated out various free-market processes within many
industries, leaving behind the façade, a veneer of Capitalism, as with any planned economy, leading to increased consumer and operational costs at a loss of efficiency. Certainly, alphabet-soup (the innumerable amount of federal agencies planning the economy) never would've came around, and FDR's (what do you know, another Democrat) fascist shenanigans, praised by Mussolini himself as "boldly interventionist in the field of economics," would've never come unfolded;
3) We'll talk about this some more in the future, but for now I've got to get myself a shower and lead a productive day.
At the end of the day, Federalism embraces the core of Democratic values, than does the direct-Democratic system, a zero-sum game of national politick. Self-governance, the core of the American way, tells us the 17th Amendment must go.
And, this is what people should begin to recognize as the petri dish of America's corporate globalism, the firms with monopolies state-side, due to indirect planning of the economy through regulation, within our very government, who've grown to reach outside our borders and sacrifice our interests, feeding the monstrous regimes (PRC, for example) that inevitably rival us, with impunity, @ETBrooD. There are arguments to be made both for and against this system, as focusing on the interests of economies of scale has a compounding and perpetual effect of growth, but the long-term consequences just may outweigh it.
So, you'd consider yourself an anti-federalist, despite knowing what the consequences would've been long ago? I'm not a nationalist in the sense that self-governance is out the window.
We'd be a full-blown fascist State under an entirely anti-federalist system.
The closest you will come to true freedom is a federalist, decentralized government, of which the liberty lovers are enabled to self-govern, while eliminating the mechanisms by which feed the power of the artful few to impose upon the many. You will find a taste of true freedom in Washington's Farewell Address of 1796.
American federalism is also by design, just as any other, but it retains the greatest freedom for one to govern oneself. We've strayed from federalism, and that is the problem, the interests of few districts infringing upon those of hundreds.
It's not a matter of being allowed, it's a matter of retaining a system that cannot violate your ability to self-govern, one we do not have as we continue to stray away from federalism.
Did you not read what I wrote, regarding the 17th Amendment?
The many cannot infringe upon the few under American federalism, nor can the few upon the many; that's the point.
I'm not a fan of utilitarianism, and if I was, I'd be an anti-federalist and side with Wilsonian-populism.
Correct. If a commune wishes to practice an internalized and isolated iteration of socialism; fine. This is about leaving people to live according to how they see fit, as it was meant to be. As I said, the economic interests of a firm in New York should have no sway upon 25 other Senators from fly-over country, in seeking a regulation that secures a monopoly for them, yet leaves the constituency disadvantaged within those other States and Districts, with their entrepreneurs unable to enter and compete in various industries relating to those regulated on behalf of those interests in New York.
Anyway, I've got to get going.
I've got to take a family member in for surgery, so we'll pick this up in the future.
Because the needs of the many should trump those of the few, if you're a utilitarian.
I know the words seem to confuse people, as they assume the meaning behind them.
I'm reading through, while I sit in the lobby, waiting to observe this ophthalmological operation. I'll never understand how people can write on these touch-screen displays, as I haven't the patience.
@Arkhan Black, your art is rather disturbing. <:cuckertarlson:462285973724856320>
Is it supposed to be a celestial of some sort?
That's where your abstraction comes from, then. Well, keep me updated, as I'd like to see the work once finished.
So, once I returned home from the surgical operation, my microwave decided to catch fire, and my A/C decided to give out. 👌
@ETBrooD, I see you're still kicking it.
No worries; I repaired both in about an hour.
@Boop / 브파 / C'thUwU, freedom of speech has been around for some time. 😄
I'm just going over some financial spreadsheets, brewing some more coffee and catching up on my lack of cancer in-take for the past 6 hours.
What do you have going on over there, as it relates to your occupation?
The interbred, more of a Marxist cast, @Xaverius. I'd argue for their dropping of "liberal," given they're nothing akin to Locke.
@ETBrooD, would you consider yourself an advocate of individualism?
Only to the extent by which entities must be restricted from infringing upon it. I'd consider myself radically anti-collectivist.
I thought you would be, given your past remarks. You seemed to advocate for individualism in our previous discussion, which my reflections are modeled to serve that model. So, I'd consider myself a Classical Liberal, who has adopted Objectivist philosophy along my journey.
I'm sure you're familiar with Ayn Rand.
Indeed, ET. Pragmatism is a necessity to prevent an accidental subversion of your intent.
Thus, that's where you can find yourself in conflict with the isms.
Especially true in the fields of economics, when both egalitarian and utilitarian values are best served by leaving the individual to their own devices.
Well, the Milgram Experiment might have a lot to say about that, ETBrooD. But, that is a rather broad question.
