About Me

Name: cavalier973
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

A small businessman who gets it

Posted by cavalier973 on Sunday, November 08, 2009 2:32:54 PM
 


Then, order some of his product here:

http://www.sodapopstop.com/home.cfm
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Fundamental Right to Ignore the State

Posted by cavalier973 on Sunday, November 08, 2009 10:52:09 AM
With the House passing Health Reform Legislation last night, and the Senate soon to follow; with the real potential for this absurdity of a government-controlled health care system becoming law; this article is highly relevant:
 
The author quotes Herbert Spencer:
"Perhaps it will be said that . . . the citizen is understood to have assented to everything his representative may do, when he voted for him. But suppose he did not vote for him; and on the contrary did all in his power to get elected someone holding opposite views — what then? The reply will probably be that, by taking part in such an election, he tacitly agreed to abide by the decision of the majority. And how if he did not vote at all? Why then he cannot justly complain of any tax, seeing that he made no protest against its imposition. So, curiously enough, it seems that he gave his consent in whatever way he acted — whether he said yes, whether he said no, or whether he remained neuter! A rather awkward doctrine this. Here stands an unfortunate citizen who is asked if he will pay money for a certain proffered advantage; and whether he employs the only means of expressing his refusal or does not employ it, we are told that he practically agrees; if only the number of others who agree is greater than the number of those who dissent. And thus we are introduced to the novel principle that A’s consent to a thing is not determined by what A says, but by what B may happen to say!"
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What I hope happens re: Last Night's Elections

Posted by cavalier973 on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 2:38:57 PM
The Republican Party made some significant gains last night; not only the two governorships, but many under the radar elections as well.  Maine voters overturned same-sex marriage.  But the focus seems to be on the one contest the "Republicans" lost--NY23; I suppose it will be more correct to say that "conservatives" lost NY23; which is a problematic result of giving a particular election a high profile.  The narrative is shaping up to be that Republicans lost a Congressional seat that the party has held for over 100 years because of conservative-minded activism; that if the conservatives had sat down and shut up, then the Republican Party would still be holding the seat.  We won't know that for sure, and its likely that Owens would have won the seat anyway, because of the possibility of conservative leaning voters going for Hoffman anyway, or staying home.  What's of further interest about last night's election narrative is that the two governor races in which Pres. Obama involved himself, and which his party lost, are not considered referendums on his policies.
 
But what I hope happens is that this narrative ("conservatives lost the seat for the Republicans") becomes the conventional wisdom, and that this narrative overrides the narrative that Republicans had a big night with the winning of two governorships.  I say this because such a narrative is obviously untrue, and will presumably lull the left-wing statists into a false complacency about the 2010 elections--and maybe even give them confidence to pursue the unpopular policies that turn people away.
 
In 1993, Republicans won two governorships in the face of a Democrat President who wanted to reform health care.  The next year, the Republicans won control of both houses of Congress.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The basis for libertarianism is Christianity

Posted by cavalier973 on Tuesday, November 03, 2009 1:07:37 AM
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n10_v42/ai_9051363/
Found this old (1990) article in National Review (!) by Lew Rockwell (!) about the traditional group of libertarians, who were Christians, and the rise of the atheistic libertarians with Ayn Rand.  He traces the history of the religious roots of libertarianism, and makes some hopeful statements about the future Christian involvement in the libertarian movement that have obviously not come true--Christians did not return to their traditionally libertarian roots (read, for example, the Southern Baptists' (my church denomination) old anti-war statements from the WW2 era, and contrast it with more recent pronouncements on war); instead, they embraced the state more and more.  Part of the reason, possibly, is the success they thought they had with the election of Reagan, and then the "Republican Revolution" of 1994, following up with the Presidency of George W. Bush.
 
Today's libertarian movement seems to be primarily atheist in worldview, with the Christian Libertarians (and Libertarian Christians) lurking around the margins, like some nerd in a high school clique, trying to make himself look cool to the atheist captain of the football team and impress the Objectivist Cheerleader.
 
