View Poll Results: Have you ever lived in a socialist country?

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
  • I am a citizen of a socialist country and like it

    4 14.81%
  • I have spent time in a socialist country and socialism is gravy

    2 7.41%
  • No, but I have a Che Guevara T-shirt

    3 11.11%
  • I have, and socialism is awful

    4 14.81%
  • I'm a red-blooded American, to hell with those pinko commies

    14 51.85%
Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 137

Thread: Have you ever lived in a socialist country?

  1. #81
    Sage
    German guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 06:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    5,187

    Re: Have you ever lived in a socialist country?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    i am a history guy if WWII, and i don't like the Nazi idea of government or killing Jews.

    what i like is the uniforms, the weapons, tactics, and i know everyone in the German military was not a Nazi, some were fighting for there country.

    i have respect for soldiers, who fought for Germany, and fought by the rules of war, they where doing their job, as they were trained too do.

    men like barkmann, fought then went home to where they were born before the war, and picked up were they left off, and became good citizens, i believe he was the fire marshal, and mayor of this town before he passed away 3 years ago.

    as too Germany, i love the beer, its the best, wurst, ...god!, how i miss it, and the skiing i used too do also.

    i have always wanted to return, maybe before i die i will get my chance.
    I'm glad you are not a Nazi sympathizer. As you probably know, that's a very delicate issue in Germany ... and while I consider myself politically moderate and usually think supporters of any ideology have some good points, I have no tolerance whatsoever for Nazis.

    So as long as you are just a "history nerd", go for it! But be careful ... your fondness for the style of Nazi uniforms could easily be misunderstood ... at least in Germany.

    Hope you will make it to Germany again eventually! =)
    "Not learning from mistakes is worse than committing mistakes. When you don't allow yourself to make mistakes, it is hard to be tolerant of others and it does not allow even God to be merciful."

  2. #82
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Have you ever lived in a socialist country?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andalublue View Post
    I'm going to assume you're a non-native English speaker. If so, congratulations on your excellent language skills, you're as good as German Guy and better than most. Please don't take this the wrong way, but 'too' means excessively or beyond the normal e.g. he is too fat, that's too much. 'To' is a preposition meaning in the direction of, or reaching or receiving, e.g. he went to Italy, I left it up to the individual, or you were cruel to him. I hope this helps.
    everyone has their gifts, mine is not........... language usage.

    i have a thing for numbers, and years, history and i have the ability too exact things, when i read something i am really trying to get info from.

    since i read the federalist papers and the constitution, and the writings of the founders, i can easily remember things, some people would miss.

    but when it comes too how i post, its always in short brief sentences, i found by typing in other forums, that para's, the wordings seems to run together and gets confusing and information is lost that i am trying to convey.

    as to my nationality......i am an American....and i am not offended...i am long past that is forums, it does not phrase me.

    for my views on government i have been called every nasty name in the book.....
    Last edited by Master PO; 10-30-12 at 02:03 PM.

  3. #83
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    12-11-12 @ 04:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,080

    Re: Have you ever lived in a socialist country?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andalublue View Post
    That's a relief. So, how bad do you think they really are?
    If I was trying to a positive spin on it Id say they could be worse, I cant be much more positive than that because obviously things are bad right now.

    You think that current levels of unemployment are due to the continuing effects of the pre-Thatcher era?
    There is a continuance factor, I wouldnt blame it all on that era (nor would I put it all on the shoulders of politicians) but some of the damage done then has never really been repaired (nor ever will be).

    I lived through 1973 as an 11-year-old kid in a dirt poor family, you are wildly exaggerating.
    I was there too in a dirt poor family and Im not exagerating at all.

    She was wildly popular with a large section of society.
    Not pre-election. She was actually pretty unpopular & would no way have been elected in 1979 had things not been so dire.

    They loved her wars, her anti-unionism and her flagrant populism.
    Some began to like her because of the Falklands war, yes, that was about the start of her rise in popularity, before that, as I said, she wasnt that popular.

    Two-thirds of the Press loved her, and still do.
    Only if you ask people from the left of the spectrum, conservatives would argue the opposite (& frequently did at the time).

    Media bias often depends where youre looking from.

    The bankers and financial industry loved her and bank-rolled her privatisations and destruction of the industrial base.
    The destruction of the industrial base began in your halcyon days, that wasnt Thatchers doing. At worst she can be blamed for not bailing everyone out of the mess labor had created, but the counter argument was there was no money to bail anyone out with, which was one of the reasons for privatization, someone had to pay the debts off & those debts gave the banks a very strong hand so of course they used that to influence the sell off.