It's unscientific, because Williams gave an additional 25 commands in totality, spread across all subjects, to administer additional shocks? That was the purpose of the experiment, after all, to see if these individuals would abandon their ethic at the will of an authoritative figure, and they did so, under far less strain than what the experiment has been cited for as an explanation for the behavior of individuals tried at Nuremberg, of which a family member of mine was subject. His improvising, highly limited in scope to verbal commands which was part of the script, are far less than what you can account for the pressure imposed by authority figures during any notable genocide throughout history. Certainly, the rate would've been 100%, if under the threat of death or a fear of losing loved ones. Don't you believe your logic is flawed, accounting for this? I've listened to the recordings, myself, while expanding upon the experiment with theories of my own, though they'll likely never be tested.
Now, I understand your view psychology is often biased by both economic and political gains is true, but I don't believe the popular narrative of citing this study discredits it.
Correct; they were commanded to issue the shocks by Williams.
Peterson might argue it has something to do with levels of serotonin, which might be a more scientifically measurable and replicable experiment. I'd boil it down to fear as a motivator, if the subject possesses value for life and empathy. If I were to attempt poking holes into the experiment or in doing so filling gaps, as it is a social experiment, I'd like to know more about the socialization of each of the subjects, their values, institutions of which they've engaged whether religious and so forth, as well where they sit on an empathy scale.
Oh, yes, there are a lot of considerations to be made, no doubt, but I still view the experiment as a petri dish by which to ask further questions.
That's correct, and the experiment doesn't give you any of this information on the subjects.
One of those subjects could've tested on the autism spectrum for all we know, and perhaps they have a lack of empathy. There are many, many factors to consider far beyond the presence of an authority figure, which as I said, is fertile ground for more experimentation. Attempts to replicate the experiment is shunned among academia, however, as questions of ethics arise.
Liberalism took a wrong turn toward that which we once despised, Jacovich, turning toward ideological manifestations that're not suitable toward the ends of preserving individual liberty, while Objectivism is consistent with Classical Liberalism in its observations, values, etc. They both have an intrinsic recognition of natural order. So, I do posses the same view as you, as it were a natural progression.
Well, of course it has. Classical Liberalism was radically individualist, and it has taken a turn toward radical collectivism. I would argue the wrong people have been branded as liberals, if anything.
Just as Samuel Adams once remarked, "How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"
You'll either see an authoritarian that's proclaiming to be a liberal, or you'll see an authoritarian outside their shell accusing Classically Liberal, non-ideologues of being authoritarians.
Perversion on a scale I've never before seen.
Weez, I believe you possess a misunderstanding of fascism, if you truly mean that.
Why would you wish to regulate out free-market processes and artificially inflate the value of goods and services, while seizing the gears of innovation? That's an odd desire, if you're in a time of need, given it's contrary to serving your needs.
I mean, I understand the expedient desire to wipe out those who wish to superimpose an ideology upon you - I get that. But, that conclusion may lead to a subversion of your intent, as evinced by history. The best way is to simply dissolve the means by which they'd seek to do so and remain armed, organized with your like-minded brethren.
Ah, so you're just a pirate floating on by.
@ETBrooD, some of it is by design, others by merely becoming a subject of the designers influence or mere ignorance, going back to the subject of revisionism.
@Weez, you don't believe China has moved far enough, yet?
Correct, @jacovich stabs, so you have fundamental questions of whether it is the case that government is merely to recognize ones rights, rather than be the grantor of said rights.
@Weez, as in you do not believe the PRC has went far enough along the lines of fascism? I find it difficult to recognize them as Communists, as this point, but I'll still declare them as such in my rants. Is the PRC the first instance of observing Fascism arise from Communism, or was it all really the same anyway, ultimately pursuing the elimination of self-organization and spontaneous order by design?
@jacovich stabs, I also see them as an imperative, as they're required to remain free to ensure efficient allocation of scarce resources. Only a free-market can best decide, while remaining what I see as consistent with my moral values.
@ETBrooD, the logical progression of that argument is to defend a change antithetical toward serving whatever formal norms and values of the nation. In the context of the U.S., I could see a Starbucks Marxist making that claim, in pursuit of whatever nonsense they're espousing. Our Republic has formal, democratic processes, though radical changes were never intended to come about without many years of reflective deliberations, which is one of the reasons why I advocate for stepping back toward Federalism, at the most repealing the 17th Amendment. It'd be an intention return to a mechanic meant to prevent expedient revisions.
@Weez, well, if you examine their economic model, they've embraced varying behaviors consistent with Capitalist nations to survive. Fascism always wore the veneer, combining both Socialism and Capitalism in their economic models.
