Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - sid waddell

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 119
1
General discussion / Re: Brexit.
« on: Today at 02:48:18 PM »
May's deal...that is OUT.
Renegotiation of May's deal...that is OUT.
A General Election...that is OUT.
No deal...that is OUT.
A second referendum...that is OUT.
Article 50 extension...that is OUT.
Article 50 being cancelled...that is OUT.
Unicorns...that is OUT.

Duck's off.

No dinner.

Don't mention the war.


2
General discussion / Re: Brexit.
« on: Today at 02:42:12 PM »
The EU council must despair of May at this stage. What part of 'No' does she not understand? Running about Europe, getting rebuffed repeatedly. It's humiliating for her and Britain in general.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/unprofessional-may-alienated-european-leaders-with-summit-dinner-speech-1.3731409
Mr. Tusk has made it quite clear, and so has Mr. Barnier as chief negotiator, that a temporary backstop...was one "solution" proposed by Britain... that is OUT.

A second "solution" was "technology" as a solution to the border question...that is OUT.

A third solution was Norway...that is OUT.


3
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: Today at 12:49:54 PM »
How predictable was it that a fascist would steam in to defend the inhumane treatment of a seven year-old girl by the ICE gestapo?

Entirely f**king predictable.

Fascists are deeply predictable.

4
General discussion / Re: Brexit.
« on: Today at 12:33:58 PM »
Theresa May and Celtic have something in common.

They both repeated their autumn Salzburg humiliations last night.

But there are also key differences.

The Norway option came good in the end for Celtic, and kept them in Europe.

It won't for May.

Celtic ended up reaching the last 32.

May could end up losing the whole 32.

I'll give you 6 out of 10 for that.
6 out of 9, surely?

6
General discussion / Re: Brexit.
« on: Today at 10:52:28 AM »
Theresa May and Celtic have something in common.

They both repeated their autumn Salzburg humiliations last night.

But there are also key differences.

The Norway option came good in the end for Celtic, and kept them in Europe.

It won't for May.

Celtic ended up reaching the last 32.

May could end up losing the whole 32.

7
General discussion / Re: Brexit.
« on: Today at 01:19:53 AM »
I'd warn as well that the Brexit referendum proves that the prospect of a unification referendum in the North is an extremely worrying one.

Such a poll should not be held unless and until opinion polls show a consistent, clear majority in favour of unification. A clear majority means minimum 55-45.

The threat to peace would be too great, and peace is much more important than a united Ireland.

A 51-49 majority in favour of unification would be a nightmarish prospect which would all but condemn the North to another outbreak of bloodshed.

In practical terms, can you outline for me why a 51-49 result would result in bloodshed/carnage and a 55-45 result wouldn't?

At what point in between do unionists change from being hell bent on carnage to deciding they'll just have to accept it?

I can't tell you for certain that a 55-45 result wouldn't result in bloodshed, no more than I can tell you with 100% certainty that 50% +1 would result in bloodshed.

I can't see into the future.

What I can say is that based on a reading of history and an understanding of the siege mentality of Unionists/Loyalists, the holding of a referendum on Irish unification, in a scenario where it would be clear from opinion polling that there would be a wafer thin margin either way, is likely a recipe for serious unrest and could well result in a re-outbreak of violence and killing, and it could be extremely vicious.

For me the Brexit referendum is also a good demonstration of why the holding of a referendum where the result is likely to be very close, is a bad idea. Britain leaving the EU is an emotive issue for sure, but it pales in comparison to the visceral nationalistic emotions that would be stirred on both sides by a referendum on Irish unification.

Therefore, I feel it would be extremely unwise to hold such a referendum unless there was evidence to demonstrate that the pro-unification position had a clear and consistent lead.

The 55-45 margin is my personal call on where the line of that margin lies.

In any such future referendum, it would be better to have a clear result. 55-45 is a clearer result than 51-49. Again, I can't say with certainty whether a clear result would eliminate the prospect of violence - but it would likely lessen it.

The Good Friday Agreement was clearly a very positive development in terms of securing peace. But the principle of consent, while laudable as a principle, has stored up what is effectively a timebomb given that the long term demographic appears to be slowly but inexorably moving towards a Catholic/Nationalist/Republican majority.