Meanwhile, many atheistic libertarians mock attempts to reconcile Christian faith and libertarian political philosophy, and argue that the Christian's acceptance of a Higher Power at all disqualifies them from being truly opposed to the State; that the idea of subjecting oneself to an Infinite Creator God somehow makes one more readily accepting of the State's lordship as well.  But as Prof. Rockwell points out, the organization originally successful in limiting government was the Roman Catholic Church, which by the late middle ages was able to impose various restrictions on governement powers (like war-making), because it gave the populace at large an Entity to which to be loyal over and above and against the State.  While Scripture provides guidance in how to relate to government officials on a practical daily basis (pay your taxes, give government officials the respect they expect, etc.), this advice is given with a view to keep out of the government's radar as much as possible so that the Gospel may spread freely, and in no way overrules the Christian's duty to "obey God rather than men."  Because they have a Higher Power than government to obey, and because the government has historically opposed him and his God, much of the time violently; because he believes (or at least, ought to believe) that no government decree can advance the cause of the Gospel, or even make the unredeemed to be moral people, the Christian should naturally gravitate toward libertarianism.  Unfortunately, when any group of people gain political power, as the "Christian Right" did starting in the 1980's and remaining through today, they become infected with the viral belief that they can make the world better by decree and violent coercion.  I believe, however (and perhaps it is pollyannish of me to believe so), that Christians, in America, are, after their serious flirtation with government idolatry, gravitating back to a libertarian understanding of the world.
 
The atheist libertarians declare they need no Higher Power to understand and embrace libertarianism.  Instead, they rely on what they declare to be the axiomatic principle of non-aggression.  Unfortunately, this principle is not logically obvious in a world born of random chaotic events.  If the universe, and any life residing therein, is the product of a giant accident, then there is no basis to accept any philosophical statement as axiomatically "true"; there are only competing preferences.  It could be cynically argued that the only reason an atheistic libertarian accepts the non-aggression principle is that he is not himself clever enough or strong enough to get what he wants through the normal processes of coercion.  There is even an historical argument that can be made that, with violent aggression being the normal state for human relations, a principle of pro-aggression could be axiomatically true.  "Survival of the fittest", to coin a phrase.  My reading of history tells me that the one who is strong and aggressive usually gains a nice living while he lives (at least, a better living than the poor schlubs against whom he aggresses) and a sort of immortality--praise from the historians and emulation from aspirants to power--after he dies. Saying that it was wrong for Napoleon to wield the State's power to kill and oppress so many people is merely expressing an opinion, not an axiomatic truth, if one grants that it occured in a world sporting unplanned life that develops through random genetic mutation and undirected natural selection.
 
An aside: Murray Rothbard, whose libertarian credentials are solid gold, had an article describing the Randian Libertarian movement, pointing out its eerie similarities to religious cults.  http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Anarcho-Capitalism: It's the American Way

Posted by cavalier973 on Friday, October 30, 2009 12:08:33 AM
 
A very good article I just found the other day.  The "Wild West" turns out to be not so very wild; and people tended to work out their society just fine without a government overseer there to make sure they didn't kill and rob each other.
Tags: liberty  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A better tax system for Mississippi

Posted by cavalier973 on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:37:14 PM
In Mississippi, we have a combination income tax and sales tax.  Now, on a national level, I support the Fair Tax as a better alternative to the current mess we have (www.fairtax.org).  States could adopt a version of the Fair Tax, as Missouri has done recently.  Mississippi could follow suit, and I believe it would be an improvement over how the government is currently funded.  But I think there is a better way, still, for Mississippi to tax its citizens, as the Fair Tax shares a problem with all other tax systems proposed and implement to date: it is still involuntary.  "That's silly," one might rightly claim.  "How can any tax be voluntary?  Who would pay it?"
 
Well, I got this interesting idea from listening to Rush Limbaugh the other day.  He stated that he likes lotteries because they are taxes he doesn't have to pay.  So, I propose that Mississippi's government fund itself through a series of voluntary, ad hoc lotteries.  This would, of course, completely replace the income/sales tax scheme currently in force. The "tax lottery" would work thusly: the state legislature decides to build a bridge near Melonsquashville.  It puts the project out for bid, and the winning bid amount becomes the basis for the new lottery.  A certain amount, say 30% (or $30 million in this case) is added to the bid amount for the lottery winnings.  People then are able to buy lottery tickets for the "Melonsquashville Bridge Lottery".  No money is spent on the project, and no winnings are paid out until the project is fully funded.  If the project is not fully funded, the legislature can pay out the winnings, holding the remaining funds in a trust fund while a second lottery is implemented to make up the balance.  Or, the state could simply extend the date, while increasing the winning amount.  Or, the state could simply cancel the project altogether and pay out all the money.
 