I'm not proposing any replacements, rather reverting back to appointive Senators, @Eccles.
@ETBrooD, I'm saying the reason for the statement is for expedient progression toward some kind of change, the individual making the statement only embracing the heart of their argument when suiting their political objective. I once made that very statement.
No, the House of Representatives. They'd select peers among them to ascend.
Of course not, as that's the case as it were now.
Neutering the Senate? This doesn't neuter the Senate, rather it returns a degree of their sovereignty from the daily whims that should remain at the level of the House. It would, in fact, empowering them to carry out their constitutional duties without regard for popular sentiments, which seems to be something we should aim toward protecting ourselves from, these days.
That does strip power away from the Federal government, @Eccles, as it would return power to the district in appointing their Senators. Popular political sentiment sides with expansionary power.
The Senate was never meant to be subject to those sentiments.
No, the amount of seats available to a State is proportional to that basis.
There would continue to be two Senate seats per State, @Eccles.
Read what I wrote, and you will see. As it stands now, fly-over country has little sway over the legislative futures of their elected Senators, as evinced by the past century, since the 17th was ratified, and I explained in my comment on the matter why that is the case. If you examine what has been occurring among the Senate, you have Senators from fly-over country voting for regulations that directly conflict with the economic interests of their own constituency, favoring the requests of wealthy lobbies from the coastal states you've referenced that're dictating your Senatorial elections in the middle of the country.
It's more difficult to pump money into 435 district-level, 2-year terms, than it is 100 6-year termed seats.
Imagine the kind of money that'd be required.
No, local and small business interests would control the appointments made by the district, just as they had for centuries before the amendment was ratified.
They already do try and do this, but it's still the local and well-established families and small business owners who dictate the election campaigns of who makes the ticket for the House.
As those are the interests that should be represented at the district-level, and those interests should be preserved moving forward into the Senate, but as it stands now, that's not the case.
Much of those past changes can quickly be declared as unconstitutional.
You just need an independent Judiciary, no longer politicized by a Senate that's no longer subject to populism.
Yes, the Senate provides for the function of approving Judicial appointees.
Well, given they rely on popular elections, they are subject to whatever changes are wished upon that status quo, which is why we have seen their powers shift our country toward directions we don't desire. They have no buffer providing for sovereignty, to act independent of popular opinions which are nearly always flawed and subject to long-term consequences that far out-weigh their immediate gains, and as a result, no longer does the Judiciary.
That was the whole purpose of making them popularly elective over appointive, to subject them to those forces that'd change the status quo, and so far, that's amounted to expansionism and perpetual violations of the values this nation is founded upon.
It does to some extent; they can't propose new legislation, but they can reject it, and by nature of their character change would, over time, ensure we end up with a Judiciary stacked with apolitical and constitutionalist judges, to the extent of textualism, which would guarantee a nearly complete dismantling of the federal government, with much of the previous legislation you're referencing as unalterable becoming subject to judicial review. Also, you're forgetting much of the federal bureaucracy operates on renewal, and thus they're not permanent.
Now, going back to the neglecting of economic development interests among many districts, including those of liberal support, this would largely cease to continue, meaning you address some of the most fundamental reasons why people have continued to chart the path of populism among both the left and right. So, I don't see it as an immediate solution, but one that tempers our ailments moving forward, @Tonight at 11 - DOOM. Over all, it's a long-term solution toward shifting the balance of power over to the many, neglected districts across the U.S., out of the hands of the few in a position of economic scale. The long-term outcome of uniformed growth across this country is a counter to current policy motives. Think about how that would change us moving forward.
And, @Eccles, I'm not sure what you mean by claiming the party system would take control of appointments away from the district. I see this as a way to change the character of the parties, as party leadership is found in the Senate, something you inherently change by way of this alteration.
By the way, @Tonight at 11 - DOOM, they were appointed by the respective States' legislature, meaning you'd wipe the Democrats out of the Senate. 😉 You initially asked whether I'd have House members from New York selecting the Senators of fly-over country, but they'd have no say.
And yes, identitarianism is quite the cancer, @Jun.
That's a rather ambiguous quote you've shared with us, @Omsomething. The question of who is claiming to have superiority over "challenging, augmenting, diverging and cross-pollinating" is important.
I'm guessing that came from a leftist outlet? Did you pull it from that BBC article?
I mean, who wouldn't want a tranny for an Intelligence Officer and Field Agent?
I won't disagree with the fact there's an understanding individuals from a particular group would inherently possess, as it relates to the mindset of those they're part of. That's a given. You can gleam a great deal of insight from someone with experience, rather than one looking in from a glass door.
8,301 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Page 1/34 | Next