How the switching of the majority to the minority and vice versa is handled vis a vis a referendum will be of huge importance in terms of staving off a potential return to violence.

It must be handled with the utmost care and the utmost respect, because the potential is there for disaster.

People shouting for a referendum now flies in the face of that.

As does Brexit.


The lessons of the past are already being unlearned.

Agree with bold.  Though, as some earlier posters mentioned, I think it does no harm to mention it from time to time, to 'normalise' it.

As for the figure, I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference what the majority is (certainly within the limits we are discussing).

So I think we have to accept that 51-49 or 55-45 (or 60-40 for that matter), there will still be a cabal of uber-staunch reprobates who will cause bother when it doesn't go their way.

We can't be beholden to them though.


EDIT.

Just re-read your post there and realised that the only half attempt at an answer to my questions could be boiled down to 'cos I think so'.

The rest is nothing more than a bunch of very noble platitudes and regurgitations of old chestnuts about respect etc...
There's every reason to think the way I do.

The only reason you wouldn't is if you buy into the old misty-eyed romantic nationalist bullshit, ie. a united Ireland any which way and to hell with the consequences.

If opinion polls put the numbers in favour/not in favour of unification at basically 50-50, and the result was on a knife edge, the division and hatred that would be stoked up by a referendum would be nightmarish. There would likely be violence before, during and after the poll.

It would be utterly irresponsible to hold a poll which would be a carte blanche for the headbangers to cause violent mayhem.

If you had a period of, say, two years where opinion polls were consistently showing 55-45 or more in favour of unification, a border poll would become inevitable because of the clear and consistent majority in favour, the result wouldd become inevitable, and the Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist community would at least have time to come to terms with what was happening.

Time, acceptance and respect are the keys to unification ever happening.

There may well be some Loyalists who would still be intent on violence with a 55-45 result for unification, or 60-40, or an even greater margin. It could be that no margin, no matter how big, would make certian people accept that being taken out of the United Kingdom in a referendum was legitimate. But the greater the margin, the less would be the legitimacy of any violence in the eyes of the Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist community as a whole. I think that's unarguable.

I'd like to see unification but I'd be more than prepared to wait an extra 30 or 40 years for it to happen if it meant there was a better chance that people wouldn't be killed.

Here's another thing. When people voted for Brexit they didn't know what they were voting for. Those who would vote for a united Ireland might think they would know what they would be voting for. But would they?

Because there would be those who would expect all the trappings and official culture of the 26 county state to be immediately extended to the six counties - the tricolour to fly over City Hall in Belfast etc., that unionist culture be basically be obliterated. That we'd "stick it to them once and for all".

Then, there would be those, like myself, who would be prepared to see a united Ireland as being effectively the creation of new state rather than it merely being a case of the six counties being subsumed into the Republic. A new state with a new flag and a new anthem etc., with Britain having some say over the six counties in a similar way to how the Republic has some say over the North now.

There would be hard united Irelanders and soft united Irelanders. The hard united Irelanders mightn't particularly like the ideas of the soft united Irelanders, never mind the ideas of those who opposed a united Ireland. The united Ireland that occurred in practice would likely not be the united Ireland they imagined.

Don't know how you reconcile the earlier 'I can't see into the future' statement with the bit in bold.  It would seem that this is a selective ability.

Anyway.  Your last few paragraphs are again a regurgitation of old tropes which are endlessly thrown around here.  There's nothing new in any of it.  It's a very foolish person who would think that a new Ireland would be merely an enlarged version of the 26 counties.  It doesn't need repeated.

And I can't agree that we need to wait until we see a clear majority before conducting a poll.  You've yet to produce any tangible evidence as to why we should wait.  Your 55-45 figure is unbelievably arbitrary - at very best!  What's to say that when we get to 55-45, some don't just decide that it would need to be 60-40?  It's just another makey-uppy figure after all with no logical basis other than 'I think it sounds right'.  It doesn't matter if we waited until it was 99-1 - you still couldn't guarantee that a reaction from the lunatic fringe of loyalism/unionism wouldn't get someone killed.