Ongoing funding projects (universities, state highway patrol, paying interest on bond issues) would have continual lotteries, paying out weekly or monthly.
 
The appeal of this plan (I hope) is three fold: first, the tax is voluntary--no one is going to jail for "tax avoidance"; second, the ad hoc nature of the "tax" puts a limit on government spending, and allows the "taxpayer" to know exactly where his money is going; third, the lottery aspect acts as an incentive for people to "pay their taxes."
 
I invite criticism and comments.
Tags: Taxes  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I'd clap, too

Posted by cavalier973 on Monday, October 26, 2009 1:42:35 PM
 

Writes Tom White:

I went to Philadelphia with my nine-year-old daughter and visited the Liberty Bell, Franklin Court, Betsy Ross home, and finally Independence Hall. After the usual bag checks*, we waited in line to enter the old Pennsylvania State House. They allow a group of thirty or so in at a time, escorted by a park ranger. We gathered in a room before the tour started. The park ranger begins to tell us about the Continental Congress gathering to “fix” the Articles of Confederation. He starts by saying “There were four main problems with the Articles of Confederation. First, it gave the new country no authority to establish an army. Second, it had no power to make treaties with foreign governments. Third, they were unable to print money. Finally, they could not raise and collect taxes.” At this, some in the crowd began to clap. The ranger made some comment about April 15th might make some feel this way.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tennessee calling on her sister states to restore the Constitution

Posted by cavalier973 on Thursday, October 22, 2009 3:35:29 AM
This is heartening:
 
 

They Can’t Push Us Around Forever

Posted on 20 October 2009

by State Rep. Susan Lynn (TN-57th)

The following is a letter from Tennessee to the other 49 State Legislatures

We send greetings from the Tennessee General Assembly.  On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen.  The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:

  • Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
  • Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,
  • Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and
  • Seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.

It is for those purposes that this letter addresses your honorable body.

In 1776, our founding fathers declared our freedom in the magnificent Declaration of Independence; our guide to governance.  They established a nation of free and independent states.  Declaring that the purpose of our political system is to secure for its citizens’ their natural rights.  The Constitution authorizes the national government to carry out seventeen enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 and the powers of several of the ensuing amendments.

At the time of the Constitutional ratification process James Madison drafted the “Virginia Plan” to give Congress general legislative authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states’ accustomed role in selecting members of Congress.  Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated.  In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well.

There are clear limits to the power of the federal government and clear realms of power for the states.  However, the simple and clear expression of purpose, to secure our natural rights, has evolved into the modern expectation that the national government has an obligation to ensure our life, to create our liberty, and fund our pursuit of happiness.

The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay.

Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be.

Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights, and the enumerated powers in the Constitution.

The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. The rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored.

To be sure, the People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only.  The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying.

The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.  The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.

The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws.  It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters.  It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.

With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty - and unconstitutional.

Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom.

We invite your state to join with us to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.

Susan Lynn [send her email] is a member of the Tennessee General Assembly; serving on the Commerce Committee and Chairman of the Government Operations committee. She holds a BS in economics and a minor in history. She is the Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Commerce Task Force.  Visit her blog at http://susan-lynn.blogspot.com

Tags: liberty  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

First Woman winner of the "Nobel Prize in Economics"

Posted by cavalier973 on Thursday, October 15, 2009 3:51:48 PM
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

BBC reports that man-made "Global Warming" may not be true

Posted by cavalier973 on Thursday, October 15, 2009 5:25:28 AM
 
They still try to defend the conventional wisdom that man-made global warming is scientifically verifiable.  I find the argument about the ocean temperatures more persuasive (meaning that we are on the cusp of a 30 year global cooling trend).
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Limbaugh wants to "saw off Maine"

