Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-12-2010, 08:05 PM   #41
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Letj View Post
You get my drift?
Yes. I believe I understand your position and your motivations for wanting to help. I have seen poverty and have a heart full of compassion for those in bad situations--here and elsewhere. I think we just differ concerning the most humane, just, and practical means of improving their lot.
__________________

__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now  
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 04-12-2010, 08:12 PM   #42
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
clifp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Letj View Post
No one is denied food in this country because they're too poor to afford and I am glad I don't live in a third world country where the poor is digging for food and anything thing they can salvage out of putrid dumps and that's exactly what would happen if your and my hard earned money didn't go to supplement them.
...
. I understand that you're coming from a completely different perspective and I sense a divide that just can't be bridged.
Well for every person who dies because some evil insurance company denies them a multi hundred thousand experimental treatment, there are scores of people who get medical treatment at free clients, ERs, or are enrolled in highly subsidized/free medical plans like Medicad.

To me the worse thing about medical care debate over the last 15 months, is it has been so heavily focused on providing medical insurance and not medical care.
__________________

__________________
clifp is offline  
Old 04-13-2010, 08:22 AM   #43
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
I had a lengthy response correcting the several factual errors in this thread regarding the health insurance legislation, but we've beaten that topic to death. So I won't go there.

I will take issue with this notion that somehow the Constitution, as originally envisioned by the founders, is the gold standard for our rights and freedoms. Whatever encroachment on our freedom health care legislation represents (I think basically none) it pales in comparison to those accepted without question by our "sainted" founders. It took 15 amendments and nearly 100 years before the rights enumerated for "all men" were extended to African Americans. It took another 50 years for women to earn the right to vote. So it's safe to say the founders views of our rights were incomplete at best.

I won't speculate, as others are fond of doing, what our founders would, or wouldn't think, about our government some 200 years later (or health insurance legislation long before health insurance existed). But it's pretty safe to say that most people wouldn't choose to return to an 18th century government. I could list all of the bad things (like child labor) that weren't explicitly addressed in the Constitution or any laws of the time and have since been rightly prohibited or provided for. Of course, in so doing, I'll be accused of misrepresenting people's positions. But you can't have it both ways. Either we're constrained by only what the Constitution and the Founders had in mind for our government, or you admit that the Constitution is incomplete and our Founders hadn't thought of absolutely everything . . . which is why they created a Legislative Branch to make new laws and a process by which the Constitution itself could be amended.
__________________
Retired early, traveling perpetually.
Gone4Good is offline  
Old 04-13-2010, 08:30 AM   #44
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone4Good View Post
I will take issue with this notion that somehow the Constitution, as originally envisioned by the founders, is the gold standard for our rights and freedoms. Whatever encroachment on our freedom health care legislation represents (I think basically none) it pales in comparison to those accepted without question by our "sainted" founders. It took 15 amendments and nearly 100 years before the rights enumerated for "all men" were extended to African Americans. It took another 50 years for women to earn the right to vote. So it's safe to say the founders view of our rights was at best incomplete.
But you just hit on the critical point -- when the Constitution *was* flawed or no longer represented the will of the people, they gave us an amendment process. We did that in abolishing slavery and giving women the vote because over time our values had changed and we came to see what were increasingly viewed as flaws in our system which we fixed accordingly.

The problem comes when something goes against the Constitution but legislators pass the bill anyway, and the judiciary looks the other way. (Why do you think FDR wanted to pack the Supreme Court for his New Deal programs? He had to know some of them were shaky if not outright a no-no Constitutionally.) At some point, IMO, they need to put their foot down and say "you want this, get an amendment passed to make it constitutional." Like they did with slavery, women's suffrage, the income tax (boo) and any number of other things.

There's a right way and a wrong way to do it. Ignoring law because it's inconvenient implies that the ends justify the means, and rarely do I think that's the case.

If the Constitution were as flawed as you seem to imply, they would have failed to give us a process to amend it to "fix" it according to evolving values and shared national ideals. I wish we'd just use it more often rather than ignore the need for it.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline  
Old 04-13-2010, 08:31 AM   #45
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone4Good View Post
I will take issue with this notion that somehow the Constitution, as originally envisioned by the founders, is the gold standard for our rights and freedoms.
. . . . Either we're constrained by only what the Constitution and the Founders had in mind for our government, or you admit that the Constitution is incomplete and our Founders hadn't thought of absolutely everything.
One thing they did think of is providing a means to amend the Constitution. That's the most forthright and honest way to change the existing "contract" regarding the relationship of the people and their government and between the various branches of that government.
To those who desire a welfare state, just draw up an amendment saying that all citizens have a right to food, shelter, health care, and cable TV, and that the private property rights of citizens are secondary to this goal. Once passed, there'll be no more debate about what the Constitution means.

