Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Democrats organize to fight back
#81
(11-18-2016, 11:42 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(11-18-2016, 04:16 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:
Obama Wrote:In an age of social media where so many people are getting their information in sound bites and snippets off their phones, if we can't discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda, then we have problems," he said. "If people, whether they're conservative, liberal, left or right, are unwilling to compromise and engage in the democratic process and are taking absolutist views and demonizing opponents, then democracy will break down.

Now, is he talking about this forum specifically, or the world in general?  That's my problem with extreme partisans in a nutshell.

Pretty clear he's talking about himself, even if he doesn't realize it.  No one took absolutist views, demonized opponents, and refused to compromise more than Obama.

No, it was the Republicans who did that, not Obama.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#82
(11-18-2016, 11:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(11-17-2016, 04:59 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:
(11-17-2016, 12:01 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: To the contrary, private insurance is far more able to negotiate for lower prices.  As you point out, government is subject to lobbying from the suppliers, keeping prices high; private insurance doesn't have that problem.





Whatcha talkin' about Warren?   Health insurance companies are useless intermediaries , man. Cool

The money going to them is utter waste. Just think about all the money going to them that could just go to health care providers directly.  Like, I'll take the Medicare starts at age 0 over the crap we had before Obamacare and the  sort of messed up stuff with Obamacare.  Health care does not work under free enterprise do to a mismatch in  the ability to afford what is actually needed.

Of course you'll take a system that allows you to spend other peoples' money as freely as you want.

The trickle-down meme you just recited may be persuasive, but it bears no resemblance to reality.

Quote:For those of us who care about societal efficiency and the financial stability of the health care system, though, private insurance does a very good job on cost controls.  Perhaps you don't look at your insurance statements, but I do, and typically private insurance pays about 1/3 of the health care providers' "normal" rates.

If you want health care costs to rise several times the rate of inflation, then private insurance is your cup of tea.

Quote:There are absolutely problems with employers making decisions on employees' health care, but for medicare that permitted the individuals to choose their insurers, that problem would be ameliorated to a great extent.

People on medicare can choose their doctors. Medicare is the best deal, and it allows you to choose insurers to get more coverage.

The purpose of libertarian philosophy is just to "insure" that only the wealthy can survive and prosper in this world. It's worked to a great extent in fulfilling that purpose for 36 years and counting in the USA.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#83
(11-18-2016, 12:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(11-18-2016, 11:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: For those of us who care about societal efficiency and the financial stability of the health care system, though, private insurance does a very good job on cost controls.  Perhaps you don't look at your insurance statements, but I do, and typically private insurance pays about 1/3 of the health care providers' "normal" rates.

If you want health care costs to rise several times the rate of inflation, then private insurance is your cup of tea.

The only way to avoid that is to ration or to have the people who are getting the medical service to pay for it themselves.  I agree that the current system that ties health care to the employer has problems in that respect.  Better would be for the employer to pay that money to the employee and for the employee to choose his own health care freely.
Reply
#84
(11-18-2016, 02:43 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(11-18-2016, 12:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(11-18-2016, 11:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: For those of us who care about societal efficiency and the financial stability of the health care system, though, private insurance does a very good job on cost controls.  Perhaps you don't look at your insurance statements, but I do, and typically private insurance pays about 1/3 of the health care providers' "normal" rates.

If you want health care costs to rise several times the rate of inflation, then private insurance is your cup of tea.

The only way to avoid that is to ration or to have the people who are getting the medical service to pay for it themselves.  I agree that the current system that ties health care to the employer has problems in that respect.  Better would be for the employer to pay that money to the employee and for the employee to choose his own health care freely.

Why would that way be the "only way?" Only because you don't believe in "socialized medicine." No, single payer is the way to "avoid that."
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#85
(11-18-2016, 03:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(11-18-2016, 02:43 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(11-18-2016, 12:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(11-18-2016, 11:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: For those of us who care about societal efficiency and the financial stability of the health care system, though, private insurance does a very good job on cost controls.  Perhaps you don't look at your insurance statements, but I do, and typically private insurance pays about 1/3 of the health care providers' "normal" rates.

If you want health care costs to rise several times the rate of inflation, then private insurance is your cup of tea.

The only way to avoid that is to ration or to have the people who are getting the medical service to pay for it themselves.  I agree that the current system that ties health care to the employer has problems in that respect.  Better would be for the employer to pay that money to the employee and for the employee to choose his own health care freely.

Why would that way be the "only way?" Only because you don't believe in "socialized medicine." No, single payer is the way to "avoid that."

Probably because he understands economics enough to know that having a third party payer is about the worst way to do things.  If the consumer is the one paying then they will weigh the costs and benefits of the treatments they are getting.  The current system that ties insurance to employment is a direct consequence of the wage controls implemented during the war and making such benefits non-taxable.

Go learn some history and economics you idiot.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
#86
(11-18-2016, 04:31 PM)Galen Wrote:
(11-18-2016, 03:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(11-18-2016, 02:43 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(11-18-2016, 12:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(11-18-2016, 11:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: For those of us who care about societal efficiency and the financial stability of the health care system, though, private insurance does a very good job on cost controls.  Perhaps you don't look at your insurance statements, but I do, and typically private insurance pays about 1/3 of the health care providers' "normal" rates.

If you want health care costs to rise several times the rate of inflation, then private insurance is your cup of tea.

The only way to avoid that is to ration or to have the people who are getting the medical service to pay for it themselves.  I agree that the current system that ties health care to the employer has problems in that respect.  Better would be for the employer to pay that money to the employee and for the employee to choose his own health care freely.

Why would that way be the "only way?" Only because you don't believe in "socialized medicine." No, single payer is the way to "avoid that."

Probably because he understands economics enough to know that having a third party payer is about the worst way to do things.  If the consumer is the one paying then they will weigh the costs and benefits of the treatments they are getting.  The current system that ties insurance to employment is a direct consequence of the wage controls implemented during the war and making such benefits non-taxable.

(Insult redacted)

The idea was that medical care for employees was a good thing for employers who needed not concern themselves with desirable workers dying because they chose death over draining the family savings. But if people are obliged to pay -- considering how miserable my parents' last six months of life were, and how much nursing-home care wrecked my hopes --

I would have been money ahead had they died in an automobile wreck. That is how life goes at times.

One can no longer buy insurance for nursing-home costs. One can instead put one's kids who have sacrificed much to take care of their elders into destitution, a fate that I fear. In an economic order that will soon have no priority other than the indulgence of people already filthy rich I might have very little to live for except to protest the insane policies of our dictator.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#87
Just a reminder to avoid personal insults.
Reply
#88
(11-18-2016, 01:04 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(11-18-2016, 08:06 AM)Odin Wrote: If the Dems want to fight back and win they need to adopt the model of "alt-left" parties like the Scottish National Party in the UK and Podemos in Spain. The main problem with the mainstream Center-Left parties through much of the Western World is that they have completely ignored the rising tide of anti-globalization and anti-technocratic sentiment among the working class, dismissing it as the "stupid plebs not knowing what is best for them". This has given an opening for the Far Right and now the Far Right are reaping the fruits of wooing the working class and riding the wave of anti-globalism and anti-technocratic elitism.

Those on the Left who defend Free Trade and Globalization, you have a choice to make. What do you care about more, your own ideological purity, or fighting off the rising tide of the Far Right?

Right on. And in many ways, what you describe is a quite patriotic Left wing.

Irony - were there to be an efficacious "Alt-Left" it would be far more patriotic (in fact, diametrically opposed in terms of patriotism) versus the "Alt-Right." The "Alt-Right" in addition to not being all of the Right, is actually faux "Right."

No real Rightist (or any patriot of any polity) aligns with a trans-national "pan" movement such as "Eurasianism" aka "National Bolshevism."

The US "Alt-Right" are actually enemies of the US and Western Civilization in general. To be fair, most of them probably do not realize this and they have been steered via the "Alpha Method" and other tactics into their current position. But operationally speaking, they are enemies.

#RealNationalism

I agree.
#MakeTheDemocratsGreatAgain
Reply
#89
(11-18-2016, 11:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Of course you'll take a system that allows you to spend other peoples' money as freely as you want.

Uh, and how are we denizens of McWages supposed to pay for health insurance. Is it OK for health insurance companies to deny based on pre existing conditions?  Now, here's one place I'll agree with you.  Let's abolish all laws that allow health insurance companies to remain an oligopoly.   I'll go further, let's abolish all laws that allow Big Pharma to remain an oligopoly. All laws that present barriers to entry in the health field should be abolished. I want to gore a bunch of sacred cows that way.

Quote:For those of us who care about societal efficiency and the financial stability of the health care system, though, private insurance does a very good job on cost controls.  Perhaps you don't look at your insurance statements, but I do, and typically private insurance pays about 1/3 of the health care providers' "normal" rates.

I see nothing wrong with single payer with deductibles.  I rather doubt anyone would go to a doc if they had to pay something instead of getting the latest heavy metal DVD.

Quote:There are absolutely problems with employers making decisions on employees' health care, but for medicare that permitted the individuals to choose their insurers, that problem would be ameliorated to a great extent.

Like someone else mentioned, that's a WWII price control legacy. It needs to go. I'll agree that price controls are utterly stupid. Look at how well they work in Venezuela.


For Eric, a special.   "Rent control is the next best thing besides bombing to destroy the housing stock."   Tongue


Welcome to Rag's world:





McWageland starring Evil Grimace, CEO.   Big Grin
---Value Added Cool
Reply
#90
(11-18-2016, 03:52 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(11-18-2016, 02:43 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(11-18-2016, 12:56 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(11-18-2016, 11:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: For those of us who care about societal efficiency and the financial stability of the health care system, though, private insurance does a very good job on cost controls.  Perhaps you don't look at your insurance statements, but I do, and typically private insurance pays about 1/3 of the health care providers' "normal" rates.

If you want health care costs to rise several times the rate of inflation, then private insurance is your cup of tea.

The only way to avoid that is to ration or to have the people who are getting the medical service to pay for it themselves.  I agree that the current system that ties health care to the employer has problems in that respect.  Better would be for the employer to pay that money to the employee and for the employee to choose his own health care freely.

Here's a hypothetical for you.

Let's say we have a company you never heard of. Joe's Computer Garage. The reason you haven't heard of it is, it's an army of 1.

Now, let's say we have Dell.

Joe's Computer Garage goes to negotiate a contract with Mega Chip Inc. I wonder what the terms and conditions will be?

Now, Dell goes to negotiate their contract with Mega Chip. Hmmm ... you don't suppose ... Dell might get better Ts and Cs? Maybe, just maybe?

Well, health insurance is no different.
I'd prefer to do business with the more profitable of the two. The army of 1 is actually an army of 1's who exist who have a history of paying their bills on time, costing less and being more profitable to do business and rely upon as a group than a large group like Dell.
Reply
#91
[Image: 14716270_10155228163862908_5568073137086...e=58C4B49A]
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#92




Should We Give Donald Trump a Chance? | The Resistance with Keith Olbermann | GQ

"All we are saying, is give fascism as chance? It might not be as bad as we think?"
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#93
Yep I quite enjoy universal healthcare. :3
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#94
The 1461-day sentence of having to admit that Donald Trump is President and the consequences thereofbegins in toughly two months. I will be counting it down as if it were Hard Time in the Big House.

The one thing that I can predict is that just about every American will have experience exactly what a sociopath does -- sticking it to anyone that he can.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#95
(11-19-2016, 02:29 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:



Should We Give Donald Trump a Chance? | The Resistance with Keith Olbermann | GQ

"All we are saying, is give fascism as chance? It might not be as bad as we think?"

Through Obama's two terms, the Republicans in Congress gave me the impression that they cared more about making the first black president look unsuccessful than they cared about the United States being successful.  The blocked everything he tried to do.  The new Democratic senate minority leader in his coming in speech said he did not intend to do that.  He would not reject and idea because it came from Trump, but he sure would reject bad ideas, fighting them tooth and nail.  I think this an important distinction, in part because I don't think the Democrats need to worry about Trump seeming like a successful president.

In the early presidential elect period, I'm not seeing that Trump is taking many of his campaign promises all that seriously.  As such, I'm not sure what in the world he intends to do.  To that extent, and to the extent that there seem to be enough Trump demonizers doing their thing, I don't think I need join the demonizer bandwagon just yet.

I am also seeing president elect Trump being the same guy as candidate Trump.  I was wondering if he was willing to fan the Republican base with hate and unusual ideas as a candidate, but would show a more intelligent rational side once elected.  So far, the only sign of a rational Trump has been what Obama has been saying.  Obama seems to be the biggest advocate for 'give Trump a chance' thus far.  While I don't care for demonization, I find myself less interested in giving Trump a chance than Obama is.

Now, I don't think the country is going to shake off its unravelling funk, it is not going to have a regeneracy, until the work together to promote good ideas crowd dominates the extreme partisan demonize anyone who disagrees crowd.  Our current culture of demonization brought us Trump.  Everyone in Washington being demonized resulted in the real unvarnished non-Washington guy getting elected.

At the same time, there is a strong case that Trump really is a demon and ought to be demonized.  Olbermann's point of view is hardly unique.  The demonization bandwagon is rolling, will not be stopped, the volume is unlikely to diminish.

My magic eight ball predicts an ugly 2 years followed by a disaster for the Republicans at the mid terms.  The question for me is what this will do to the extreme partisan divide.  I can see the gap, the mutual misunderstanding and distrust, being made worse, the government becoming even more dysfunctional.  I can hope for an anti-Trump coalition pushing for more good ideas than partisanship resulting in a regeneration enabling unity.  I can see a mix, with the divide of ideals being as strong as ever, but with one side having the numbers to quash the other.

Worst of all, the stagnant unravelling bickering could continue unchanged.
Reply
#96
One side will have the numbers to quash the other. We'll have to hope it's our side. That's how 4Ts work.

His appointments so far don't leave much room for giving him a chance.

Our "climate of demonization" brought us Trump? I think the electorate was possessed by a demon, and that brought us Trump. That demon is called Reaganomics. Oh, it has many other names too. You know what they are.

The wrong side has held power for 19 years of the 21st century, so far. (they can't be dislodged at the midterm; the odds are way against that). That's the only demon that counts. We have entered a 4T degeneracy. It's defeat and reversal would be the regeneracy.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#97
"One side will have the numbers to quash the other. We'll have to hope it's our side. That's how 4Ts work."

.......maybe in my way or the highway America....
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#98
Things we will likely have to resist include, but are not limited to these:

The Trumpie has appointed as CIA chief a man who advocates torture, and who is rabidly anti-Iran. Trump has promised to pull out of the Iran deal. We don't know how long this will take, or whether the Iranians really meant what they said that they don't want to build nuclear weapons. But they were coming close to doing it anyway, it was reported. So what if they start developing nuclear weapons again, when Trump destroys the deal? Do his guys convince him to start another middle east preventive war? Before another "mushroom cloud" comes to Manhattan and engulfs Trump Tower? Protests break out as they did in 2003, all over Europe and even in the USA? What does Trump do about them? Can we stop the war? How many war crimes are committed, and how much secret repression in the USA?

The Trumpster has appointed as his transition leader for the EPA a leading, rabid climate science denier. Does the USA pull out of the Paris Agreement? Does he just ignore it? Does the agreement collapse, then? Does Trump shut down the EPA? When he takes off the mileage requirements and null the clean power plan, how fast does global warming proceed? Can CA require electric cars on its own, and will Trump sue CA? Does the pollution of our water return as it had been under Bush, or worse? How many pipelines rupture, at what cost to water and land? Does the climate breakdown proceed, this time toward catastrophe, and irreversible this time? How will the coal miners who voted for him feel after they discover their jobs are lost anyway? What will they say or do? How dangerous will fracking get? How do we resist the new war now being declared on the environment?

Does he limit deportation to criminal illegals, as he promised on 60 Minutes? Are there as many criminal aliens as he says, and if not, is he lying to deport them? How quickly does he deport DACA recipients, after removing the program? How far does he go with deportation, at what cost? How many peoples' lives and families does he ruin? How can the Latinos and others fight back? How much money can he get to build a wall? What size will this boondoggle be? Can sanctuary cities replace funds cut off?

Does his newly-designated racist attorney general reverse civil rights laws enforcement? How far will he go? How quickly will he curtail enforcement of the voting rights act? How quickly can Trump get the Courts to go along with his racist attorney general? Will there be a new civil rights movement? How violent will it get? How far will the militarization of police and racial profiling go under the racist attorney general? How many unarmed young black men will be shot down? How many riots will there be, and how will they be repressed? At what cost in lives? At what cost to burned out cities? What advice will Mr. Breitbart News give to Mr. Trump? Just how far will race hatred go as a result of his advice?

We can certainly assume many more will die in mass shootings than before under the new pro-gun regime. No need to ask THAT question. How long will the new right-wing Supreme Court be able to squash any new progressive legislation in the future? How much more will the fact that money rules politics, ruin it?

Will Trump be able to renegotiate NAFTA, and punish China for currency violations? Will this result in trade wars? Can he make any money for America with his tariffs? Will this really bring back any jobs? Will automation proceed apace and cost Americans their jobs anyway?

Will there be a crash after Dodd-Frank is repealed? How dizzy will the speculation and leveraging be? How big will the banks too big to fail get? How fast will a depression come, and how deep will it be, since the Fed and the Congress now have no tools to stimulate a recovery?

What will people do after their benefits they paid for are cut? What will replace Obamacare, and Medicare, and how are people going to pay for it? Will Trump get Mexico to pay for it? How many families and businesses will go bankrupt from health care costs? How many people will die because insurance companies don't or won't cover them? Where will all the new homeless people go? How much will Trump cut from research, from national parks, from welfare? Can he really find any "waste, fraud and abuse?" How unsafe will our jobs and consumer products be when he gets rid of most of the regulations? How much of our public lands will be sold off or exploited for profit? At what cost to our forests and wildlife?

How much will our national debt rise, and how fast? How much interest will this cost the taxpayers? Will congress approve money for his military boondoggles and his infrastructure building projects? Will Trump put his name on them? Will they be privatized and paid for with user tolls? What would this do to commerce? Will the US just go bankrupt or default because Trump invests the USA's money in the wrong projects, as he did in his business? Just what does our new CEO-president have in mind; what gigantic, expensive and crazy schemes? Can the Tea Party just shut the government down with impunity now, if the debt limit isn't raised? Will the USA default, and how soon? How much more inequality will result from all the new tax breaks for the rich? How much will our aristocratic oligarchy grow, and how permanently, from the repeal of the estate tax? Just how far will his corruption and nepotism go?

Are we even safe from nuclear war, with Trump's little hands on the nuclear codes? Have we become a vassal state of Russia, with what result for our allies? Will Putin be tempted to attack Estonia? Will Trump cry betrayal at Putin, and start WWIII? Is anything on Earth safe from the orange demon?
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#99
(11-19-2016, 04:38 AM)taramarie Wrote: "One side will have the numbers to quash the other. We'll have to hope it's our side. That's how 4Ts work."

.......maybe in my way or the highway America....

Do yourself a favor and look at Trump's appointments in light of the promises on his campaign web site.  Tell me what you think.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
(11-19-2016, 05:06 AM)Galen Wrote:
(11-19-2016, 04:38 AM)taramarie Wrote: "One side will have the numbers to quash the other. We'll have to hope it's our side. That's how 4Ts work."

.......maybe in my way or the highway America....

Do yourself a favor and look at Trump's appointments in light of the promises on his campaign web site.  Tell me what you think.
Trump is one person. Just one. I am talking about all of the extreme partisan behaviour I see daily from Americans. They would rather stand there and tear themselves apart than discuss anything. They seem to scream to the wind and hope it sticks while cupping their hands over their ears to whatever the opposite side has to say. Sometimes they shut them down immediately with derogatory labels like sexist or racist without even knowing if it is true or not. And even if true does it solve anything. It appears to me all they know is how to tear things down and not build back up. If Trump wants to bring Americans together he has a hell of a job ahead of him. I would be surprised if he did. I have my doubts...like seriously I do not think he will be able to pull it off. It would take a frigging nuclear war to get many over there to pull their heads out of their asses to pull together. I am seriously just fed up with them over there right now. I wash my hands of them. They are broken and continue to shatter their country and honestly do not give a shit it seems. Boomers like you know who are going to get Millennials and some xers into some war for their uncompromising, intolerant and inability to listen ways just like the civil war era and get them killed for their ideals. This is what it is building to whether right at home or overseas. Best of luck guys but do not say the kiwi did not warn you. I wash my hands of you guys. This will only end in more grief and possible bloodshed. The world warned you all. The sooner Americans wake up the better. You do not build up by further tearing things down or people in some cases. You build bridges between the two. This is the last thing I will say on that. If people do not understand that, well guess they have to learn the hard way.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Paper ballots are hack-proof. It's time to bring them back. nebraska 23 2,470 02-04-2018, 07:50 PM
Last Post: nom
  Dayton to resume using red-light cameras after legal fight nebraska 0 269 01-26-2018, 06:09 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  Iraq, U.S. in talks to keep American troops after Islamic State fight done nebraska 0 320 01-24-2018, 03:04 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  California Democrats want businesses to give half their tax-cut savings to state nebraska 0 332 01-23-2018, 07:31 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  Republicans, Democrats ‘swamp’ US government nebraska 0 335 01-14-2018, 04:28 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  Trump: Bring back torture to make America great nebraska 0 298 01-13-2018, 07:51 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  Regulator tells Vermont hospital to dial back surgeries, revenue nebraska 0 266 12-28-2017, 12:41 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  The Democrats Will Win In 2020 naf140230 56 16,221 01-29-2017, 07:41 AM
Last Post: Bob Butler 54
  Who should lead the Democrats? Eric the Green 45 11,492 01-23-2017, 04:50 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  Bernie Plans To Fight Against Hillary's Corporatist Cabinet Picks taramarie 0 569 10-28-2016, 07:52 PM
Last Post: taramarie

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)