Posted by cavalier973 on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 2:47:46 PM
Just a few minutes ago, Rush Limbaugh stated that to deal with the problem of Olympia Snowe, we should "saw off Maine" from the rest of the country.  My question is, why should Maine get the benefit of no longer living under this oppresive central government?  If we were able to "saw off Maine", it would become a destination of choice for millions of Americans, I think....
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Articles of Confederation

Posted by cavalier973 on Monday, October 05, 2009 9:51:26 PM
http://mises.org/story/1296
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Want to lower health care costs? Pay for it yourself

Posted by cavalier973 on Sunday, September 20, 2009 1:21:12 PM
 
This reminds me of the lady who called Rush Limbaugh and told how she shopped around and got an X-Ray for $20 that was originally going to cost $269.



http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/foye7.1.1.html

Obama, I Got Your Health Savings Right Here

by James Foye




Politicians never tire of telling us of how this or that plan will save us money, when, invariably, they always cost more than predicted and never save anybody anything.

Left to their own devices, consumers of health care, like consumers of any other good, will figure out how to save money just fine on their own. Here’s an example:

One day a few weeks ago I realized that what I thought was an insect bite on my chest was probably some kind of infection. On a Sunday afternoon I went to a local clinic and within 15 minutes was seeing a doctor. Sure enough, the doc diagnosed it as a staph infection, drained it, and put me on a prescription of antibiotics. For the office visit I was charged $175.00, not bad considering it was Sunday, and I received excellent care with almost no waiting. I paid another $15 to fulfill the prescription (generic, of course).

During the examination the doc took a sample of the discharge and said something about sending it to the lab. A short time after I returned home a nurse from the clinic called me. Did I want to send this on to the lab? There would be an extra cost. How much, I asked? She wasn’t sure, but she would call the lab on Monday and find out. And then she added something:

"To be honest, it’s not really going to make a difference what it is. If you don’t respond to the antibiotics, the doctor will just have to put you on something stronger."

The next day she called me back with the cost: $210. Despite some urging from family members (all of whom, unlike myself, have health insurance), I told the nurse not to send it to the lab.

What do you think just about any other person covered by health insurance would have done? But I pay for my own medical care, and I did a cost benefit analysis, and decided that money would be better off staying with me.

Savings: $210.

Several days later I decided to follow up with the family doctor, as the spot, while it had stopped getting bigger, was not getting appreciably smaller. The doctor said everything looked good, it just takes a while to heal. He drained it a bit more, and then he told me to wash twice a day for a week with Hibiclens (that pink soap you always see surgeons scrubbing with prior to an operation), plus put some antibiotic ointment up my nose.

On the way out I paid my bill. The normal fee would be $130. But since I pay in cash, I received a 30% discount, making the final bill only $91. You see, like most doctors’ offices, my family doctor is forced to have people on staff who do nothing put process insurance forms all day. And after he sees a patient, he typically waits 60–90 days (or longer, even) to get paid. I’m doing him a favor by paying him today, and he’s doing me a favor by charging me closer to what a doctor’s visit should actually cost.

Savings: $39.

At the pharmacy I found that the surgical soap was pretty cheap (about $12), but that the antibiotic ointment was $40. At that point I remembered that my previous family doctor had prescribed some antibiotic ointment for me a couple of years ago, for an inflamed hair follicle right just inside one of my nostrils. (Excuse all the gory medical details here in this essay). I knew I still had almost an entire tube of that stuff at home, so I held off on buying it. When I got home, I saw that the name of the one I had was not what the doctor had prescribed. But I called his office and told him what I had, and he said it works just as well, so I could use it.

Savings: $40.

Let’s add it all up:

Item

Cost

First doctor’s visit

175

Antibiotics (generic)

15

Second doctor’s visit

91

Hibiclens soap

12

Total cost for treating my staph infection: $293.

Here’s what I didn’t spend, but would have been part of the cost if I was on health insurance.

Item

Cost

Lab analysis

210

Doctor’s visit (reverse cash discount)

39

Antibiotic ointment

40

$289, or just $4 short of what I actually spent. A savings of 49.5%! No bureaucrat can match that. No central planner can produce that by waving his wand and making his sweeping pronouncement, "I decree this is how much will be saved!" Savings happen when people spend their own money, and so they care how much of it they spend. When spending other peoples’ money, it is human nature to spend more.