    Its kind of like if you or I borrowed a million bucks tomorrow, unless youre a secret milionaire like me you wouldnt be able to pay it back, at which point the bank would send the balliffs, and like the banks do with goverments so theyd do with me & you, theyd push us to sell off the family jewels to pay off the debt.

    Really? I haven't heard the Seventies mentioned.
    Almost daily on my tv.

    Don't forget that the Blair years were a continuation of the Thatcher years, not the reincarnation of Wilson/Callaghan.
    I wouldnt call them a continuation as there are clear differences but certain trends were maintained certainly.

    You called it, a 'boogyman'. You're aware that boogymen aren't real, aren't you?
    Dont you know you cant prove, or disprove, that which doesnt exist? Therefore everything can be real, but if it worries you substitute your own phrase for something feared.

    I'm not arguing that the Sixties and Seventies were halcyon days. I'm arguing that there were a lot of good things that came out of post-War socialism in the UK that have been lost: equality of opportunity; social mobility; community and solidarity. I'm also arguing that despite what the ideologues of neo-liberalism might have us believe, things are not appreciably better now than they were 40 years ago, it's just that a small class of plutocrats are a lot, lot better off than they were, which is what all that class warfare that Thatcher et al waged was all about.
    So basically things werent great & youre just nostalgic for certain elements?

    We all get that. Did you ever life on mars where he goes back to the 70's & was smiling when he found white dog ****? I bet everyone who remembers those days smiled as well, thats nostalgia, but I wouldnt want white dog **** put all over my road today because of it.

    I remember good things from the 70's, I also remember good things from the Thatcher era, but one swallow doesnt make a summer, you have to kind of look at the bigger picture, the balance sheet, the costs, the checks & balances & really the late 70's is seen as Britains nadir, Im sure for some they have fond memories but the cost wasnt worth it.

    Again I bring up that little old lady, no light, no heat, shivering, & afraid & the **** piled up against her door, garbage uncollected, rats scurrying around & no one to deal with it as she slowly slips away.

    Was that community & was that a price worth paying?

    Are you really telling me things arent better now?

    You know the funny thing about the 70's. It was the poorest who got **** on the most. As the economy was squeezed, as companies tightened belts to survive, wages tumbled, I know people from back then who were earning in real terms a quarter of todays minimum wage.

    I think theyd argue they are better off today.

    74-79 really is the benchmark for bad & thats a majority view, sure if you polled left theyd probably put 79-84 as worse, but even then most would probably admit to 74-79 as being next worst, on the right obviously theyd go 74-79 & if you polled across the board 74-79 would lose by a ways.

    Ive heard lots of "apology" arguments, many socialists go with "Yes, but it wasnt real socialism...", others blame external factors, others the previous regime, some blame MI5 & special branch, global pressures, or other arguments, but even to the left most wont try and play it as anything but a bad time.

  4. #84
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    26,111

    Re: Have you ever lived in a socialist country?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Austin View Post
    Only if you ask people from the left of the spectrum, conservatives would argue the opposite (& frequently did at the time).

    Media bias often depends where youre looking from.
    There were a number of studies done to show that the media in Britain during the Seventies and Eighties was predominantly right leaning. You might take a look at the studies conducted by the Glasgow University Media Group.

    The destruction of the industrial base began in your halcyon days, that wasnt Thatchers doing. At worst she can be blamed for not bailing everyone out of the mess labor had created, but the counter argument was there was no money to bail anyone out with, which was one of the reasons for privatization, someone had to pay the debts off & those debts gave the banks a very strong hand so of course they used that to influence the sell off.
    No, you're right. It didn't all date from the Thatcher years and there were many, many problems prior to that including a degree of corruption within the trades union movement and mismanagement from within large corporations and nationalised industries. She cannot be blamed for not bailing everyone out as she was not the state and couldn't have done so even if she'd been inclined to do so. What she can be blamed for is the destruction of our primary industries. Privatisation did not pay off any debts. Where did you get that idea? Privatisation sold off to large investors highly valuable national assets for peanuts. Those industries were then deregulated in a way that made them massively profitable. Had she wanted those industries to become highly profitable for the public good she could have deregulated when they were under public ownership and the nation would have reaped huge benefits. We'd also still have a car industry, a steel industry and a coal industry and would have been rolling in the profits from telecommunications and oil revenues.

    Its kind of like if you or I borrowed a million bucks tomorrow, unless youre a secret milionaire like me you wouldnt be able to pay it back, at which point the bank would send the balliffs, and like the banks do with goverments so theyd do with me & you, theyd push us to sell off the family jewels to pay off the debt.
    Bad analogy as there were umpteen alternative solutions, one of which I've just given you.

