Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
I was quoting your example where you said "we should be getting the same free and extensive taxpayer-funded health care plans that our representatives in congress already get right now". Did I misunderstand you?
Yes, I'd say you did. You were able to identify the sarcasm the second time I said this, when I said it to you, but apparently not the first time I said it to someone else. Fair enough, here's what I said in that post sentence, sans sarcasm:
jigawig: Congress is trying to exempt themselves from HCR, so HCR must be terrible.
me: Of course they want to exempt themselves; they get the best free care in the world. There's no way we can afford to pay for free doctor's visits to everyone's home and office, like Congress gets, among the many other great perks they receive as part of their health care package. So they will obviously exempt themselves from whatever HCR reforms they enact, because they don't want to give up FREE (for them) benefits that less than 1% of Americans could ever get.
Your second comment in total bullsh!t. I don't concern myself with republican talking points; I am intelligent enough to have my own opinion, and to suggest otherwise is quite offensive. The question I asked is completely legitimate.
Sorry you're offended, but that's a really old R talking point nonetheless.
Do you really, honestly believe that we should say, "hey, don't worry about studying, getting an education and a good job, and taking care of yourself, because the government is here to take care of you". That's exactly the message we send by providing publicly funded health care for everyone.
This is one of the faulty premises I was talking about. Every other industrialized democracy offers some sort of publicly funded health care, and many of those countries have been around longer than the US. They seem to manage, despite the "message it sends."
jigawig: Congress is trying to exempt themselves from HCR, so HCR must be terrible.
me: Of course they want to exempt themselves; they get the best free care in the world. There's no way we can afford to pay for free doctor's visits to everyone's home and office, like Congress gets, among the many other great perks they receive as part of their health care package. So they will obviously exempt themselves from whatever HCR reforms they enact, because they don't want to give up FREE (for them ) benefits that less than 1% of Americans could ever get.
Sorry you're offended, but that's a really old R talking point nonetheless.
Do you really, honestly believe that we should say, "hey, don't worry about studying, getting an education and a good job, and taking care of yourself, because the government is here to take care of you". That's exactly the message we send by providing publicly funded health care for everyone.
This is one of the faulty premises I was talking about. Every other industrialized democracy offers some sort of publicly funded health care, and many of those countries have been around longer than the US. They seem to manage, despite the "message it sends."
Ah, I understand what you mean now on the first point. I was not reading the right way.
It's not a republican talking point for me because I'm not a republican, and I don't consult conservative media for my news and information.
I understand why you offer that as a faulty premise, but you really can't just say "they seem to manage" without backing it up. I myself don't have all the facts and statistics of every country, but the only way I'm wrong is if they all have excellent standards in health care, including in their facilities, technology, rates of success in treatment, etc.. as well as the highest standards in education with high rates of success in careers and high income levels. We shouldn't try to just "manage" we should try to be successful and the best.
Ah, I understand what you mean now on the first point. I was not reading the right way.
My fault; it wasn't that clear.
It's not a republican talking point for me because I'm not a republican, and I don't consult conservative media for my news and information.
I will take your word that you did not hear that from conservative media. But now you know it's also an old R talking point.
I understand why you offer that as a faulty premise, but you really can't just say "they seem to manage" without backing it up. I myself don't have all the facts and statistics of every country, but the only way I'm wrong is if they all have excellent standards in health care, including in their facilities, technology, rates of success in treatment, etc.. as well as the highest standards in education with high rates of success in careers and high income levels. We shouldn't try to just "manage" we should try to be successful and the best.
The discussion of health care standards is back on the HCR thread -- I recall that there are links to the rankings in that thread.
I'm not sure where the education topic came from, but my understanding is that US education has been consistently falling in education rankings for a while. Hmmm...I'll check that out.
Fair enough on all points. I know it's silly to let internet arguments bother me, but I really like a peaceful resolution
I'm not surprised that our education is falling; after all, it's government run. Anyhow, my point was that I doubt they have both highly successful individual citizens as well as highly successful and efficient government run health care programs. The whole idea behind reform should be to improve society as a whole through efficiency in health care and decreases in disease and such, but I think if you're providing for people who are capable of providing for themselves, but choose not to because they don't have to, then you are creating a detriment to society. If we encourage individual success and achievement and make that opportunity widely available then we eliminate or decrease reliance on government for certain services.
