![]() |
Quote:
My two sons have not seen the same doctor twice in 7 years..... 7 years for two boys. I have gone to the same hospital the whole time, i personally have not seen the same doctor twice. This outside of specialist who you must demand and then wait until they can fit you in. I have waited for the appt I am having next mon for 45 days, that was the soonest avail he had, the soonest. I meant no disrespect. I don't know what it is like in Canada, but it apparently isn't all that great here, congratulations on your fantastic country seriously, I am jealous of your free health care system and how proud you all are of it, I'm just not trusting our government to get it right, and the way they have pushed this bill doesn't help with that trust. Maybe I should try it, Canada that is. Wait, I hate snow, although I think we got more here in MD than ya'll did. I did love the Olympics though, that was awesome, I loved the four tribal nations, that was way cool. ---------- Post added at 11:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 PM ---------- Quote:
No prob. rahl, I've got a trampoline, apparently I've put myself on that same limb a couple times, as everyone seems to be so graciously pointing out. Ah, the taste of defeat, it sucks. But I'm not done spitting. fsst, fsst, fsst.... |
I USED to have the utmost respect for Dennis Kucinich. Sure at times he was nutty Denny, but you had to respect the way he would dig his heels in and right or wrong would never break or change his vote. I have seen and heard interviews with him since announcing his change. He looks and sounds beaten and tired. I truly hope the Dem leadership likes what it did to people like Dennis and Sherrod Brown. Not only has it destroyed many careers of otherwise good people, but the leadership has destroyed Congress people that actually cared about their constituents and this nation.
FUCK YOU DEM PARTY GO TO HELL AND I WILL LAUGH WHEN YOU LOSE COME NOVEMBER..... FUCK YOU PELOSI, OBAMA, AND ALL YOU POWER HUNGRY EGOTISTICAL SELF RIGHTEOUS IDOTS WHO ONLY CARE ABOUT THE POWER. FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So sad..... Dennis was truly a good person and you destroyed him... Wonder when the markets crash tomorrow, what's going to be your spin?????? ps: I DEEPLY APOLOGIZE IF MY LANGUAGE OFFENDS... IT IS THE PASSION SPEAKING AND WATCHING WHAT THIS PARTY I ONCE SO LOVED HAS DONE TO NOT ONLY DENNIS AND GOOD PEOPLE BUT TO THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE. |
The absurd overreactions are astonishing.
|
Well that was annoying, guess pan figured if caps don't work to get his point across, use really annoying huge lettering.
Quote:
Yes the Olympics were quite the even, the opening ceremonies were great, aside from the one cauldron malfunctioning. You probably did have more snow than us, we had a rather mild winter compared to normal it seemed. |
Quote:
I do think it is unfortunate when passion gets in the way of the facts. |
I look forward to the day when someone actually posts something factual against the current reform. Rage is no substitute to reason.
|
Quote:
|
Why would you be disappointed in Obama? It ain't like this is a shocker. Unless you're disappointed that he didn't go as far as he said he would during the campaign? Because that's why I'm disappointed in him.
|
Quote:
|
dc-dux I'll be watching you, you better check and double check all your facts, regardless of where your passions lie and whether the facts you detail are lies that where told to you, lies you trusted or believed in. Facts are sometimes what people convince you to believe. I will continue to believe this was wrong, that is a fact.
|
Quote:
And I get annoyed when they say it's 1/6th of our economy. It shouldn't be. In most other countries it's not. Health expenses in my yearly budget are 1/50th to 1/40th of my income. |
Quote:
I try to check my facts very carefully and have no problem acknowledging when I am wrong and I dont post links to partisan opinions that are misleading or factually incorrect. That comes with 20+ years of working on public policy issues. It is unfortunate that you were not able to do the same throughout this discussion. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Sorry, but I just find it very sad for the country when they have to do this to someone who actually cared. It's all about POWER. Today, the US has officially become late stage Rome with Barrack Room Emperors. |
Quote:
Every interview I saw, he explained why he changed his vote even though he does not believe the bill is perfect. |
Quote:
I just wanted what you said repeated, I wholeheartedly agree, this administration is a joke, and the American people's new "heath care" will be the butt of it. |
Quote:
I'm just saying, it you're disappointed with anyone, it should be the leadership of the Republican party for its inability to muster up enough blind, seething, misplaced, fearful, misinformed enmity to successfully stymie the president's efforts. You should be disappointed that they couldn't come up with something more plausible and more fear inducing than "death panels". You should be disappointed that they couldn't come up with something scarier and less familiar than socialism to use as a motivator. You should be disappointed that the Republican party fucked up the country so badly when they were in power that they couldn't help but put the Democrats in a position to pass this legislation. The last person you should be disappointed in is Obama. |
Quote:
is it the 30+million who will now have access to coverage? is it the pre-ex exclusion? is it the fact that now all health premiums will go down due to increased risk pool? is it the fact that it is budget nuetral? is it the fact that you can keep the insurance you have, or choose from a plethera of other private carriers? |
Quote:
I held out hope that Kucinich would stand up and change back. I find it sadly funny you care more about where I say he said he was browbeaten and had no choice than the fact the party destroyed the man. How pathetic. Get what you want at any cost, huh? Isn't that what we stood against W for? Didn't we feel W did the same thing? And now, the leaders of this party are far worse and have done far more damage than W EVER DID. (And I have never been a W fan, so please don't go there.) ---------- Post added at 12:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 AM ---------- Quote:
The Libertarian Party right now is probably salivating over the fact they will have a serious influx of people joining now. |
Quote:
And I just disagree with your emotional rants that are without factual foundation about Obama and the Democrats. But carry on in your bashing crusade! That is your right and I support that right. |
Nowhere in that interview did he say he was browbeaten. He stated that though he didn't agree with the bill he did agree that if the bill was defeated any chance for any reform would take years and years to come about again and he couldn't be apart of that. Unless there is some other interview I missed, I don't see where you are coming from
|
Quote:
Kucinich specifically said in the interview that he wasn't threatened by constituents or the party. Kucinich said repeatedly in the interview that he voted for a flawed bill because he thought it might make more significant reform possible. |
Quote:
He's always been an idealist and up until the past week ALWAYS been energetic and very self assured in his views. That interview and others the past week, he has been a shell of himself. Broken, trembling voice. I dare you to listen to older Dennis tapes and compare them and tell me that you can't hear the voice of a broken man in Dennis now. He is on again with Triv today (Monday) at 4pm. Feel free to listen. I'm sure Triv will play the parts I am talking about. |
Quote:
I agree he was not enthusiastic about the bill, which is not a perfect "progressive' bill..but his explanation was reasonable and rational and not a defeatest emotional response....of course, unless you wanted to be believe he was brow beaten. |
Quote:
|
Pan, he is an old man so clearly he isn't going to sound like he did in his earlier years. I'm sorry that the facts in which you yourself provided contradict your own posts, but there it is in plain english for everyone to listen to.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
So don't tell me I DON'T KNOW Dennis.... I DO and Triv (as much as I love Triv) had NOTHING to do with my opinion over Dennis. |
Ever think that maybe he's just tired? He's been through a lot lately....
|
Quote:
|
The fact is he never said he was brow beaten...he never said he had no choice...he was not "bought" as others (FOX heads) allege.
He made a hard personal decision that a bill that is not perfect still has enough good at the foundation and is far better than no bill at all. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I love the Dennis bashing. "He's old".... lol 63 is not that old in congress. Maybe this had something to do with it: from Wiki: Quote:
|
Quote:
You put words in his mouth that are not in any interview. The rest is your interpretation... based on your own admitted emotional and passionate opposition to the bill, perhaps? I doubt that as well as you "know him" that he confided in you personally about his own emotional state. |
Quote:
please feel free to post any links with time indexes of him specifically saying that he was browbeaten and strongarmed into voting, then maybe you will have a leg to stand on. But as of now, the info you yourself posted put the lie to your claim. |
Quote:
The Obama administration has done more damage to American than Bush and his administration ever did? Really? The mind boggles. Sorry. But as an observer from the outside, I just can't agree. |
So here we are, six pages seething with rage, and yet not one post about the specifics of the plan people disagree with. THEY DESTROYED AMERICA, SOCIALISM, ETC. ETC. and yet no specifics. For a bill that is apparently so terrible, it shouldn't be that hard, should it?
It is particularly surreal to see people at the same time buy into the "socialism" bullshit and be disappointed that Kucinich voted for this bill, when in reality he wanted (like I want) universal healthcare. My bet is that in 2 years all these folks will be enjoying the tax breaks while still raging against Obama. |
Quote:
It's really alright to be sad that the government is not going in the direction you'd like. It's alright to think this is bad for the country (though it'd be nice if facts, not emotion were given as explanations when asked why). But, seriously, it's time to accept that there are a LOT of people out there who think otherwise, and part of living in a Democratic Republic - or any society for that matter - is accepting that, you know what, sometimes those "other people" are going to get what they want and you're not going to get what you want. All the while, the country will go on and life will go on. It's all part of behaving like a grown-up. |
Smeth... I just read the article to which you linked. I can't believe that such a prominent GOP leader would actually say, "we think this is the beginning of the end for America."
America really is a mess. I can't imagine a politician, in such a high position, in any other Western nation, spewing forth such hyperbole. Wow. |
|
David Frum... a Canadian that most of us would be happy to forget is a Canadian. That said, what he had to say was some of the most pragmatic utterances I've heard from *any* Republicans in this debate. Interesting to hear it now that the voting is over. I wonder if this form of spin will get any traction given the new paradigm or will Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and company continue to push their tired agenda on America?
How long can the sort of hysteria that I am seeing (and even reading in this thread) be maintained? How long before it (needlessly) boils over? Hopefully calmer heads prevail. |
Quote:
I can't imagine what "kids" you know who think being able to come home from a hostile country is a sucker punch, but hey. This isn't what I wanted, but, as an independent contractor, I'll sure as heck take it over the alternative. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
the astonishing thing about this logic, such as it is, remains for me that the right is now saying effectively that "the american way" is defined by a health care arrangement that is a permanent expression of class warfare in the context of which over 30 million people do not have access to insurance and so do not have access to basic health care.
of course, you can't say that because the correlates of the argument are really ugly--you know, that these 30 million are extraneous people, or that they're not "real americans" or whatever---so instead the right's meme-machine shifts to matters of abstract "individual" rights as if "individuals" exist outside of society. so then social goals, like raising american capitalism from the barbaric conditions it allows to exist insofar as health care is concerned for the uninsured---become read as some kind of Imposition on the individual. which sets up the conservative Individual as wholly infantile, unable to distinguish itself from the world. the conservative individual is the world until Bad Reminders Come that maybe conservative individuals are not the world. these Bad Reminders typically come from the Persecuting State which is always bad unless it is being used to fund conservative-friendly constituencies like the military. then it is good. conservative Individuals, it seems, like diverting resources to systems that kill people but not so much to resources that make living easier or better for all. whatever. it'd be amazing were it not so prevalent. read this thread. geez. depressing stuff. |
From the hysterical accusations from the Republicans one would think that this healthcare bill was some kind of radical change like single payer or something. Instead it is a middle of the road proposal similar to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan or the Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994. You can only cry "the sky is falling" so many times before you loose all credibility.
I don't think this bill will hurt the Democrats nearly as much as the Republicans think once people realize that life goes on and no one is pulling the plug on grandma. |
The dangerous thing is that most of the benefits won't go into affect for a few years, so the republicans have plenty of time to ramp up the propoganda machine saying "see we told you it wouldn't work, what has this done for you so far?" Even though they know full well it's not going to do a whole lot until 2014.
|
Quote:
Boehner: It's 'Armageddon,' Health Care Bill Will Ruin Country | The FOX Nation Quite amusing to be watching from the outside though, especially in this thread, I mean we've had it all, factual errors, people saying politicians said things when they didn't, some laughs, yep pretty amusing. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
HuffPo has compiled a list of the top 18 immediate effects of the health care bill as well as some that will take effect in the first year of implementation:
Health Reform Bill Summary: The Top 18 Immediate Effects Quote:
|
Opinions turn favorable on health care plan - USATODAY.com
Quote:
|
I know you can't actually hear the defeat in his voice when you read the article, but here's a bit more on Kucinich. Click the link for the full article.
Dennis Kucinich on Health Care Bill - What Obama Didn't Say by Dennis Kucinich - Esquire Quote:
I think that once people stop irrationally assuming the worst about this bill, we'll all be a great deal better off. Nobody thinks it's perfect, and nobody is completely satisfied. Unfortunately, there seems to be an entire political party that exists purely to feed irrational fear of the bill. This isn't the end of the United States. It isn't the end of the economy. It isn't the cause of a crippling deficit that will crush the will of our grandchildren. My prediction is that most of the doomsaying that is currently occurring will fail to be borne out in reality and that most of the folks currently predicting doom won't even realize that they were wrong (much less publicly acknowledge the fact that they were wrong). |
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I suggest we keep our eyes open and ask questions, demand answers and try to get politicians off of their talking points. This should be truly embarrassing to Obama, I wonder if he read the legislation? |
good that you've got your shit straight and are asking the important questions, ace--how will the insurance companies react?
it's a bit mysterious that you don't seem to pay any attention to any of the....um....medical situations in the states that call out for the reforms, no matter how watered down they may be by the obama administrations mistaken approach that had them taking seriously what conservatives said. stuff like this: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/as...10192010en.pdf maternal mortality rates have gone from 6.6/100k in 1987 to 13.3/100k in 2008. the problem, as this report makes clear, is really the radically unequal quality of care afforded different populations in the united states under the system that's being changed. so these are people dying in childbirth. there's lots of other examples. but clearly the question is how the insurance companies will react. |
Quote:
But, there are two types of mandates regarding health care, there is the type like with medicare were everyone is required to participate through taxation and there is the type like in Obama's bill and like in Massachusetts. No matter who proposes the latter, odds are that the Constitutionality will be challenged. If a low income person is living pay check to pay check on average I understand they will pay about 10% of their income on health insurance - fro people living pay check to pay check this is a big deal. Some will face paying their heat bill or pay for health insurance and would rather pay the heat bill - but they are going to get hit with a fine so they may not have a choice. Welcome to the new America. |
Insurance companies will no longer be able to turn away those with pre-ex's. They can't deny them, so there won't be a flood of people going into the exchange.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
because of the documentation behind it ace.
i don't think researchers are calling you up to see if their results are ok with you. so it's really not important whether you like the information or not. class stratification of access to medical care is a basic reality. i hardly expect you to see that because i don't expect you acknowledge the existence of economic classes. there is a debate in here somewhere that will come---not here---about whether medical care should be understood as a business---whether any of it should be for profit---whether that is ethical at all. but for the moment of course, what's important are conservative bromides about rational markets and dismissing information about actual problems of access to medical care. way to go. |
Quote:
An insurance company can simply stop taking new applicants if the "pre-existing" condition issue is expected to be a problem. So, in 2013 they write as much "profitable" business as possible and basically close their doors in 2014. The rush begins, all the people without insurance with pre-existing conditions go into exchanges. 2015, insurance companies start accepting new clients, or perhaps they don't - because the costs for their pool will be significantly lower and so will the premiums. Perhaps, they start a separate company with separate books - oh, you must get it - insurance companies will have people actually read the law, find the holes, and use them as they see fit. The insurance companies know the battle is not over. Insurance companies know the business better than the folks in Washington. ---------- Post added at 07:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 PM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
Is that affordable and accessible if you are a working family making $30-50K and have no insurance? |
Quote:
I don't doubt that insurance companies will follow only the letter of the law and no more. They will in all likelyhood try to exploit any and all loopholes, but the language is very specific in terms of group health insurance. |
by chance i just saw this post from the mit press blog. i'll paste up the relevant paragraphs:
Quote:
do you think mongan provides a useful orientation for thinking about the process that's underway with this legislation? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
---------- Post added at 09:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ---------- Quote:
This is not going to hurt insurance companies or business owners, ultimately these cost will be incurred by the American public one way or the other. My preference with children is to have a system where we simply cover the medical costs for all children in this country period, no questions asked. If a child is being treated for a condition upon obtaining the age of majority, we should continue that treatment for the remainder of their lives, otherwise they buy a policy on their own. That and a free market approach for adults, up to qualifying for Medicare is what I would do - short of a true single payer system with individuals having the option of buying supplemental coverages. Quote:
---------- Post added at 09:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 PM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
There are millions of women in working families above the Medicaid level and w/o insurance. Unlike women (or a spouse) with employer-based health coverage where 85% the cost, on average, is covered by insurance, the cost of pre-natal care and delivery for these women is beyond their means....in the range of $7,000-$8,000. So I guess they shouldnt have children, huh? Or maybe they should just skimp and skip the pre-natal and save about $1,500-$2,000 of that total. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
But for example New York, they have a PCAP/MOMS program: A healthy baby starts with a healthy pregnancy. If you look at their guidlines manual there is a presumption of qualification and the qualification for the program is up to 200% of the poverty level: Quote:
---------- Post added at 10:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 PM ---------- Quote:
{added} DC, here is more infor for you, if you need it: Quote:
So, far I have only done three searches. |
The average cost...from pre-natal to deliver is $7,600
Healthcare 411: Audio Feature And you are sure that women w/o health insurance and above the Medcaid threshold will find someone to cover the majority, or a significant portion, of that cost? 200% of the poverty level, ace? Thats $28K (ave) for a husband/wife. Above that and w/o insurance, you are sol. |
Quote:
---------- Post added at 10:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 PM ---------- Quote:
One of the reasons the out-of-wedlock birth rate is so high is because of arbitrary cut-offs like this. If the man has a good job paying over $28,000, it would be in his and her interests not to get married and incur the costs, but to have her go through the government subsidized care saving about $8k. People are not dumb. And, I don't suggest we don't help people, but some programs are set up to make people act in dishonest ways and have negative consequences. Once the guy knows the government is going to do his job, his connection gets weakened. A better way is simply to get the costs lower and not "penalize" people for making a little too much money in a all or nothing approach. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I dont doubt you can find a few anecdotal examples....but it far from the norm. |
Quote:
What was that rate before the "war on poverty"? What do you think are the top 10 contributors to the trend of unwed births in low income areas? How does the trend in unwed birth in low income areas compare to middle and upper class income areas? Why are the trend lines different? I can not persuade you, I know that, but if you honestly looked at this issue, the way that I have, your conclusions would be very similar to mine. the fundamental issue I have with the liberal approach to issues like this is the presumption that poor people are not rational. What is common or not, here is what you want to believe: Example: Joe 22 years old, with a job paying $27,000 per year, and a girl friend, who is 18. He loves her, and he just got good news on two fronts. First he was offered a promotion to be a crew chief, it offers $1,100 dollars more per year. His girl friend tells him she is pregnant. He is on cloud nine, and says let's get married. His girl friend already did some research and knows that she can get free prenatal care, free delivery, free post natal care, coverage for her child, food and diapers. Adding all that up over two years it comes to a value of let's say $12,000. If they get married they are looking at his income of $28,100, or $100 over the cut-off. So, marriage will cost them $12,000. You think they are not rational, I do. They don't get married - his connection to his family is weakened. What may have been the beginnings of a wonderful family has been hurt by government policy. I say rather than these arbitrary cut-off and high "marginal tax" (or loss of benefit) situations, let's come up with a better solution. I don't get it, why do you keep playing pretend with these real world issues? |
Quote:
Quote:
I get good financial aid benefits for school and our family benefits from having one stellar credit rating and one poor credit rating. If we got married we'd get to suffer with one shitty credit rating, and we'd end up in more debt because I'd likely get considerably less college money. As far as connections with families being weakened, I think you're overstating the power of a marriage license here. A father's (or mother's) connection to their family exists completely independently of whether or not they are in a legally recognized marriage with the other biological parent. *edit: in any case, just because you can fathom a scenario where it may be beneficial with respect to a specific program for a couple to not marry, you still can't plausibly assume that this scenario is significantly prevalent among the beneficiaries of said program to warrant consideration. |
Quote:
Anecdotes and undocumented assumptions, based on a pre-conceived ideology that those "scamming the system" represent anything more than a very small minority, are not very convincing. And the fact remains that most of those use benefit from federal assistance do so for relatively short, transitional periods of time. So, no, my views would not be similar to yours. |
Quote:
So, I ask the question directly and simply, do you believe "poor" people tend to make rational decisions? If you think they do, does apply to economic decisions? It is very possible for you or others to believe that "poor" people are poor because they make irrational economic decisions, but in my experience that is less often true than the opposite. Actually, in my experience "poor" people on a whole may be more rational with money than "rich" people. In my view this question is at the core of what one's expectation of the role of government is in helping "poor" people, it also defines what one will accept and reject on what they will accept as evidence. Reading the postings on how this has progressed it is pretty clear to me that there is an element of not wanting to believe or pretending not to believe what is pretty obvious. And given that, there is nothing I can do. ---------- Post added at 09:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 PM ---------- Quote:
---------- Post added at 09:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 PM ---------- Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I think some fall into a trap when looking a statistical information. Basically, statistics dehumanize people. Before one can really understand broad based statistical data one has to understand what drives decisions on an individual level. The trap I describe leads us to public policy that takes the form of - 'well we are doing XX% out of 100%' and expecting everything is o.k. When you are one of the people on the margins, that is not o.k. I think there are better approaches to these problems, for example rather than totally changing health care in a half baked way, why not simply take the step of giving every child, 100% of them, full and complete medical care. No margins, no geography issues, no parental issues, no preexisting condition issues, no income issues, no timing issues, nothing, just give them coverage. Quote:
|
Ace, I think you will find that most liberals in here are in favor of a single payer universal health care system, so you don't need to convince any of us of that.
Of course, it makes absolutely no sense to argue that because the bill doesn't cover everyone, it shouldn't cover anyone. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Here's what happened: You said: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
---------- Post added at 06:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:58 PM ---------- Quote:
Quote:
---------- Post added at 06:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:07 PM ---------- Quote:
A young man with daily contact with his family where he works, provides, and sacrifices will have more or less of a connection? A young man with all of the above who also make a commitment in front of his extended family, her extended family, society (through a marriage license), to his heritage (including religion), will have more or less of a connection? It seems to me that you want me to suspend belief in what is rational. Seems to me that you won't accept the above unless you have some scientific or statistical proof. And you say it is a non-sequitur? |
Quote:
Or perhaps it represents such a small percentage of those receiving govt assistance that it is not an issue worth discussing further. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In your previous post you were shocked, SHOCKED that I'd interpreted your words in the way that I did. Then, after I went back and showed you why I interpreted your words the way I did, you realize that, yes, I interpreted them correctly. So then you just continue on like you were never lost and I didn't have to remind you of what the hell you were talking about. Quote:
Quote:
Even then, you're original premise was that the father was willing to do all this, but, goshdarnit, he'd lose out on some government money and so he didn't. It seems like the guy in your original premise would be a great dad. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I remember posting data on the sexual activity of young males and young females. The data show males have more sex with more partners than females. It is clear that males tend to exaggerate sexual activity and females will understate sexual activity, but the reality is that (even adjusting for same sex activity) the numbers should be even. People generally don't give up good jobs simply because of government assistance, I never stated that, you simply created a straw-man argument here. what I do say is that the presence of government assistance influences behaviors, primarily on the margins when there are large marginal cost sifts (or "tax") based on arbitrary benefit cut offs. If a person can shift costs, for example, amounting to 50% of their income, by doing or not doing a small act, they have a big financial incentive to do so. I am not even interested in looking for a study that shows that, and if you don't believe it - don't. Quote:
---------- Post added at 06:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:18 PM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
In any case, dont try to pass your opinion off as factual. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:16 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project