Later edit: Oops, I cross-posted with Ziggy29. Same thoughts, his were better expressed.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now  
Old 04-13-2010, 08:54 AM   #46
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by smjsl View Post
Do many people *really* want to spend their time figuring out which insurance plans they want to be on? I'd rather have a single "reasonable" plan for all.. If it's good enough for a Senator, I'll take it. I don't see much fun in figuring out year in and year out all conditions and stipulations described for various plans out there, and how they changed from last year, and which is the better one this year... what a waste of time...
This is depressing. If an adult isn't interested in taking charge of his/her life and taking it wherever he wants it to go, then I guess I don't know what else there is to say.

Anyway--before the infantilization is complete and we decide to let Congress make all of life's choices for us, let's take a look at just how competent they are. This article from the NYT provides some interesting findings of the Congressional Research Service. It looks like the health care of Congressmen and staffers is in doubt as a result of the new legislation. Dang, how could that happen?

Quote:
In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the “personal health insurance coverage” of senators, representatives and their staff members.
For example, it says, the law may “remove members of Congress and Congressional staff” from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available.
The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?
My guess: Congress will take care of themselves via some obscure rider on an even more obscure piece of legislation. The rest of us--not so much.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now  
Old 04-13-2010, 08:57 AM   #47
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Yes, we all crossed posts because I added a point about them explicitly adding an amendment process AND a Legislative Branch.

But process questions do not resuscitate the flawed argument that "Our founders didn't intend" this or that government program.
__________________
Retired early, traveling perpetually.
Gone4Good is offline  
Old 04-13-2010, 09:06 AM   #48
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone4Good View Post
Yes, we all crossed posts because I added a point about them explicitly adding an amendment process AND a Legislative Branch.

But process questions do not resuscitate the flawed argument that "Our founders didn't intend" this or that government program.
Not sure what the point of that argument is -- obviously they didn't explicitly intend "this or that", because if they did, they would have written "this or that" into the document.

I believe they intended for a specific process to be followed, though. If a new law or a new legislatively-authorized program did not run counter to the document, that is fine. If aspects of the law or program *did* violate the Constitution, then the amendment process needs to be followed in order to allow it. Again, this is in theory; in practice legislators have routinely ignored many questions of constitutionality and the judiciary was derelict in their duties to stop it (IMO, since I'll bet we disagree on this latter point).

In other words, we're not following the intended *process*. I don't think they intended any future specific outcome, only the process by which we change the supreme law of the nation.

Let me use another example that's near and dear to my heart: term limits for Congress. I could sit around and complain that the Constitution is a flawed document because it doesn't place term limits on Congress. Or I could demand that legislators pass a term limits bill regardless of what the Constitution says (ignoring the fact that they would never vote to limit themselves out of office) and hope the courts ignore the violation. But in reality, the founders gave us everything we need to impose term limits on Congress. We just need legislative approval and 3/4 of the states to support it.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline  
Old 04-13-2010, 09:22 AM   #49
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
FinanceDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone4Good View Post
Yes, we all crossed posts because I added a point about them explicitly adding an amendment process AND a Legislative Branch.

But process questions do not resuscitate the flawed argument that "Our founders didn't intend" this or that government program.
Not to worry............it appears the Constitution is going the way of the dodo.
__________________
Consult with your own advisor or representative. My thoughts should not be construed as investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results (love that one).......:)


This Thread is USELESS without pics.........:)
FinanceDude is offline  
Old 04-13-2010, 09:47 AM   #50
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
IndependentlyPoor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 1,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinanceDude View Post
Not to worry............it appears the Constitution is going the way of the dodo.
Why would you say this?
The current court includes 4 young, healthy, judges who are fairly strict constitutionalists (Robert, Scalia, Thomas, Alito) plus a swing vote that is more often conservative than not (Kennedy). I imagine that they will strike down many laws based on narrow readings of the constitution, and continue to do so pretty much for the rest of our lives.
__________________
Start by admitting
from cradle to tomb
it isn't that long a stay.
IndependentlyPoor is offline  
Old 04-13-2010, 10:31 AM   #51
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
This is depressing. If an adult isn't interested in taking charge of his/her life and taking it wherever he wants it to go, then I guess I don't know what else there is to say.
Yes, I am interested in taking charge of my life. And I'd rather live it than every year spending it figuring out which plan screws me the least going through pages and pages of health insurance documentation looking at fine print and obscure rules designed with profits in mind (good thing at least some of the plans must satisfy certain government guidelines), instead of with medical care in mind. Now, that's depressing...
__________________
smjsl is offline  
Old 04-13-2010, 10:37 AM   #52
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Leonidas's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Where the stars at night are big and bright
Posts: 2,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by smjsl View Post
Which rights are given to us by God? And which God are we talking about here?
I'm not going to educate you on several centuries of philosophy, history and natural rights. Go read it for yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smjsl View Post
I would.. and I would also put you in jail so you don't participate in most of these activities.
Thanks for the input, but I would still like Letj's response to my question.