On the other hand, we have an international agreement made between both sides, and voted for by a huge majority of the population.  An agreement which has formed the basis for the running of this annex for two decades and indeed, which might be the only thing saving us from being torn out of the EU against our will by a bunch of racists from Eton.  The figure in this agreement is 50% +1.  It's not hidden, it's been front and centre for 20 years.  Unionism has had more than enough time to come to terms with it.  If we're going to change that it's going to need a more solid basis than 'I reckon that sounds aboout right'.
Using the word "tropes" doesn't confer your post with any insight.

I've already said I can't see into the future with certainty. Nobody can.

The "tangible evidence" is history. The history of the six counties is an extremely dark one, marred with appalling sectarian murder. Very recent history. It's an extremely unwise thing to go poking those ghosts for kicks before they've even rested. If they are going to be poked, people need to be as sure as they can be that they won't come back to bite.

Yet we have a generation now who don't remember the Troubles, so don't remember the horrors of it. And we have a generation in loads of countries who are seemingly entirely willing to reawaken old prejudices and hatreds, and new ones, based on ignorant populist nonsense. We live in an unheroic age. There are plenty of gullible, stupid young men around who might be only too willing to be "heroic" in the name of a "glorious cause".

These are very dangerous forces and it seems far too many people don't understand what they're playing with.

The margin needs to be clear and it needs to be consistent. 10 is a clear margin and well outside the margin of error. 1 or 2 is not.

Brexit is not an excuse for a border poll based on absolutely wafer thin figures in favour of unification at best, and which could easily restart violence.

Brexit is a lesson against holding such a poll.




8
General discussion / Re: Brexit.
« on: December 13, 2018, 11:43:36 PM »
I'd warn as well that the Brexit referendum proves that the prospect of a unification referendum in the North is an extremely worrying one.

Such a poll should not be held unless and until opinion polls show a consistent, clear majority in favour of unification. A clear majority means minimum 55-45.

The threat to peace would be too great, and peace is much more important than a united Ireland.

A 51-49 majority in favour of unification would be a nightmarish prospect which would all but condemn the North to another outbreak of bloodshed.

In practical terms, can you outline for me why a 51-49 result would result in bloodshed/carnage and a 55-45 result wouldn't?

At what point in between do unionists change from being hell bent on carnage to deciding they'll just have to accept it?

I can't tell you for certain that a 55-45 result wouldn't result in bloodshed, no more than I can tell you with 100% certainty that 50% +1 would result in bloodshed.

I can't see into the future.

What I can say is that based on a reading of history and an understanding of the siege mentality of Unionists/Loyalists, the holding of a referendum on Irish unification, in a scenario where it would be clear from opinion polling that there would be a wafer thin margin either way, is likely a recipe for serious unrest and could well result in a re-outbreak of violence and killing, and it could be extremely vicious.

For me the Brexit referendum is also a good demonstration of why the holding of a referendum where the result is likely to be very close, is a bad idea. Britain leaving the EU is an emotive issue for sure, but it pales in comparison to the visceral nationalistic emotions that would be stirred on both sides by a referendum on Irish unification.

Therefore, I feel it would be extremely unwise to hold such a referendum unless there was evidence to demonstrate that the pro-unification position had a clear and consistent lead.

The 55-45 margin is my personal call on where the line of that margin lies.

In any such future referendum, it would be better to have a clear result. 55-45 is a clearer result than 51-49. Again, I can't say with certainty whether a clear result would eliminate the prospect of violence - but it would likely lessen it.

The Good Friday Agreement was clearly a very positive development in terms of securing peace. But the principle of consent, while laudable as a principle, has stored up what is effectively a timebomb given that the long term demographic appears to be slowly but inexorably moving towards a Catholic/Nationalist/Republican majority.

How the switching of the majority to the minority and vice versa is handled vis a vis a referendum will be of huge importance in terms of staving off a potential return to violence.

It must be handled with the utmost care and the utmost respect, because the potential is there for disaster.

People shouting for a referendum now flies in the face of that.

As does Brexit.


The lessons of the past are already being unlearned.

Agree with bold.  Though, as some earlier posters mentioned, I think it does no harm to mention it from time to time, to 'normalise' it.

As for the figure, I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference what the majority is (certainly within the limits we are discussing).

So I think we have to accept that 51-49 or 55-45 (or 60-40 for that matter), there will still be a cabal of uber-staunch reprobates who will cause bother when it doesn't go their way.

