Bitcoin

Will 2016 Be a Record Year for Bitcoin?

Prices of the cryptocurrency are expected to reach a record high next year.

|

A slow down in the growth of the money supply could push the price of Bitcoin to record highs next year. The web-based currency—which has been pitched as money of the future—is set to rise in price due to adjustments in the reward structure for mining set to go into effect in July. 

As Reuters reports:

"[T]he price of bitcoin could test its 2013 highs of above $1,100 next year and then pick up speed to rise to $4,400 by the end of 2017.

That would be due to a number of factors… including an increased acceptance of payments in bitcoin by big companies and authorities, rapidly growing interest and investment in the "blockchain" technology that underpins bitcoin transactions, and also more demand from China as its currency weakens and the economy slows."

In August, Reason TV sat down with New York Times reporter Nathaniel Popper to discuss Bitcoin's rise and how libertarians have kept the dream of the decentralized currency alive.  

"People were telling the libertarians to shut up," says New York Times reporter Nathaniel Popper, "but they were the only ones willing to put their money on the line and keep Bitcoin alive."

Popper's new book, Digital Gold: Bitcoin and the Inside Story of the Misfits and Millionaires Trying to Reinvent Money, tells the story of how the "cryptocurrency" went from an idea sketched out by an anonymous programmer in a nine-page whitepaper in the summer of 2008 to a global phenomenon with multi-million-dollar investments staked on its potential.

Some believe Bitcoin will be as transformative as the Internet itself while others—including many governments and traditional investors and analysts—see it as a threat or scam that should be shutdown or heavily regulated.

Reason TV's Nick Gillespie sat down with Popper to talk about rise of Bitcoin and its underlying blockchain technology, which advocates say has virtually unlimited application.

The topics they covered include:

  • How radical libertarians championed Bitcoin and kept the technology alive when nobody else was paying attention (2:50) 
  • How libertarians clashed with another faction of early Bitcoin champions, who worried that ideological posturing could hurt its chances of wide adoption (5:27)
  • Whether Wall Street banks, the very firms Bitcoin was meant to route around, has co-opted this technology (7:27)
  • How Bitcoin is being used as currency in Argentina (10:57)
  • The evidence that convicted Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht engaged in murder-for-hire (13:52)
  • The startup OpenBazaar and the ongoing decentralization of commerce (16:30)
  • Whether Bitcoin is truly here to stay. (18:30)

NEXT: Ringing Out What's Old—and Ringing In What's New—in Food Policy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What’s the story behind bitcoin’s creator? I hear he’s enshrouded in mystery.

    1. I hear it’s a Japanese fellow.

      1. Inscrutable Oriental

      2. I heard is was an Austrailian guy impersonating a Japanese guy.

        1. He wanted people to think he was smart.

    2. The details of my life are quite inconsequential… very well, where do I begin? My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with low grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. My mother was a fifteen year old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. My childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we’d make meat helmets. When I was insolent I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds- pretty standard really. At the age of twelve I received my first scribe. At the age of fourteen a Zoroastrian named Vilma ritualistically shaved my testicles. There really is nothing like a shorn scrotum… it’s breathtaking- I highly suggest you try it.

      1. If that’s your bag baby!

        Curious if anyone here is involved in mining it. Looking at the prices now I seriously wished I bought a cheap computer and set it up to mine several years ago when I was thinking about it. What to folks here think about the chances of this becoming much more widely adopted?

        1. I just bought an Antminer S7 and set it up last week, it should pay for itself in about 220 days at current prices.

        2. This is a pretty good calculator:

          http://www.coinwarz.com/calcul…..calculator

        3. So far I have been mining in the mining.bitcoin.cz pool.

      2. If it wasn’t for the teenage Mongolian prostitutes the summers in Rangoon would have been unbearable.

  2. On Reddit a few months back I proposed a crypto currency that increases the money supply based on energy production rather than as a reward for perpetuating the block chain. It didn’t really get much attention but I think it would do a good job of growing the monetary supply close to the rate of economic activity.