As to stopping me from most of those activities by incarcerating me, you should read up some on what goes on in prisons in this country. You'll definitely be paying for my health care, and other than driving drunk, all of those other activities are readily accessible to all prisoners who want to engage in them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smjsl View Post
What about these? You would not want to pay for these for other people, but you get them, then you'd rather go broke or have a huge pile of money for self-insurance? Or are you saying that only people who can afford the insurance of these deseases should get treated? I am not following...
Really? There's a lot of things that I don't want to be forced to pay for. I don't want to pay to bail out idiots who took out liar loans on way too much house. I don't want to supplement people's new car purchases to prop up the car companies and unions who trashed their industry. How difficult is it to understand that I think there are limits to what I'm willing to pay for?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone4Good View Post
Either we're constrained by only what the Constitution and the Founders had in mind for our government, or you admit that the Constitution is incomplete and our Founders hadn't thought of absolutely everything . . . which is why they created a Legislative Branch to make new laws and a process by which the Constitution itself could be amended.
Thanks for acknowledging the power of the people to amend the Constitution.

There's no reason why we can't change our opinions about who and how we pay for everyone's health care. The Framers of the Constitution did provide for a means for us to collectively make changes to the document. But they specifically limited the power of Congress to legislate under certain enumerated powers. Congress has supremacy over the states only in those enumerated powers. Congress does not get to create legislation that falls outside the powers that the Constitution granted it. In other words, we decide if we want to grant Congress some power not already given to it - Congress does not get to grant itself new powers.

So the question comes down the interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

My opinions aside about health care legislation aside for the moment, this does come down to a very basic Constitutional issue. Even if you support the changes made to health care as a result of the new legislation, you can't defend violating the Constitution to accomplish those things. And so the question is has Congress stepped outside of its enumerated powers and attempted to extend it's supremacy there, to an overall general supremacy over the rights reserved by the states and the people.

The states and the people gave powers to Congress, not the other way around.
__________________
There is no pleasure in having nothing to do; the fun is having lots to do and not doing it. - Andrew Jackson
Leonidas is offline  
Old 04-13-2010, 10:55 AM   #53
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50
OK, seriously - YES. I would much rather have a choice of a high deductible plan, and I want it separate from my employment, which is something that happened largely due to the government backing the idea.
I imagine people want HDHP because they feel they are healthy and would rather pay less into the system, so that they don't need to "support" less healthy folks that have to use the system more. I would fully support such a system if getting ill was completely under our control, but it's not. Not even close. It depends too much on your genes and all kinds of factors, some known and most unknown (you got a house with asbestos? How about Chinese walls?).. I am not sure I want to find myself getting ill in such a society, since then I have to worry not just about my health but also about how much it costs me to get well just as I get sick. This also means I am less likely to accept potentially beneficial treatments if it hurts me financially (often it's not known whether a treatment will help you for sure as is depends on correct diagnosis and other factors). Something seems inhumane about this...

[Edit: to be on the safe site, wanted to clarify that this of course is not meant as personal attack of any kind - I was just thinking about 2 systems - one that allows HDHP and one that does not.]
__________________
smjsl is offline  
Old 04-13-2010, 11:08 AM   #54
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
jIMOh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Milford, OH
Posts: 2,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone4Good View Post
Of the many ridiculous hyperbolic claims that pass for truth these days the one expressed most frequently is that the U.S. is, or is becoming, a socialist state. The truth, though is that the U.S. is far less “socialist”, and government intervention in the private sector is far smaller, than it was at nearly any time in the past 80 years.

Here’s an article about how the 1996 Welfare Reform law is keeping the growth of welfare recipients below 10% notwithstanding a more than doubling of the unemployment rate.

Or consider . . .
- The median top marginal tax rate from 1920-2010 is 70% versus 35% today
- Union membership has declined from 36% of all workers in 1945 to 13% today
- Social Security was reformed in 1983 to be less generous
- Welfare reformed in 1996 to be less generous
- Many industries regulated in the 30’s have been deregulated – Rail & Truck transportation deregulated in 1971, natural gas deregulation in 1977, airline deregulation in 1978, interstate bus deregulation in 1982, ocean shipping deregulation in 1984, Telecommunications deregulation in 1996, and Glass-Steagall repeal 1999 . . . among others.
- Wage & price controls 1971-1973


Looked at objectively, it is very hard to say we're a more socialist country today than we were in say, 1950. But yet many people are told assume we are.
decent article

a quote

Quote:
Rhode Island changed its welfare program in 2008. Under the new program, known as Rhode Island Works, people can receive cash assistance for no more than 24 months in any 60-month period, with a lifetime maximum of 48 months of benefits. The lifetime limit had been 60 months.
I see no reason why anyone would need benefits for more than 60 months in their life... even 48 appears generous.