    Almost daily on my tv.
    Examples from British TV? I've not seen or heard them.


    I wouldnt call them a continuation as there are clear differences but certain trends were maintained certainly.
    Yes, there were differences, but I'd suggest they were differences of time. Owing to the depredations of the Thatcher years on the NHS, for example, the public appreciation of the importance of investment in it rose sharply. The Blair government's investment was a factor of evident public demand that they wished to see it improved, not wholly dismantled. This continues to this day and the rhetoric of the Tory party is that they now want to be the champion of the NHS. You didn't hear that from Thatcher's ideologues in the early-80s.

    So basically things werent great & youre just nostalgic for certain elements?
    If you think that an appreciation of social mobility, equal access to education, health and services and a commitment to narrowing rather than widening the wealth gap is mere nostalgia, then we have nothing in common.

    I remember good things from the 70's, I also remember good things from the Thatcher era, but one swallow doesnt make a summer, you have to kind of look at the bigger picture, the balance sheet, the costs, the checks & balances & really the late 70's is seen as Britains nadir, Im sure for some they have fond memories but the cost wasnt worth it.
    I remember great things from the Thatcher years, none of which was she responsible for. I also remember terrible things. I remember working in a welfare rights advice centre in Sunderland during the miners' strike and having families with babies and toddlers having their electricity cut off, literally being starved into submission. I remember being beaten and imprisoned for daring to protest against the Falklands War. I remember being arrested and beaten again in a gay club in Manchester for dancing "in a licentious manner".

    Again I bring up that little old lady, no light, no heat, shivering, & afraid & the **** piled up against her door, garbage uncollected, rats scurrying around & no one to deal with it as she slowly slips away.
    And you think that's all in the past.

    Are you really telling me things arent better now?
    Some things are. People are not getting arrested for dirty dancing, but people are still getting beaten and killed for protesting. Old ladies are still shivering during harsh winters. Personal debt is exponentially higher, and unemployment is double. Go figure.

    You know the funny thing about the 70's. It was the poorest who got **** on the most.
    What's funny about that? They always are and still are. Go to Kensington or Knightsbridge, you'll find no sign whatsoever of a global economic crisis. Top-end property is shooting up in value. But go to Barnsley, Sunderland or Paisley and you won't notice much difference between 2012, 1972 or 1932.

    74-79 really is the benchmark for bad & thats a majority view,
    I'm sure you've got some data to back that up.

    Ive heard lots of "apology" arguments, many socialists go with "Yes, but it wasnt real socialism...", others blame external factors, others the previous regime, some blame MI5 & special branch, global pressures, or other arguments, but even to the left most wont try and play it as anything but a bad time.
    Worse in some ways, better in many ways.
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

  5. #85
    Sage
    German guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 06:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    5,187

    Re: Have you ever lived in a socialist country?

    Oh, and another source for misunderstanding just crossed my mind:

    In America, the term "liberalism" has become synonymous to "left" for historical reasons. As far as I can tell, that is not the case outside of America. Historically, "classical liberalism" was the ideology that supported free markets, so the direct opposite to today's "liberalism". To avoid confusion, free market advocated have coined the term "libertarianism" for their ideology.

    In Germany, for example, our "liberals" are the furthermost opposite to the left, on economic matters, as the "libertarians" in America. But we still call them "liberals". So the aforementioned "ordoliberals" who created the German Social Market Economy were not related to the ideology of American "liberals". The American Democrats would probably be called "social liberals" or even "social democrats" in Germany.

    There is only the less specific, general use of the word "liberal" meaning as much as "they're rather tolerant and allow much" which kind of bridges these rather different ideologies.

    Similarly, the Nazis ("National Socialists") have ideologically not much in common with leftist socialists -- their label "socialism" is in sharp contrast to other kinds of socialists and only find similarities in the very unspecific, general meaning à la "they focus rather on society than on the individual".
    "Not learning from mistakes is worse than committing mistakes. When you don't allow yourself to make mistakes, it is hard to be tolerant of others and it does not allow even God to be merciful."

  6. #86
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Have you ever lived in a socialist country?

    Quote Originally Posted by German guy View Post
    Oh, and another source for misunderstanding just crossed my mind:

    In America, the term "liberalism" has become synonymous to "left" for historical reasons. As far as I can tell, that is not the case outside of America. Historically, "classical liberalism" was the ideology that supported free markets, so the direct opposite to today's "liberalism". To avoid confusion, free market advocated have coined the term "libertarianism" for their ideology.