    1. Growing the money supply is unnecessary. Deflationary growth is the ideal.

  3. It’s the Libertarian moment story of the year.

    http://metro.co.uk/2015/12/25/…..gn=Twitter

    1. I understand being pissed off about our First Amendment rights being violated by way of accommodation, but can’t you let the underlying issue go?

      Are we really supposed to be against gay marriage because if we aren’t, then ISIS will get us?

      1. Gay marriage is the new buying drugs.

        1. Amyl nitrate?

          1. If buying amyl nitrate also supports terrorism then yes.

            1. It helps facilitate butt sex whuch in turn makes good Christian Americans like John want to join Al Qaeda.

        2. Gay marriage is a thousand times more important than ending the drug war. Didn’t you know that? Gay marriage is the most important civil rights issue since slavery. What are you some kind of a Tea Bagger?

          1. Gay marriage is the most important civil rights issue since slavery.

            LOL, you’re becoming a caricature of yourself.

          2. Even if you’re a social conservative, if there’s any upside to gay marriage becoming the law of the land, it’s that you don’t have to fall on that sword at the ballot box anymore.

            I remember when social conservatives used to be against welfare because living lazy off the government meant declining moral standards. They thought success should depend on things like hard work and self-sacrifice.

            That’s actually a winning issue with swing voters–or it used to be. A Democrat President once capitulated to socially conservative Republicans demanding welfare reform–but that was before the Democrats could smear the Republicans as bigots for being anti-gay marriage.

            The progressives wouldn’t be able to use gay marriage as a wedge issue against social conservatives anymore–if the social conservatives would just stop handing the progressives fresh ammunition on that issue.

            In electoral politics, ISIS being about gay marriage is like ISIS being about global warming–you’re not going to convince anybody that isn’t already on your side of anything with an association like that. No one thinks, “Gee, gay marriage makes it easier to recruit bigots to ISIS, so I guess we better get rid of gay marriage”, but people do think, “Wow, social conservatives are just like ISIS on gay marriage, so let’s not vote for the Republicans”.

            1. There’s also the fact that the idea of getting the government out of marriage is picking up steam.

        3. Gay marriage is the new gateway drug. First you let the gays get married and then, inevitably, you find yourself forcing Christians to bake gay cake.

      2. Libertarians have a special affection for Muslims and Gays. You really can’t be a Libertarian unless you personally know both a gay couple in a loving long term relationship who just wants to get a government marriage license and a hardworking, open minded salt of the earth Muslim immigrant.

        Muslims and gays are almost universally popular and respected among Libertarians and their causes always important. I just feel the fact that the first group would often happily kill the second to be a bit ironic.

        1. The voices in your head betray you. I could give a shit about someones sexual orientation or religion. Just because you feel libertarians are somehow persecuting you doesn’t mean it’s really happening. We’re just not all that interested in the imaginary dragons you seek to slay. Relax. Enjoy the holidays.

        2. You know which political group supports equal protection under the law…

          AND

          The first amendment…

          AND

          Supports ending the WoD?

            1. No wonder they never win any elections.

              Equality is over if you want it!

              1. No wonder they never win any elections.

                No kidding.

                Making sure the Team wins is WAY more important than liberty

                1. People who use the words “equality” and “liberty” in the same sentence are not to be taken seriously.

                  That’s like buying your coke from someone who cuts it with Drano.

                  1. You said equality. I said equality under the law.

                    Not even close to the same thing. But you knew that, didn’t you?

                    1. If you acknowledge that people are not equal, then why insist that your laws pretend that they are? Your laws end up being written to apply to the lowest common denominator. Then I have to listen to you crying about how the tyrants are oppressing you.

                    2. laws end up being written to apply to the lowest common denominator.

                      What does that even mean?

                      People are certainly not equal. But laws applying equally to everyone is a cornerstone of liberty. Allowing the state to selectively make law is the definition of oppression.

                      But you apparently don’t want liberty for everyone. Just those that you approve of.

                    3. What does that even mean?

                      Rather obvious I would think. Do you think the push for gun control is aimed at preventing Farmer Brown from shooting crows in his cornfield? But Farmer Brown will be just as subject to gun control laws as thugs shooting each other.

                      But laws applying equally to everyone is a cornerstone of liberty. Allowing the state to selectively make law is the definition of oppression.

                      *citation needed*

                      But you apparently don’t want liberty for everyone. Just those that you approve of.

                      I’m guessing I’m not unique in that respect. That’s why we have jails.

                    4. “I’m guessing I’m not unique in that respect. That’s why we have jails.”

                      You’re uniquely idiotic. Farmer Brown has every bit as much right to own a gun as those thugs, and they have every bit as much as right to jail if they get thuggish.

                    5. Rather obvious I would think.

                      No not obvious at all. The government doesn’t have the power to impose gun control on anyone prior to due process of law.

                      *citation needed*

                      When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

                      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

                      That’s why we have jails

                      No, we have jails to punish those who’ve violated the rights of another.

                      I’m guessing I’m not unique in that respect.

                      No. No you’re not. The vast majority of the population is as immoral and unprincipled as you. Which is the primary reason libertarians “never win any elections.”

                    6. I hate to break this to you, but an assertion made in a piece of political propaganda isn’t a proof of anything, something that was recognized even when it was written.

                      Given that the DoI contains not a few statements which are easily demonstrated to be whoppers, I’d hardly call it the definitive source of anything. You might notice that a number of propositions put forth in the DoI somehow didn’t make it to the constitution that eventually got written (a document that actually has legal standing, which the DoI does not).

                      No, we have jails to punish those who’ve violated the rights of another.

                      No, we have jails to punish those who break laws, and those laws are not necessarily confined to violating the rights of others, and they never were.

                      The vast majority of the population is as immoral and unprincipled as you. Which is the primary reason libertarians “never win any elections.”

                      Correction: the vast majority of the population does not share the same morals and principles as libertarians. That does not indicate an absence of morals and principles. That’s merely a libertarian delusion.

                    7. You might notice that a number of propositions put forth in the DoI somehow didn’t make it to the constitution that eventually got written (a document that actually has legal standing, which the DoI does not).

                      But oddly, this one did:

                      No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

                      No, we have jails to punish those who break laws, and those laws are not necessarily confined to violating the rights of others

                      And therein lies the difference between libertarian philosophy and the immoral system you defend. I know how it is. Libertarianism is about how it should be. A maximization of liberty.

                      1. A person may do as they wish, PROVIDED they do not infringe upon the rights of others in doing so.

                      2. The ONLY legitimate function of government is to defend the rights of individuals.

                      the vast majority of the population does not share the same morals and principles as libertarians

                      Which is EXACTLY the reason this nation has devolved into the statist shithole you and your ilk have created.

                    8. If you acknowledge that people are not equal, then why insist that your laws pretend that they are?

                      Because the law may not judge in advance which people are smarter or stronger, or more deserving. In order for people with greater merit to achieve greater rewards, the rules must treat everyone equally. For the law to treat some people differently on the assumption that they are superior would be effectively handicapping the race in their favor. The law should be a neutral referee. The only way to know *which* people actually have more merit, the law must assume at the start that they are equal and then get out of the way while they compete.

                  2. People who think “equality” and “liberty” are mutually exclusive polar opposites are not to be taken seriously.

                    Any intelligent understanding of liberty involves the realization that the equal nature and equal enforcement of rights is foundational to liberty. A society where some people have more rights than others or where the rights of some people are not enforced is not a free society. It is effectively feudalism.

        3. I thought it was all about drugs, butt sex, and Messicans. Was it actually about gays and Muslims all along? I never signed up for THAT.

        4. Because libertarians stick up for people’s rights when they’re violated, and the people whose rights get violated tend to be unpopular, we often end up sticking up for the rights of unpopular people. But it shouldn’t be forgotten that we’re standing up for the rights rather than the people.

          When I stand up for a Muslim’s right not to be discriminated against on the basis of religion, it’s my own right not to be discriminated against that I’m really standing up for. Furthermore, because I’ve stood up for the right not to be discriminated against by the government because of sexual orientation, I can consistently and persuasively stand up for the First Amendment rights of fundamentalist Christians, too. And that I do.

          I don’t stand up for terrorists, but I do stand up for their Fifth Amendment rights–because they’re my Fifth Amendment rights, too. Being libertarian does mean having to differentiate between people and their rights, but just because standing up for my own Fifth Amendment rights means having to speaking up when a terrorist’s rights are violated doesn’t mean I’m sticking up for terrorists. Libertarians see that distinction clearly.

          That and being able to recognize a difference between moral and legal obligations are probably defining characteristics of libertarians.

          We don’t stand up for homicidal maniacs on shooting sprees, but we stand up for our own Second Amendment rights. You understand that. I know you do.

        5. I know both, but I don’t have some special affection for Muslims (worst religion there is) or married gays (their life, not mine). My “affection” for people depends on who they are as individuals. I know a few Muslims and they are all pretty decent people overall, so it doesn’t bother me that they just happen to grow up in a country where Islam is the dominant religion. I know two gay married couples and I don’t even know their position on forcing people to bake cakes because it has actually never come up (no shit) and I don’t bring it up because there’s no point in it. But, if they thought that people should be forced to bake them a wedding cake, then I’d disagree with them and we’d most likely still be friends.

    2. His alleged rationale for this was that Daesh was too brutal and killed too many fellow Muslims, but Al Qaeda were more moderate.

      Nobody needs more than two death cults.

    3. Eh. Florida Men regularly die protesting things like ‘gravity’, the patience of Florida Woman, and operating machinery while higher than an entire touring funk band. Ehat makes this idiot so special?

      1. Yes the bevy of Rhodes Scholars down here are quite clever at finding unique ways of self demise.

        Speaking of, HAS ANYONE SEEN OUR Florida Man? Seriously it’s been like 2 months

        1. Changed his name to Juvenile Bluster, I think.

          1. We need something like Steam has for usernames – a ‘hover over’ menu that pops up with a list of previous aliases used by that account.

            The way people change names around here it gets damn hard to know who you’re talking to.

          2. Different dude. Juvenile Bluster is a florida man, but not THE Florida Man.

            It’s the end of the year, and a lot of people schedule surgeries while they’re at their deductible. I assume he’s really busy at work until the new year.

    4. So basically, we should be in favor of gay marriage because otherwise the terrorists win, right, John?

  4. Not sure I understand why a slowdown in the money supply translates into demand for bitcoin. I’d understand why other currencies weakening might translate into more bitcoin. I thought one of bitcoin’s virtues was that the amount of currency in circulation will ultimately be fixed.

    Regardless, demand for something like bitcoin is driven by what it can be used to do. If we expect marijuana to continue to be legalized, that would seem to dry up some demand. And if the fed is done with silly rates and the U.S. dollar continues to hold its value relative to other national currencies, I’m not sure why that would be especially conducive to mainstream adoption either.

    I could see demand driven by people outside the U.S. Maybe Chinese people worried about getting their money outside of China either to escape currency controls or even those who are worried about the portability of their wealth in the event of a revolution. That’s like how Swiss banks came to prominence–giving French aristocrats a safe place to park their money.

    If you could gamble with bitcoin or open foreign brokerage accounts and trade stocks and avoid capital gains taxes, that might drive demand, but can’t you already do that with U.S. currency in the Cayman Islands?

    1. Like all commodities, Bitcoin is subject to speculation and bubbles and busts. It is no more or less safe of an investment than any other commodity.

      1. Yeah, I’m just talking about the market forces that might drive demand in the future.

        “A slow down in the growth of the money supply could push the price of Bitcoin to record highs next year.”

        I’d appreciate somebody explaining that logic. Maybe I could learn something.

        1. I agree. That makes no sense.

          1. Nothing about bitcoin makes sense to me.

            1. Money is one if the more difficult economic concepts once you get beyond the basic concepts.

              1. Yeah, I pretty much leave economics discussions to others. Not my forte.

        2. “A slow down in the growth of the money supply could push the price of Bitcoin to record highs next year.”

          I’m thinking that maybe it makes sense like this”

          “A slow down in the growth of the [Bitcoin] supply could push the price of Bitcoin to record highs next year.”

          Maybe he means to say that less rewards for mining mean less new Bitcoin becoming available for a period of time.

      2. I would say that it’s newness and it’s lack of intrinsic value outside of peoples willingness to use it for no doubt certain unique benefits makes it more risky than most established commodities including most major currencies. That said, I’ve been considering purchasing a small amount as a sort of super lotto ticket.

        1. If political instability came to China or if the U.S. dollar took a big inflationary turn, then that super lotto ticket could really pay off. And it isn’t unreasonable to suspect that both may happen in our lifetimes. But it’s hard to pass up regular returns waiting for the inevitable. Jesus has been coming back “soon” for 2,000 years.

          And gold will react positively to political instability in China or U.S. inflation. But unlike Bitcoin, the stocks that mine it pay regular dividends. And there are other non-gold stocks that pay even better dividends, many of which will outperform gold in the interim.

          Anyway, before I jumped in, I’d need to understand what people use it for and understand why people will use it in the future more than they do today. With marijuana legalization looking more and more likely all over the country and commodity deflation giving the Fed the leeway to get reasonable, seems like Bitcoin is likely to lose some luster on its killer applications in the medium term.

          I’d definitely like to understand the logic surrounding it better.

          1. Yeah, I totally agree. I’m not one to part easily with hard earned money. I would not put a large amount into it. No more than I would drop on red or black on a roulette table. The potential upside is enticing though. Really more of a bet than part of my portfolio.

    2. I think it shut down and reopened, but I used to play bitcoin poker at sealswithclubs.

    3. MJ is not the only illegal thing you can buy with BTC. Purchases that make no sense with credit card or cash work with BTC ex microtransactions, paying for using other people’s wifi, etc. It also acts as a wealth teleporter which is probably why much of BTC’s activity is in China.

      The ability to use cryptocurrency to buy small amounts of intangible things could make it paradigm-shifting for computer networks. MaidSafe and Storj tap into this. Storj is a project to let people set aside part of their hard drives for decentralized cloud storage. MaidSafe is more ambitious. Sia is similar to Storj but currently online.

    4. ” if the fed is done with silly rates and the U.S. dollar continues to hold its value relative to other national currencies”

      Got some bad news for you Ken.

  5. While I certainly have no idea of Bitcoins future viability, I would say don’t buy it unless you can afford to lose it. That said, upside potential seems pretty high if it does catch on given the supply restriction.

  6. 2016 is going to be a record year for Chipotle.

    1. I may just pass right through to 2017.

      1. You let it go. You’re not my dad.

    2. Even more outbreaks than 2015?

      1. You can bet on it. And even more stock price plunges.

    3. Chipotle was my favorite place to eat for years, but I stopped eating there after their “love wins” adverts this past summer. Then all this ecoli stuff happens.

      Bigotry saves lives.

      1. I had to look that up – once again I am glad I don’t twitter.

        No, I’m most turned off by their anti-GMO nonsense. I refuse to pay extra for smug.

      2. There really is no reason to go to Chipotle. I rarely do any fast food anymore. It’s just not that good.

      3. Today’s weekly “food-related” post by BL featured this quote from the Cato Institute’s Walter Olson:

        “The troubles at Chipotle (whose food I like and buy, despite its dumb anti-GMO stance) brought home two points: local and handmade and every other good thing bring real tradeoffs, and food hazards aren’t just the result of moral laxity fixable by replacing “them” with educated idealists like “us.” “

        1. They’re in real trouble now. It’s impossible to safely buy lettuce from 300 different sources in a misguided effort to go “local”. They’re going to have to change their entire business model, and the anti-GMO cult isn’t happy about that.

  7. I haven’t been paying attention the last year or so. Is there now an easy way to get bitcoin that doesn’t involve a briefcase of cash and a dark alley in Chinatown?

    1. I’m sure this guy would be happy to sell you some.Good video btw.

      Reason TV link

    2. Coinbase will let you buy the easily.

    3. Yes, but if you want the most anonymity go to the dark alley.

  8. I’m just waiting for someone to make a program that combines Bitcoin and Minecraft. My kids will make me a rich man in no time.

  9. Santa in Iraq

    There is something horribly creepy and weird about a man in a Santa costume in a refugee camp in a desert. Some cultural traditions are simply not as ‘universal’ as we might pretend. The popularity of Jesus I can understand. He was a bearded, flip-flop-wearing desert-resident himself, and received treatment not unlike many critics of Saddam. And Christmas gift-giving etc i think makes sense. But I think Kris Kringle and his whole “crazy old man in a Red Velvet pimp-suit” shtick translates …poorly. Like Ronald McDonald, but even more “scary pedophile”, without the excuse of a tasty hamburger.

      1. The article was comparatively Santa-Free, despite the teaser picture and headline.

        I mean, it goes from… “Father Christmas has been spotted in various locations in Baghdad, hanging out at a coffee shop or at the entrance to a huge mall, where people gather around him and a Christmas tree, posing for pictures.”

        to…

        “Udai hates the Baath Party, but thinks Iraq’s best days are behind it. “The country is now divided, and we aren’t illusionists to [make you] think a united Iraq will emerge. Nothing is going to be as before.”…”We thought we were stopping them there, but it seems they were underestimated. It’s all because of the Iraqi Baath Party, whose remnants revived IS.”

        I suppose that qualifies as a “feelgood lifestyle piece” in Iraq

  10. This is a bit long, but it’s an accurate look at the US government incompetence wrt ME policy.

    The Conscience of an Arms Dealer: How a Bombed Airport in Yemen and My Year With Rand Paul Made Me Quit the Pentagon

    And this is not an isolated incident. These types of things have been going on since the beginning of the GWoT, and it all stems from a lack competent strategy (actually any strategy).

    This is where the “we need to do something” mentality gets you.

    1. We do need to do something, though; we need to mind our business.

      1. ISIS and AQ are our business, as are all that use violence to end our freedoms.

      2. “From a March 28, 1786, letter written by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who were American diplomats at the time, to U.S. Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay reporting on their conversation in London with the ambassador from Tripoli regarding piracy by the Barbary States:

        We took the liberty to make some enquiries concerning the ground of their pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.

        The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet; that it was written in their Koran; that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Mussulman [Muslim] who was slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

        Leaving them alone has never resulted in us being left alone

        1. What a load of shit.

          Criminals, attempting to justify their criminal actions based upon their religion in the hopes of gaining support from others within their religion. And the only time that works is when the aggrieved starts treating all from that religion as criminals.

          Stop being the enabler.

          1. “Criminals, attempting to justify their criminal actions based upon their religion in the hopes of gaining support from others within their religion.”

            No they hope to rule with their religion and their criminal actions are a means to that end.

            “And the only time that works is when the aggrieved starts treating all from that religion as criminals.”

            What this statement has to do with the real world remains a mystery.

            1. No they hope to rule with their religion and their criminal actions are a means to that end.

              No, they hope to continue their criminal activity by using their religion as an excuse for it.

              What this statement has to do with the real world remains a mystery.

              Toxic, really, how old are you? Because the military has been teaching this to its officers for at least 30 years. This is terrorism 101. Because you are unfamiliar with how terrorists manipulate public perceptions to achieve their objectives, doesn’t mean that it’s not happening.

              The greatest gift you can give an Islamic terrorist is to blame his entire religion for his actions. That drives every Muslim in the world to the side of his cause.

              You’re not stupid, Toxic. You’re just ignorant.

        2. “Leaving them alone has never resulted in us being left alone”

          True. Non-interventionism has always been a fantasy.

    2. It is an accurate look at the USGs incompetence with regards to more than ME policy.

  11. Merry Christmas, Day 2!

    And unlike most weekends, I won’t mention [name of conflict deleted], [name of procedure deleted], [name of food item deleted], or [name of U.S. President deleted].

    1. What about [name of movie deleted]?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.