We can't be beholden to them though.


EDIT.

Just re-read your post there and realised that the only half attempt at an answer to my questions could be boiled down to 'cos I think so'.

The rest is nothing more than a bunch of very noble platitudes and regurgitations of old chestnuts about respect etc...
There's every reason to think the way I do.

The only reason you wouldn't is if you buy into the old misty-eyed romantic nationalist bullshit, ie. a united Ireland any which way and to hell with the consequences.

If opinion polls put the numbers in favour/not in favour of unification at basically 50-50, and the result was on a knife edge, the division and hatred that would be stoked up by a referendum would be nightmarish. There would likely be violence before, during and after the poll.

It would be utterly irresponsible to hold a poll which would be a carte blanche for the headbangers to cause violent mayhem.

If you had a period of, say, two years where opinion polls were consistently showing 55-45 or more in favour of unification, a border poll would become inevitable because of the clear and consistent majority in favour, the result wouldd become inevitable, and the Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist community would at least have time to come to terms with what was happening.

Time, acceptance and respect are the keys to unification ever happening.

There may well be some Loyalists who would still be intent on violence with a 55-45 result for unification, or 60-40, or an even greater margin. It could be that no margin, no matter how big, would make certian people accept that being taken out of the United Kingdom in a referendum was legitimate. But the greater the margin, the less would be the legitimacy of any violence in the eyes of the Protestant/Unionist/Loyalist community as a whole. I think that's unarguable.

I'd like to see unification but I'd be more than prepared to wait an extra 30 or 40 years for it to happen if it meant there was a better chance that people wouldn't be killed.

Here's another thing. When people voted for Brexit they didn't know what they were voting for. Those who would vote for a united Ireland might think they would know what they would be voting for. But would they?

Because there would be those who would expect all the trappings and official culture of the 26 county state to be immediately extended to the six counties - the tricolour to fly over City Hall in Belfast etc., that unionist culture be basically be obliterated. That we'd "stick it to them once and for all".

Then, there would be those, like myself, who would be prepared to see a united Ireland as being effectively the creation of new state rather than it merely being a case of the six counties being subsumed into the Republic. A new state with a new flag and a new anthem etc., with Britain having some say over the six counties in a similar way to how the Republic has some say over the North now.

There would be hard united Irelanders and soft united Irelanders. The hard united Irelanders mightn't particularly like the ideas of the soft united Irelanders, never mind the ideas of those who opposed a united Ireland. The united Ireland that occurred in practice would likely not be the united Ireland they imagined.









9
General discussion / Re: Brexit.
« on: December 13, 2018, 09:38:23 PM »
I'd warn as well that the Brexit referendum proves that the prospect of a unification referendum in the North is an extremely worrying one.

Such a poll should not be held unless and until opinion polls show a consistent, clear majority in favour of unification. A clear majority means minimum 55-45.

The threat to peace would be too great, and peace is much more important than a united Ireland.

A 51-49 majority in favour of unification would be a nightmarish prospect which would all but condemn the North to another outbreak of bloodshed.

In practical terms, can you outline for me why a 51-49 result would result in bloodshed/carnage and a 55-45 result wouldn't?

At what point in between do unionists change from being hell bent on carnage to deciding they'll just have to accept it?

I can't tell you for certain that a 55-45 result wouldn't result in bloodshed, no more than I can tell you with 100% certainty that 50% +1 would result in bloodshed.

I can't see into the future.

What I can say is that based on a reading of history and an understanding of the siege mentality of Unionists/Loyalists, the holding of a referendum on Irish unification, in a scenario where it would be clear from opinion polling that there would be a wafer thin margin either way, is likely a recipe for serious unrest and could well result in a re-outbreak of violence and killing, and it could be extremely vicious.

For me the Brexit referendum is also a good demonstration of why the holding of a referendum where the result is likely to be very close, is a bad idea. Britain leaving the EU is an emotive issue for sure, but it pales in comparison to the visceral nationalistic emotions that would be stirred on both sides by a referendum on Irish unification.

Therefore, I feel it would be extremely unwise to hold such a referendum unless there was evidence to demonstrate that the pro-unification position had a clear and consistent lead.

The 55-45 margin is my personal call on where the line of that margin lies.

In any such future referendum, it would be better to have a clear result. 55-45 is a clearer result than 51-49. Again, I can't say with certainty whether a clear result would eliminate the prospect of violence - but it would likely lessen it.

The Good Friday Agreement was clearly a very positive development in terms of securing peace. But the principle of consent, while laudable as a principle, has stored up what is effectively a timebomb given that the long term demographic appears to be slowly but inexorably moving towards a Catholic/Nationalist/Republican majority.

How the switching of the majority to the minority and vice versa is handled vis a vis a referendum will be of huge importance in terms of staving off a potential return to violence.

It must be handled with the utmost care and the utmost respect, because the potential is there for disaster.

People shouting for a referendum now flies in the face of that.

As does Brexit.

The lessons of the past are already being unlearned.







10
General discussion / Re: Brexit.
« on: December 13, 2018, 09:11:17 PM »

(1) A UI should only happen with a supermajority.

Don't you support the GFA then?

Do I have to support every word in every line to broadly agree with it?

There was a supermajority in 1918 and it was ignored by the Brits. Never again. 50%+1 is all the 'supermajority' that's needed
There wasn't even a bare majority for an independent Irish state in the 1918 General Election. Sinn Fein only got 46.9% of the vote.

The Irish Parliamentary Party supported Home Rule, not an independent state outside the United Kingdom.

One third of the Sinn Fein MPs were returned unopposed to the 46.9% greatly understates Sinn Fein support.
It may well do.

But on actual votes, they didn't have a majority.

Had those seats been contested, it's unlikely they would have got much more than 55% of the total vote, if even that.

It was was claimed by another poster that they had a "supermajority".

A "supermajority" is a very nebulous concept.

55% would certainly have been a decent majority, but I think by any definition of what a "supermajority" is, 55% isn't it.

In my imagination a "supermajority" would be two-thirds of the vote plus one, or at minimum the 60% that the US Senate classes as a "supermajority".

You are talking about votes for parties. This would be a referendum. A supermajority would mean that the vote of an individual unionist who voted against UI would mean more than the vote of an individual nationalist who backed UI. What happened to one person, one vote? Unionists have ridden roughshod over the concept of democracy in Ireland for long enough, Those days are over.
I was directly addressing the pont you made in post #5741.

You stated that there was a supermajority in favour of an independent Irish state in 1918.

There wasn't, unless you adopt a definition of the word that is ludicrous.


11
General discussion / Re: Brexit.
« on: December 13, 2018, 08:34:49 PM »

(1) A UI should only happen with a supermajority.

Don't you support the GFA then?

Do I have to support every word in every line to broadly agree with it?

There was a supermajority in 1918 and it was ignored by the Brits. Never again. 50%+1 is all the 'supermajority' that's needed
There wasn't even a bare majority for an independent Irish state in the 1918 General Election. Sinn Fein only got 46.9% of the vote.

The Irish Parliamentary Party supported Home Rule, not an independent state outside the United Kingdom.

One third of the Sinn Fein MPs were returned unopposed to the 46.9% greatly understates Sinn Fein support.
It may well do.

But on actual votes, they didn't have a majority.

Had those seats been contested, it's unlikely they would have got much more than 55% of the total vote, if even that.

It was was claimed by another poster that they had a "supermajority".

A "supermajority" is a very nebulous concept.

55% would certainly have been a decent majority, but I think by any definition of what a "supermajority" is, 55% isn't it.

In my imagination a "supermajority" would be two-thirds of the vote plus one, or at minimum the 60% that the US Senate classes as a "supermajority".






12
General discussion / Re: Brexit.
« on: December 13, 2018, 08:14:42 PM »

(1) A UI should only happen with a supermajority.

Don't you support the GFA then?

Do I have to support every word in every line to broadly agree with it?

There was a supermajority in 1918 and it was ignored by the Brits. Never again. 50%+1 is all the 'supermajority' that's needed

So if there a border poll, and 50%+1 vote for a united ireland, will the brits ignore it again if loyalists threaten violence? The Dublin cowboys might choose to ignore the result as well.

So even if the vote for a UI wins, I wouldnít be confident it will actually happen. The two shower of pricks in London and Dublin have history in ignoring results or having another go at voting.