    In Germany, for example, our "liberals" are the furthermost opposite to the left, on economic matters, as the "libertarians" in America. But we still call them "liberals". So the aforementioned "ordoliberals" who created the German Social Market Economy were not related to the ideology of American "liberals". The American Democrats would probably be called "social liberals" or even "social democrats" in Germany.

    There is only the less specific, general use of the word "liberal" meaning as much as "they're rather tolerant and allow much" which kind of bridges these rather different ideologies.

    Similarly, the Nazis ("National Socialists") have ideologically not much in common with leftist socialists -- their label "socialism" is in sharp contrast to other kinds of socialists and only find similarities in the very unspecific, general meaning à la "they focus rather on society than on the individual".

    a classical liberal,........ is what a libertarian is today..........the founders were classical liberals....

    the term libertarian did not exist in the days of the founders.

    classical liberalism died in the late 1800's and liberals or (progressives) took the title in about 1890.

    then america starts seeing progressives like Teddy Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson who violated the constitution. hated blacks and segregated the military.

  7. #87
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,175

    Re: Have you ever lived in a socialist country?

    Quote Originally Posted by celticwar17 View Post
    I've spent some time in a socialist country (Russia)... and as far as governmental criticism... it was pretty terrible. and you can tell that people lived in fear and was afraid to say anything bad about Putin.
    When I was there, I got the feeling that people weren't so much fearful of speaking their minds as much as they were apolitical. After growing up in the USSR, who could blame them?


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  8. #88
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    12-11-12 @ 04:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,080

    Re: Have you ever lived in a socialist country?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andalublue View Post
    There were a number of studies done to show that the media in Britain during the Seventies and Eighties was predominantly right leaning. You might take a look at the studies conducted by the Glasgow University Media Group.
    As I said a lot depends on perspective & plenty of studies have shown the opposite argument to.

    From a personal perspective Id have put the lean marginally to the right but then after the mess of 74-79 & considering, in my opinion the media tends to swing and lean towards the government, and considering obvious self interests, its what Id expect, but studies can be produced showing leans in both directions so whatever the reality, my perspective, your perspective, one study or another its not a huge margin, nor of much significance.

    No, you're right. It didn't all date from the Thatcher years and there were many, many problems prior to that including a degree of corruption within the trades union movement and mismanagement from within large corporations and nationalised industries.
    Whatever a mans personal political perspective I think it can be agreed it was sad that at such a time of need there were those who were basically just corrupt (left, right & center) who let everyone down.

    There are a lot of things from that era (lets go 74-84 to include both sides) that are not good adverts for left or right.

    She cannot be blamed for not bailing everyone out as she was not the state and couldn't have done so even if she'd been inclined to do so. What she can be blamed for is the destruction of our primary industries.
    Again that was really a 70's thing. A lot may have died on her watch but they were terminal before that & thats not to put all the blame on the 74-79 era either, the world was changing post-war & Britain didnt react to it fast enough, or in the right way, & would of struggled under a tory or labor regime, 74-79 just sped the process up.

    Privatisation did not pay off any debts. Where did you get that idea?
    A LOT of debt was paid off & we can quibble over which penny, from which place paid for what but the money came in & money went out on debts.

    Privatisation sold off to large investors highly valuable national assets for peanuts.
    I know, but then debts needed to be paid so money had to come from somewhere and taxes were already high so someone might have argued against some of the tax cuts in the thatcher era, or even about the distribution of the share of the burden, but no one, left or right, could argue for tax rises sufficient to fill the holes so money had to come from somewhere.

    Its oft asked question "where else could the money have come from?" its the tory line of defense, & the #1 answer is usually by raising tax on the rich but do you remember how high that already was?

    Theres a threshold in tax where, if exceeded, its been observed that revenue actually shrinks for numerous reasons & Britain had experianced that, at the peak of tax money was actually draining out of the country in tax avoidance, bussinesses were relocating, jobs were being cut, & other methods were being deployed to move the money because of the tax burden & revenue was starting to shrink.

    Any more tax hikes & the economy would have collapsed completely, British companies would have folded, or relocated & most of the super-rich would have taken their money & ran.

    There was no wiggle room, no more money to borrow, debts to pay and a stagnant economy, someone had to get some money from somewhere.

    Those industries were then deregulated in a way that made them massively profitable. Had she wanted those industries to become highly profitable for the public good she could have deregulated when they were under public ownership and the nation would have reaped huge benefits. We'd also still have a car industry
    Im sorry but thats a dream right there, the British auto industry was a dead duck, thatcher or no thatcher.