I'm not surprised that our education is falling; after all, it's government run.
Man, you conservatives really hate every facet of the government. Except for the military. But do you honestly feel that privatizing the education system would make it better for the country as a whole?
Real nice how instead of answering the question, everyone just calls me crazy. It really just seems like nobody has a good answer, and calling me out is a convenient way to avoid any of the questions.
Hell yeah privatizing education would improve it. Of course, the opportunity should be there for those who can't afford it, and we can do that through voucher systems. I have no problem paying for innocent children to receive the best education possible in an effort to insure their future independence. Charter schools, which are public, have also been quite successful.
I'd like to go back to what nitetime called an "old republican talking point". You know, even if it is, it's still a valid question. Can someone please explain to be why I should be forced to help someone who doesn't want to help themselves? I am genuinely curious.
Also, I have an interesting "this could be what government health care looks like" story. My boyfriend used to go to a doctor where they accept medicaid (he has regular insurance though). The first time he went, I went with him because he was super sick, and we waited for 3(!) hours in a packed to capacity, standing-room only waiting area. I would never have gone back, but he liked the doctor, so was willing to deal. Unfortunately, every doctor's appointment meant an entire day off work, or rearranging of the schedule because it was always a 3 hour wait, even when I got him the "first" appointment of the day. The final straw, and what made him decide it was time to find a new doctor, happened the last time he was there a few months ago. He walked in and went to the desk to check in. The woman in line in front of him was clearly in some sort of medical crisis, but the lady working the desk showed no concern whatsoever. Within a couple minutes, the woman in line passed out and collapsed. The chick at the desk just sort of casually glanced at her and strolled back to presumably find the doctor. It was a full five minutes before the doctor came out of the back nonchalantly to attend to the victim. I fear this is the future of government health care.
Real nice how instead of answering the question, everyone just calls me crazy. It really just seems like nobody has a good answer, and calling me out is a convenient way to avoid any of the questions.
Just pointing out that in the post that MrKC was responding to you didn't ask any question. So how was he supposed to answer it? And he didn't call you crazy either. Did anybody? I may have missed it.
Hell yeah privatizing education would improve it. Of course, the opportunity should be there for those who can't afford it, and we can do that through voucher systems. I have no problem paying for innocent children to receive the best education possible in an effort to insure their future independence. Charter schools, which are public, have also been quite successful.
I don't see much wrong with that. One could argue that privatizing the schools would mean that whoever was in charge at each school could skew what is taught to the kids one way or another.......but that is kind of the case now anyway with the government run school systems. I'd have to know more about privatizing schools and what the outcomes or consequences would be of it to really comment on that.
I'd like to go back to what nitetime called an "old republican talking point". You know, even if it is, it's still a valid question. Can someone please explain to be why I should be forced to help someone who doesn't want to help themselves? I am genuinely curious.
Would you mind being a little more specific about how you would be forced to help someone who doesn't want help themselves? That's such a general statement to make because you don't really take into account all the factors that may lead to someone not "wanting to help themselves". How do you know who does and doesn't want to help themselves? What alternative would you offer? These aren't attacks.....I just want to try and better understand what you mean when you say you would have to help someone who doesn't help themselves.
Also, I have an interesting "this could be what government health care looks like" story. My boyfriend used to go to a doctor where they accept medicaid (he has regular insurance though). The first time he went, I went with him because he was super sick, and we waited for 3(!) hours in a packed to capacity, standing-room only waiting area. I would never have gone back, but he liked the doctor, so was willing to deal. Unfortunately, every doctor's appointment meant an entire day off work, or rearranging of the schedule because it was always a 3 hour wait, even when I got him the "first" appointment of the day. The final straw, and what made him decide it was time to find a new doctor, happened the last time he was there a few months ago. He walked in and went to the desk to check in. The woman in line in front of him was clearly in some sort of medical crisis, but the lady working the desk showed no concern whatsoever. Within a couple minutes, the woman in line passed out and collapsed. The chick at the desk just sort of casually glanced at her and strolled back to presumably find the doctor. It was a full five minutes before the doctor came out of the back nonchalantly to attend to the victim. I fear this is the future of government health care.