September 19, 2009

James Foye [send him mail] is an independent software developer living in Austin, Texas.

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On Limbaugh's show today (concerning Health Care)

Posted by cavalier973 on Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:10:04 PM
 
Sherry in, what is that, Aledo, Texas.

CALLER: Aledo, Texas.

RUSH: Aledo, Texas. Well, I'm sorry I mispronounced it. It's the first time I've seen it.

CALLER: That's quite all right. I was calling to suggest that the high insurance costs and health care costs are not entirely due to the insurance companies but also the health providers because they don't post what they charge things. I went in for an X-ray yesterday, and the place the doctor sent me to was going to cost me $269.

RUSH: Wait, wait, wait. For an X-ray?

CALLER: For an X-ray.

RUSH: Of what?

CALLER: My toe.

RUSH: So $269 for a toe X-ray. Okay.

CALLER: So I said, "Is that the best you can do, because that seems a little high."

RUSH: Wait a minute. You have insurance?

CALLER: Well, that's what they asked me and I said, "Yes," and they're like, "Okay, never mind." But regardless, I want to know what it's going to cost. So she did get it down to $221, and that still seemed awfully high so I left, and I went home and I called around and I found a place that would do it for $80 but there would also be a charge for the radiologist to read it but she couldn't tell me how much that was, and referred me to billing. Of course I had to leave a message for billing and they never called me back, but I did finally find a place that would do it for $20.

RUSH: Paying for it yourself, no insurance?

CALLER: Yes.

RUSH: See?

CALLER: See.

RUSH: See? Now, that's a good deal. So your original price was $289 did you say?

CALLER: It was $269.

RUSH: It was $269 and you got it whittled down to $221, and then $80 but you didn't know what the radiologist would charge to read it and finally got it down to $20.

CALLER: Twenty dollars.

RUSH: Paying for it yourself.

CALLER: Paying for it myself.

RUSH: Didn't need your insurance.

CALLER: But, you know, all the places that I asked how much is this going to cost, nobody knew, nobody could tell me. They had to refer me to somebody else, who didn't call me back.

RUSH: Right, because it doesn't matter because some third party is going to pay it, not you, and there's a formula, that's why they don't know because it's not up to them. There's some formula based on whether the insurance company or whoever it is tells them what it's worth and what they're going to reimburse them for. That's why if you do go into places -- you ought to try this, folks, just a standard doctor visit, offer to pay for it yourself, I guarantee you it will cost you lest than if you use your insurance. And there's no deductible, there's no copay, you just pay it. Try it, see if it works. It worked obviously here for Sherry in Aledo, Texas.

CALLER: I had another question. When insurance is nationalized where do all the people go who work for insurance companies?

RUSH: They are unemployed.

CALLER: Yeah. So that's really going to be good for the country.

RUSH: Yeah. That's more crisis for Obama. It's more uninsured. They'll have to go on the government option. It's insidious. Do you think he cares about unemployment now? Anybody running this country in this current economic situation would be devastated, personally devastated over what circumstances the American people are in today, particularly the unemployed and they would be doing something to reverse it. Zip, zero, nada. Stimulus isn't gonna work anyway. Six percent is what's been spent. They're saving the rest of it for 2010, a reelection year. And, by the way, it was in the stack yesterday. I think it's a Washington Post story, maybe, I'm not sure. It was a story about infrastructure spending down in some big city, and that was the whole point of the stimulus was shovel-ready infrastructure jobs. Anybody with a heart, any president of the United States with a heart would look at this economic mess and would not be doing this, would not have policies anywhere like this, would not be thinking of a health care plan like this and all this borrowing. Folks, this is serious. This is a president working outside the political system of this country to overthrow it.


END TRANSCRIPT
Tags: health care  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What a great tv show

Posted by cavalier973 on Friday, August 28, 2009 2:47:54 AM
 
All 14 episodes are there; when you've finished, rent "Serenity" the motion picture.  It's pretty good, too.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123456789Next »