I think you've just described why such a vote shouldn't happen until a majority for unification is clear and unassailable.


13
General discussion / Re: Brexit.
« on: December 13, 2018, 08:11:41 PM »

(1) A UI should only happen with a supermajority.

Don't you support the GFA then?

Do I have to support every word in every line to broadly agree with it?

There was a supermajority in 1918 and it was ignored by the Brits. Never again. 50%+1 is all the 'supermajority' that's needed
There wasn't even a bare majority for an independent Irish state in the 1918 General Election. Sinn Fein only got 46.9% of the vote.

The Irish Parliamentary Party supported Home Rule, not an independent state outside the United Kingdom.

14
General discussion / Re: Brexit.
« on: December 13, 2018, 05:00:17 PM »
I'd warn as well that the Brexit referendum proves that the prospect of a unification referendum in the North is an extremely worrying one.

Such a poll should not be held unless and until opinion polls show a consistent, clear majority in favour of unification. A clear majority means minimum 55-45.

The threat to peace would be too great, and peace is much more important than a united Ireland.

A 51-49 majority in favour of unification would be a nightmarish prospect which would all but condemn the North to another outbreak of bloodshed.

These opinion polls - explain what they involve or how they are done.

To me, this thing about not being a border poll until itís clear that the majority of the north are in favour of a UI, how does anyone know for sure? The only way to find out for sure is to actually have a proper border poll.

The British govt/unionists and even Dublin, who donít want a UI, will continue to say Ďah no, thereís not enough support for it yet, so no border poll yet Ď

Itís a cop out.

Opinion polls are polls that are used to predict the outcome of electoral contests the world over, and which, contrary to the belief of some tinfoil hat merchants, usually give us a very good idea of the outcome of such electoral contests.

I'm not involved in an opinion polling company, so I can't explain exactly how opinion pollsters select the people they poll.

However, I generally do trust polls to give us a pretty good idea of how public opinion lies as regards electoral contests.

15
General discussion / Re: Brexit.
« on: December 13, 2018, 04:52:26 PM »
Rubbish.

It may sound glib, but who are the loyalists going to fight? And to what end? Once we get to the stage where it has been passed, unionists will be well looked after, you can guarantee that.

And of course, 51/49 in the north would actually be 85/15 overall (those opposed in the south are extremely unlikely to be strongly and/or militantly so, so their 'against' votes aren't important in the context of your forecast bloodshed)
Are you familiar with what happened in Yugoslavia?

The possibility for murderous "ethnic cleansing" very much exists in the North, given certain conditions. A monster lurks within everybody and nationalism brings it out more than anything. People should be under no illusions that Irish nationalism or British nationalism are any more inherently benign than German, Serbian or Croatian nationalism.

In fact ethnic cleansing has a long history in the North, it happened in the South too.

The unionists would likely demand repartition at the very least and a more murderous ethnic cleansing than ever before would likely emerge in order to drive Catholic minorities out of mixed or majority Protestant areas of Antrim and Down. That would be highly unlikely to go unanswered against Protestant minorities in majority Catholic areas of the North.

This is just ludicrous.
How?

In any roadmap to a united Ireland, one must consider the worst case scenario, how it could come about, and more importantly, how to proceed in a responsible fashion so that it can be avoided.

Four years ago, anybody who predicted that what has happened as regards Brexit, would happen, would have been laughed at. 

And yet here we are.

In 1987, had somebody predicted that Yugoslavia would erupt into sectarian bloodshed within four years, they would most likely have been laughed at. It happened because people irresponsibly whippped up nationalist tensions.

If you think nationalist tensions on both sides wouldn't be whipped up before any potential border poll, you're in dreamland. When people get whipped up, you get mobs. When you get mobs, you get violence. When you get violence, you get bloodshed. When you get bloodshed, you likely get death. Once people start dying, you're into a potentially disastrous and uncontrollable situation.

War doesn't happen overnight. It happens through a gradual ramping up of tensions, and then up and up it keeps ramping, people saying things they wouldn't have said before, people imagining things they wouldn't have imagined before, before it eventually all spills over.

Tensions are ramping up, and they look set to keep ramping up further, because there are people on both sides who fancy them being ramped up for what they perceive as their own gain.

It's about time they started pulling back rather continuing to ramp things up.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 119