To be honest.....this sounds more like a problem with that one doctor and doctor's office than a sign that government healthcare would not work.
Everyone knows you have to wait at the doctor's office....hence the waiting room. I'm sorry you guys had to deal with the BS of waiting around that long. I had a similar experience at a free-clinic type thing where I had to wait over 2 hours before asking what was taking so long and then being told that they forgot to call my name. I was annoyed but then I got the treatment I needed and was happily on my way. All other doctor's visits I've had at different places, however, were very pleasant and I never waited too long.
Real nice how instead of answering the question, everyone just calls me crazy. It really just seems like nobody has a good answer, and calling me out is a convenient way to avoid any of the questions.
Ok, well there were no ? in your post, so no one is avoiding any questions.
Hell yeah privatizing education would improve it. Of course, the opportunity should be there for those who can't afford it, and we can do that through voucher systems. I have no problem paying for innocent children to receive the best education possible in an effort to insure their future independence. Charter schools, which are public, have also been quite successful.
This just baffles me. Privatizing the education system to compete with other countries who have public education systems. To force every kid in the country to pay for their future. And those who can't afford education (knowledge) must get a voucher. - Now what if that kid doesn't do his homework? Do we pull his voucher? After all, he is a "detriment to society" as you put it; for receiving government aid while doing nothing to better himself.
I'd like to go back to what nitetime called an "old republican talking point". You know, even if it is, it's still a valid question. Can someone please explain to be why I should be forced to help someone who doesn't want to help themselves? I am genuinely curious.
Because the other alternative is to help no one. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. Not everyone is the world is a good person. And if you choose to help people you have to understand that not some of the people you help may take advantage. Unless you're going to follow around everyone that receives gov't aid.
Also, I have an interesting "this could be what government health care looks like" story. My boyfriend used to go to a doctor where they accept medicaid (he has regular insurance though). The first time he went, I went with him because he was super sick, and we waited for 3(!) hours in a packed to capacity, standing-room only waiting area. I would never have gone back, but he liked the doctor, so was willing to deal. Unfortunately, every doctor's appointment meant an entire day off work, or rearranging of the schedule because it was always a 3 hour wait, even when I got him the "first" appointment of the day. The final straw, and what made him decide it was time to find a new doctor, happened the last time he was there a few months ago. He walked in and went to the desk to check in. The woman in line in front of him was clearly in some sort of medical crisis, but the lady working the desk showed no concern whatsoever. Within a couple minutes, the woman in line passed out and collapsed. The chick at the desk just sort of casually glanced at her and strolled back to presumably find the doctor. It was a full five minutes before the doctor came out of the back nonchalantly to attend to the victim. I fear this is the future of government health care.
Sorry, but that has absolutely nothing with universal health care. We don't even have universal health care now, so that has nothing to do with that situation. Chances are, that wasn't a public hospital but a private doctors office, too. So your scare tactic doesn't really work.
Real nice how instead of answering the question, everyone just calls me crazy. It really just seems like nobody has a good answer, and calling me out is a convenient way to avoid any of the questions.
I didn't call you crazy, I just said you were reiterating a very old R talking point.
I'd like to go back to what nitetime called an "old republican talking point". You know, even if it is, it's still a valid question. Can someone please explain to be why I should be forced to help someone who doesn't want to help themselves? I am genuinely curious.
It's not really a valid question because it's based on false premises (itrain and I have pointed out some of these), but here's the answer: that's the price we pay for living in a civilized society. There are nations in the world that currently operate with no social safety net, and those places are not pleasant.
Also, I have an interesting "this could be what government health care looks like" story.
I fear this is the future of government health care.
That story is bad, but since it actually happened in our present health care system, it's an indictment of our current system, and not of the future of an imagined government health system.
I understand why you offer that as a faulty premise, but you really can't just say "they seem to manage" without backing it up. I myself don't have all the facts and statistics of every country, but the only way I'm wrong is if they all have excellent standards in health care, including in their facilities, technology, rates of success in treatment, etc.. as well as the highest standards in education with high rates of success in careers and high income levels. We shouldn't try to just "manage" we should try to be successful and the best.
Ok, I followed up on the education thing. As noted above, the health care stats are linked on the HCR thread, and they show that nations with universal health care rank higher than the US in the standards you mentioned.
As for education, it turns out that the US isn't doing all that poorly after all: hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/93.html. Up from #19 last year to #13 by this measure. One common factor the nations above us (and just below us) share is that they have government run universal health care. Another thing they have in common is their government-run education systems.
Anyhow, my point was that I doubt they have both highly successful individual citizens as well as highly successful and efficient government run health care programs.
...are you really suggesting that Canada, Australia, the UK, Germany, France, etc, don't have successful people?
Because the other alternative is to help no one. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. Not everyone is the world is a good person. And if you choose to help people you have to understand that not some of the people you help may take advantage. Unless you're going to follow around everyone that receives gov't aid.
Precisely. There are people out there who genuinely can not help themselves. They should go w/o care? My step-daughters both have CP and can do NOTHING for themselves. In a GOP world, should I just leave them on the doorstep because they aren't productive citizens and you owe them nothing?
You're right ITM, nobody called me crazy, but it's insinuated. Yes, I do realize that the one post didn't have a question, but the question had already been posed and not answered.
MrKC-I never claimed to have all the answers on education, but private entities seem to generally be more successful and efficient than government bodies. I don't know about pulling a kid's voucher for not doing homework, but there should definitely be a punishment. There should also be more effort made to force parental involvement.
Why is our only other alternative to help no one? I don't understand why we can't pick and choose. Why do we reward laziness? In no way should we ever do anything to encourage people to engage in high risk, irresponsible behavior through rewarding funds to them for their lack of achievement. I mean I really feel like we're saying "hey, don't worry about taking care of yourself, the gov't will do it for you. Don't worry about having protected safe sex, if you get an STD, we'll pay for your treatment, and if you get knocked up, we'll pay for the kids, too!" Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me. And if you think for a second that deadbeats don't know their way around the system, you are mistaken.
Nitetime, we still aren't winning on education. One of my best friends is studying education theory, and my boyfriend's sister has a Ph.D in curriculum development, so maybe I can talk with them and come back with some better info to support my argument. Surely your link is nothing buy left-wing communist propoganda And I wasn't suggesting that success is no-existent in those countries, I was more just wondering how high are their rates?
I understand your discontent, BigJohn. I can't disagree that the GOP is pretty evil (both major parties and most politicians are, IMO). And for the record, I not only support publicly funded treatment for your step-daughters, but more than that we are obligated to provide that to them on a human level.
Post by itrainmonkeys on Dec 23, 2009 17:13:46 GMT -5
Why is our only other alternative to help no one? I don't understand why we can't pick and choose.
Isn't that the sort of thing that everyone was afraid of when the whole "death panels" thing exploded? Weren't people upset about the possibility of some panel choosing who gets what?
I mean I really feel like we're saying "hey, don't worry about taking care of yourself, the gov't will do it for you. Don't worry about having protected safe sex, if you get an STD, we'll pay for your treatment, and if you get knocked up, we'll pay for the kids, too!" Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me. And if you think for a second that deadbeats don't know their way around the system, you are mistaken.
You may feel that way...........but nobody is saying that. Not one person is claiming anything like that. It's an extreme point of view that I'd bet nobody in the government would claim.
Maybe. I need to think about it a little more. I'm still not okay with taking care of people who refuse to do what they should to take care of themselves. Life or death, yes, or brief short term benefits if you're unemployed or have some other catastrophic life event, but day-to-day insurance coverage, no.
Right, but your point in bringing it up was that a nation couldn't have both universal health care and a good educational system. Clearly that's not the case.
Which of the nations that are "winning" have the privatized school systems you are advocating? Which of them don't have government run schools?
And I wasn't suggesting that success is no-existent in those countries, I was more just wondering how high are their rates?
That would depend on the way you are defining success. Which criteria merit a high success rate?
Abortion is legal and a medical procedure. There's no reason that it shouldn't be covered.
Plastic surgery is a legal medical procedure, so should we start funding breast implants and botox?
Obama IS very liberal, but America isn't. I think people were just so sick of GWB that they were running in the opposite direction and there was a brief but distinct pendulum shift. Also, I think many Americans are feeling very insecure and unsure about their futures, so Obama needs to do everything he can to reassure people. I will concede that he was handed a giant mess, however that doesn't excuse him from not cleaning it up, and in some ways making it worse. My opinion, of course.
If it's reconstructive plastic surgery for burn victims, cleft palates and the like, then yes. If it is reconstructive breast surgery for women who have undergone mastectomies, yes. If they find out that Botox is indeed beneficial for those with migraines and Parkinson's, yes. For vain and superficial purposes, of course not. Simply calling abortion a medical procedure was my fault. I don't think they compare. Women don't get abortions to gain self-esteem or to look cuter.
I can somewhat sympathize with your issue with the "dirtbags." I've known them and I've worked in an office that dealt with the system. I know it's effed up in a lot of areas. I think that there should be more follow-up on people that get benefits if suspicions arise about their need for it. But, for every dirtbag that abuses the system, there's also a person who genuinely needs help that isn't getting it. Also, quite a few of these dirtbags also have children, which is whey they're able to get benefits in the first place. No one wants to take away food stamps and whathaveyou from children.
Regarding health care, I know that in general, at least with the people I talk to, we're just looking for it to be affordable. I've had many full-time jobs that have not offered insurance. If I would have got the policy through the one that did offer it, I would have not been able to afford groceries every month and would have had to sign up for food stamps. Also, sometimes people can't even get a full-time job, so opt for two part-time jobs, where insurance is rarely offered either. Idealistically, if we had an affordable government option, the private insurance companies would have to lower their prices in order to compete.
A few times, I've had to go to clinics that ran on a sliding-scale and while it's not a pleasant experience (doctors visits rarely are) I was happy to at least have that option for issues that are necessarily ER worthy but definitely needed to be dealt with . If this is what government run health care looks like, I'm sure people that can't afford insurance currently or who cannot receive Medicare would appreciate any kind of health care, especially where they were able to make appointments.
I have this sense that some of us out here don't think the government is justified getting involved in providing healthcare to its citizens. With that in mind, I'm going to opine a bit...
At the most basic level, the natural state of things, it's like Hobbes said: life is nasty, brutish and short. We civilized people put our trust in a central entity to make it less so. That's the foundation for, and purpose of, government.
Our founding fathers recognized this. It's right there in the preamble to our Constitution: promote the general Welfare. (Sorry, Dixie... capitalizing "Welfare" was their idea, not mine )
And in order to promote the general welfare, we've got what we call "the commons." Our infrastructure, schools, parks, postal service, military, what have you... things that make society tick. Things we need regardless of whether the private sector is willing and/or able to provide them.
I believe health care falls into this category. The welfare of we the people is one of this government's charges, is it not? I cannot, in my mind, separate one's health from one's welfare. The two are not mutually exclusive. In the interest of healthy workers/soldiers/etc, in the interest of preventing outbreaks and spread of diseases, I feel there is enough compelling state interest in the matter to warrant government action.
Health care in primarily private sector hands has proven itself unable and/or unwilling to provide adequate coverage. If they had, we wouldn't be discussing this. I think the situation is dire enough that some kind of action is not only warranted, but overdue. Not necessarily this particular action, but something...
But maybe that's just bitter old me... last time I saw a doctor, we were debating the difference between hanging vs. dimpled chads.
Sayidiac-you seem to view the world through rose-colored glasses. It's a nice idea to provide plastic surgery for those people, but it's not a life-saving procedure, it's a cosmetic procedure, no matter how you dice it. Also, when you're talking about "dirtbags" you're talking about people who have no qualms about abusing the system. Many welfare mothers have tummy tucks and fake tits based on the claim that childbirth and nursing ravaged their bodies Abortion is murder. There, I said what I really feel. I hate it. It's evil. I can understand not wanting to keep a baby conceived by rape, and I can also understand having to make the horrific decision between the mother's life or the baby's life. It's still evil. And if you were responsible in the first place, it wouldn't be necessary.
Thank you kdogg for being the one and only person to ever present any valid argument against mine. I completely respect that you bring up the constitution, and then logically explain how it supports your view. I don't think I need to say again, that I do support helping those in need. Perhaps I've read Brave New World and The Giver too many times. I'm terrified at the prospect of living in a world like that.
^First off where is a link to the welfare moms getting tummy tucks and boob jobs I googled it, but could not find a reported instance. Secondly I don't think you meant it this way, but what you wrote infers that people who were raped were irresponsible. I really hope you do not mean that.
"This alleged attack on a U.S. airplane on Christmas Day shows that we must remain vigilant in the fight against terrorism at all times," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a written statement.
what, you mean terrorism exists? i thought it was all just man-made disasters!!
sorry, with christmas and NYE/jam cruise, just really havent had a chance to get online that much recently. NITETIME, i WILL eventually get to answering your "why is voter regestration fraud bad?" first though, let me ask you, how can you ask such a thing? its fraud for heaven's sake!!
i WILL eventually get to answering your "why is voter regestration fraud bad?" first though, let me ask you, how can you ask such a thing? its fraud for heaven's sake!!
We know "fraud" in general is bad. I'm just wondering how this specific case of voter registration fraud hurt the country so bad that you still have to bring it up when pointing out problems with the current administration.
and damn you for getting to do holidaze/jam cruise. i'll be jealous of you every day i sit in the cold, rainy, january
NITETIME, i WILL eventually get to answering your "why is voter regestration fraud bad?" first though, let me ask you, how can you ask such a thing? its fraud for heaven's sake!!
NITETIME, i WILL eventually get to answering your "why is voter regestration fraud bad?" first though, let me ask you, how can you ask such a thing? its fraud for heaven's sake!!
Huh? When did I ask that question?
I think I originally asked it and you kinda/sorta responded.....jig may just have gotten the names mixed up. Either way, it's all good.
I don't know about pulling a kid's voucher for not doing homework, but there should definitely be a punishment. There should also be more effort made to force parental involvement.
what do you propose we do to "force" parental involvement? if a parent doesn't care about their child's education, i don't really think there's much you can do to force them to. anything you can really do to the parents to "make" them care (court appearances? a fine?) is going to wind up hurting the kids in the long run. the kids with these kinds of parents have it hard enough as it is.
^First off where is a link to the welfare moms getting tummy tucks and boob jobs I googled it, but could not find a reported instance. Secondly I don't think you meant it this way, but what you wrote infers that people who were raped were irresponsible. I really hope you do not mean that.
YOU HAVE NO IDEA THE THINGS I'VE BEEN THROUGH. HOW DARE YOU EVEN SUGGEST SOMETHING LIKE THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!! SCREW THIS THREAD AND EVERY IDIOT JERK IN IT!!!
^First off where is a link to the welfare moms getting tummy tucks and boob jobs I googled it, but could not find a reported instance. Secondly I don't think you meant it this way, but what you wrote infers that people who were raped were irresponsible. I really hope you do not mean that.
YOU HAVE NO IDEA THE THINGS I'VE BEEN THROUGH. HOW DARE YOU EVEN SUGGEST SOMETHING LIKE THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!! SCREW THIS THREAD AND EVERY IDIOT JERK IN IT!!!
Well I am sorry, I prefaced it with saying I did not think that you meant it that way, I was only asking for clarification, I did not think that it was your opinion. However your thought which talks about all the reasons someone might want an abortion ends with that none would be necessary if people were responsible. I am sorry to have offended you.
I can understand not wanting to keep a baby conceived by rape, and I can also understand having to make the horrific decision between the mother's life or the baby's life. It's still evil. And if you were responsible in the first place, it wouldn't be necessary.
Edit
Also I really meant to write "seems to infer", somehow the seems never made it past my brain to the board.
Last Edit: Dec 28, 2009 11:29:01 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
[thinking of segue away from the health care debate...]
Say, how about that foiled terrorist attack? Anybody been flying this past weekend? How stepped up was security?
Some talking head this morning was yelling about how the bomb-detection machines should be in all airports. Does he expect the companies to give the machines out for free?!? This is America, for god's sake!
^Not to mention the flight originated in Amsterdam. Unless we are going to supply them to every airport flying into the US it will not do much good. That being said I completely support the use of bomb trained dogs at all airport gates just past the security check, this is a fairly easy measure that would have stopped this particular incident, and would have worked on the Shoe Bomber as well.
Last Edit: Dec 28, 2009 13:34:13 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top