Suggesting "extending" these benefits makes me cringe.
__________________
Light travels faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. One person's stupidity is another person's job security.
jIMOh is offline  
Old 04-13-2010, 11:14 AM   #55
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by jIMOh View Post
I see no reason why anyone would need benefits for more than 60 months in their life... even 48 appears generous.
In the era of 5% unemployment, I would agree. In the era of 10% "official" unemployment and closer to 16% "real" unemployment, it's not hard to see why someone would need help for more than 10% of what should be their working years.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline  
Old 04-13-2010, 11:19 AM   #56
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alberta/Ontario/ Arizona
Posts: 3,119
Very interesting discussion. Civil as well. Enjoyed it but nothing of value to add .
__________________
Danmar is offline  
Old 04-13-2010, 11:20 AM   #57
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
Not sure what the point of that argument is -- obviously they didn't explicitly intend "this or that", because if they did, they would have written "this or that" into the document.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
There are legitimate functions of government (the Constitution spells them out), and I doubt that the framers really intended for us to be donating the fruit of hundreds of hours of our lives to support a very brief reference to "promoting the common welfare" in that document.
Pretty clear what my point is . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone4Good View Post
But process questions do not resuscitate the flawed argument that "Our founders didn't intend" this or that government program.
__________________
Retired early, traveling perpetually.
Gone4Good is offline  
Old 04-13-2010, 11:28 AM   #58
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
jIMOh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Milford, OH
Posts: 2,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone4Good View Post
It's hardly a "strawman". It's a reaction to the very specific claims, here and elsewhere, that we are in fact a socialist nation.

So if people want to casually throw around this notion, then maybe they can step up and defend it.




I don't see how I'm any less free today than I ever have been. Someone will have to show me exactly what I can't do today that I was able to do before (airport security aside). I know that I'm free to choose a telephone provider, whereas in the past I couldn't. Same too with natural gas and electricity (in some states). I'm free to fly regional airlines. I know that broadcasters are more free to broadcast vulgarity, and I'm more free to hear it if I wish. And more importantly, I know that compared with prior decades women and minorities have far more freedoms than they once had.
I realize above was a reply to someone else... my take is a third angle-

socialism is not necessarily the absence of freedom, and taking away a freedom does not make one a socialist.

I think the above posts moved away from socialism discussion of the OP.

Socialism (to me) is about government deciding what is best for society as a whole (to a small extent) and making it happen by funding programs which are primarily paid for by the rich, used by all, and in general "rationed" or "distributed" to people without regard for who earned the reward, supplied the most money to the program, or had the best idea.


I think socialism works in small doses on some programs. Energy, military, police, fire departments all immediately come to mind as excellent examples. The government needs to provide these services to the public, and pay for them (in most cases) with tax dollars.

Could you imagine if it was deemed everyone had a right to access the internet and needed a computer... could the government take over Microsoft or apple in those cases? What would happen to Linux or Oracle if that were to occur?

What if it was deemed everyone's "right" to own a car and the government took over GM- wait that almost just happened, bad example (LOL).
__________________
Light travels faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. One person's stupidity is another person's job security.
jIMOh is offline  
Old 04-13-2010, 11:31 AM   #59
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
jIMOh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Milford, OH
Posts: 2,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
In the era of 5% unemployment, I would agree. In the era of 10% "official" unemployment and closer to 16% "real" unemployment, it's not hard to see why someone would need help for more than 10% of what should be their working years.
devils advocate-

the recession is NOT 5 years old right now.
I don't think its 4 years old either.

so if someone was collecting benefits for 3 years prior, and benefits are running out now, I suggest there is a bigger problem, and the solution to that is NOT extending benefits.

at least extending benefits is NOT the solution I would favor.
__________________
Light travels faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. One person's stupidity is another person's job security.
jIMOh is offline  
Old 04-13-2010, 11:34 AM   #60
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
jIMOh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Milford, OH
Posts: 2,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone4Good View Post
Here you go . . . looks pretty flat since the mid-1950s. We're above the 60 year average in 2010 but were below it before the recession.
is the spike in spending WWI and WWII?
__________________

__________________
Light travels faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. One person's stupidity is another person's job security.
jIMOh is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Otar: Unveiling the Retirement Myth LOL! FIRE and Money 140 12-24-2010 10:39 PM
Organic Honey is a Myth Trek Other topics 19 05-09-2009 10:48 PM
Dividends! Myth? TBPu FIRE and Money 71 01-14-2008 05:44 PM
The Cat Food Myth LOL! Other topics 15 08-14-2006 06:35 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:19 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.