    I mean thats sort of one of the things I was talking about earlier when I said the world was changing & we were slow to react.

    Even before thatcher the whole manufacturing sector was a joke, with bad management, high tax & high wages meaning it had become just impossible to produce competitively priced goods.

    Many of our best industries were run by fools, I mean we all know the story of the mini, priced lower than production costs & many were brutalized by strikes and driven to extinction & lets be honest while some unions have campaigned for genuine workers rights over the years there have also been others motivated by shear selfish greed.

    I know people who were on ridiculous wages in the 1970's & 1980's. I know one guy who was grossing over £900 a week at one stage for manual labor, thats about £3500 ($5600) a week in todays money. I know thats probably an extreme but you just cant pay everyone silly money & run competative bussinesses at the same time.

    Post-war Britain was arrogant, thought it was still king of the world, thought it was still the richest & still the leader in technology & so would control the world & its economy, admittedly now they felt theyd have to share it with their American cousins but they didnt see the rising tide of change, the tiger economies, Japan, China & India rising, the increasing industrialization of the third world or the fact that others might start making our products just as well as we could, nor the fact that in a shrinking world of air travel and gigantic cargo ships that these products could be moved around the world in their millions.

    People really didnt see it coming, they were fat & lazy & complacent.

    How would our manufacturing industry survived without becoming lean & competative?

    a steel industry and a coal industry and would have been rolling in the profits
    Coal is definately a 50-50 one, yes thatcher not only stuck the knife in, but smiled while doing it but the industry (& unions) had done themselves no favors.

    from telecommunications
    That was undoubtedly the biggest mistake. If people back then had seen todays phone market theyd have been a greater outrage at its undervalued sell off.

    Pro or anti-privitization that was a hideous cock up, even worse than gordon browns gold sell off and that was bad enough.

    and oil revenues.
    The oil industry consider 74-79 as the worst pissing away of oil revenue (mind you they think every governments screwed up on Britains oil reserves.

    Examples from British TV? I've not seen or heard them.
    At least once a day during the recent conference season, lots of back & forth with tories pointing at the 70's & labor looking shocked & saying but were not like that anymore (which technically is true labor now & then are two very different animals).

    Yes, there were differences, but I'd suggest they were differences of time. Owing to the depredations of the Thatcher years on the NHS, for example, the public appreciation of the importance of investment in it rose sharply. The Blair government's investment was a factor of evident public demand that they wished to see it improved, not wholly dismantled. This continues to this day and the rhetoric of the Tory party is that they now want to be the champion of the NHS. You didn't hear that from Thatcher's ideologues in the early-80s.
    Certainly theres always swings, some one spends, tax rises to pay for it, people swing the other way for a tax cut, to fund that spendings cut and so on, but as I think you observe the greater swing is to the middle & I think thats another "problem" the west are reacting slowly too.

    The trouble is, as I see it, you cant please everyone & in fact the bigger the state becomes, the more issues it embraces, the less people you can appeal to (forget left & right, think of it mathematically with an ever increasing array of combinations of positives & negatives) so they sink to the middle to try and catch as many votes as possible & you see it with both labor & tory trying to play the one nation populist card.

    I think if a few issues, that really shouldnt be the bussiness of government, were kicked into the long grass, people could concentrate on more weighty issues & feel more represented on them.

    Sorry about trimming a lot of your post. I did read it all & appreciate your personal experiances (incidentally almost included my own miners strike story - I lived in a pit village for a while) but I was having trouble with some sort of character limit.

  9. #89
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    12-11-12 @ 04:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,080

    Re: Have you ever lived in a socialist country?

    Actually scratch the 50-50 on the mining front thats a disrespectful figure because she took far to much pleasure in it, I only meant to say there were other factors & the 50-50 figure was lazy and innacurate of me.

  10. #90
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    12-11-12 @ 04:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,080

    Re: Have you ever lived in a socialist country?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    a classical liberal,........ is what a libertarian is today..........the founders were classical liberals....

    the term libertarian did not exist in the days of the founders.

    classical liberalism died in the late 1800's and liberals or (progressives) took the title in about 1890.

    then america starts seeing progressives like Teddy Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson who violated the constitution. hated blacks and segregated the military.
    Its where you find the left/right flip.

    In the past classic liberals were considered "left wing" fighting for freedoms & liberties against the "right wing" state, then progressive liberals became more statist but labled "left wing" & classic liberals got relabled as "right wing".

    I guess it shows the limit of such labels.

Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •