Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: US Presidential Race 2012
Thread: US Presidential Race 2012 This thread is 59 pages long: 1 10 20 30 ... 35 36 37 38 39 ... 40 50 59 · «PREV / NEXT»
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 15, 2012 10:59 AM

Now, now, keep cool everyone. There ARE countries with "free" health care. Britain, for example. Sweden, obviously. A couple of others. You have to imagine it like schools, which are "free" in most countries as well. That means, the government runs the show, pays everything and is the employer. Which doesn't mean, there are privately operated hospitals, docs and so on as well.
BUT this exists, and these services are FREE. Also, there is no special tax for it, but of course - as with schooling - the system is financed by taxes.

Of course the statistics show, that this system is a lot more cost effective than the insurance model.

And I agree with Xerox heere: the main thing is indeed, that there IS free health care for everyone. It makes a big difference, when you need an operation, that you will get it - for free! -, albeit you may have to wait 2 or 3 months, until "it's your turn", especially when you have the option to get it immediately and with some famous doc when you can and want to pay for it.

It's perfect from a capitalist and from a socialist point of view.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Zenofex
Zenofex


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
posted July 15, 2012 03:29 PM

Quote:
Capitalism = good.
Unfettered, unregulated capitalism = bad.
Problem is that the state wants to regulate (for the people's sake, at least in theory), the private entities want to be regulated as little as possible, hence there's a self-fuelling eternal conflict. More regulation = less freedom but lower chance a private entity to abuse other private entities just because it has the power to do so, while less regulations = more freedom and increased likelihood the state domination in a certain area to be transformed into a "strongest private company" domination. Of course these are all ideal scenarios but the principle remains. Regulated capitalism is hardly the best thing that the society can develop, although it's indeed much better than the wild predatory capitalism.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted July 15, 2012 03:32 PM

Oh I get it, JJ.  The money to pay for these things just magically comes from nowhere.  Or perhaps it's the money tree, is it?  Money fairy?

Just because costs are indirect does not mean they're free.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Tsar-Ivor
Tsar-Ivor


Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
posted July 15, 2012 03:41 PM

Don't be ridiculous Cor, Saint Nicholas provides the funds, even my 6 year old niece that.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
xerox
xerox


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 15, 2012 03:42 PM

No, they come from taxes. And people in these horrible socialist countries generally feel that paying taxes is worth it, because you get back something from the state and people generally have a sense of solidarity that seems to be non-existant in the US.

And again, there's no connection between providing wellfare financed by high taxes and a bad economy. People in countries such as Sweden, Denmark and Norway still have higher income than people in the US.

And again, I clarified that it is free in the sense that the individual doesn't pay anything for it when for instance, he or she needs like a surgery. And if I break my leg, I certainly won't need to wait for several months. They will take me to the hospital and fix it ASAP.

Now maybe all government programmes in the US suck, I don't know. But that does not mean that that's how it is all over the world.

I think you would also be delighted in hearing that in Sweden, we have BOTH things such as federal schools AND private for-profit schools. You get to choose.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 15, 2012 03:55 PM

Quote:
Oh I get it, JJ.  The money to pay for these things just magically comes from nowhere.  Or perhaps it's the money tree, is it?  Money fairy?

Just because costs are indirect does not mean they're free.
That's exactly the point. Do people without kids or with one kid complain about public school being tax financed and being free for those with 5 kids? Nope.
So why complain about tax money paying medical costs? It's more or less the same thing, and some people will just have bad luck and get some really expensive to treat crap, while others will be healthy until one day they keel over and die. An insurance works basically the same way, only a private insurance company is a profit organization, while the government is not. In Britain they hand out the exact amount of pills needed. Doc says you take 3 first day, then 5 more days 2 each, you'll get 13 pills.

Apart from that you CAN buy insurance privately or pay up to be treated in private etablissements.

Remember, we are still operating under the assumption that soeciety won't let anyone die because they cannot pay for some treatment. So medical costs MUST be paid one way or another.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
xerox
xerox


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 15, 2012 04:19 PM

and it's not like the new american system is any better where you are forced to buy an insurance from a for-profit corporation

99% of all the people who live in these socialist, marxist countries are happy with it and laugh at the US which is practically a third world country when it comes to these things.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted July 15, 2012 04:38 PM

Quote:
That's exactly the point. Do people without kids or with one kid complain about public school being tax financed and being free for those with 5 kids? Nope.
Quote:

Yes, in fact they do.  I complain about it all the time.  
And far from being exactly the point, it's far from the point.  Even if we accept that this is a fair way to pay for public schools, it hardly makes schools FREE.  It's just redistributing the costs to someone else.  That's a huge difference.

There's no such thing as free schools.  We all collectively pay for them.  And there's no such thing as free healthcare for the same reason.

We're not arguing whether tax money should be used to pay for medical costs.  We're arguing whether, in the event that it is, it makes healthcare FREE.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
violent_flower
violent_flower


Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
posted July 15, 2012 04:46 PM

Quote:
And again, there's no connection between providing wellfare financed by high taxes and a bad economy. People in countries such as Sweden, Denmark and Norway still have higher income than people in the US.
Quote:


Lets not start using other countries that pass out all "free" services as a model for the US, we have enough problem.

Sweds economic record fails to falsify classical liberal idealism's on the connection between government intervention and economic success.Sweden does have a high level of national income - similar to Britain's - in an economy in which the government currently spends not much more than in Britain. However the Swed's growth national income was most rapid when the proportion of state spending was relatively low.

High state spending almost brought the country to its knees begging. Once the Swed's government became huge GDP sky rocketed.

All we really need to do is become a bit more primitive and less dependent.The situation improves somewhat in a small, voluntary collective: a partnership with small family's living on their own. Their combined efforts produce more surplus, and they provide the necessities of life with less individual effort.

They develop skills (because they are forced to, shoving ding dongs in your obese mouth three at a time while swiping your link card is not a skill)and talents that are valuable.

When families come together with each other, production and wealth become abundant. Surplus continues to go up in these types of community's generating a surplus production, allowing one to access more goods and services they could never produce themselves.

This is how tribes survive, Alaskan families who have live off their lands not waiting for the welfare check each month. We can't be dependent on our government period and now we are.

Social Security, which original intent has been lost and skewed,we have used it as a social reform instrument ever since it evolved.Now no one knows what they will do without it, save your money and stop forcing us to contribute to a broken system, there is a novel idea. It should be optional not mandatory.

Increase the living wage so people can become more responsible with their funds and budget accordingly. Don't increase the programs which have proven to fail at almost every turn.  



____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 15, 2012 05:36 PM

Quote:
Quote:
That's exactly the point. Do people without kids or with one kid complain about public school being tax financed and being free for those with 5 kids? Nope.

Yes, in fact they do.  I complain about it all the time.  
And far from being exactly the point, it's far from the point.  Even if we accept that this is a fair way to pay for public schools, it hardly makes schools FREE.  It's just redistributing the costs to someone else.  That's a huge difference.

There's no such thing as free schools.  We all collectively pay for them.  And there's no such thing as free healthcare for the same reason.

We're not arguing whether tax money should be used to pay for medical costs.  We're arguing whether, in the event that it is, it makes healthcare FREE.

If you complain about school being "free" - that is, cost for what is considered A RIGHT TO BASIC EDUCATION FOR EVERY KID, is collectively paid by society - then, sorry, you do not deserve to live in a society. A society cannot survive without children, EDUCATED children, but that's not the point here.
Sure, NOTHING is ever for free, after all it has to be paid, but are you really going to argue about the "For Free" label? It IS for free, after all, because it's a service that is made available independantly from people using it. It's like the fire brigade - it's there, even if never needed, and when you have the bad luck of being forced to call them, you are not charged. Calling them - if for a valid reason - is "For Free" in the sense that the WHOLE ofsociety ia AFFORDING themselves the service. You might say, EVERYONE gives something (more or less) in order to make a FORFREE service available.

And in that sense FREE health care in those countries is INDEED free.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
xerox
xerox


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 15, 2012 05:44 PM

Yeah, at a time our debt sky rocketed because we built 1 million more households (our population was like 7-8 million at the time) and modernized our country's infrastructure. Imagine if the US built ten millions of new households? Your debt would sky rocket aswell. Right now however, our debt is decreasing rapidily. And we still have a good wellfare society that everybody approves of.

You seem to think that having a social security net destroys all entreprenurship and makes people lazy and not want to make money. That is completly wrong. We have hundreds of thousands of private corporations, we are a service-based society since Asia has got all the industires now, there are several global swedish corporations such as Skype, Spotify, IKEA and H&M. I would actually say that having a social security net makes more people want to start businesses. Because starting a business is a great risk, and here, people know that if they fail, they have a soft carpet to land on.

I'm not saying that the US should or even can become a wellfare society. First off, our cultures are very diffent. The american culture is based on capitalism, greed, individuality and consumption, with little room for socialist values. I do however think that your government should provide everyone with atleast some free, BASIC healthcare so that people won't die on the streets.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
violent_flower
violent_flower


Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
posted July 15, 2012 06:29 PM

Yes it was called Million Programme, a government idea that bombed. This is why the government should not be venturing in these types of decisions.

You state "everyone approves", um we both know this is not true.

As far as your debt declining and the economy improving that is also not true. Unemployment is high and the situation is grime over there.

I agree with your statements about greed in the US, this is why we need to thin the herd. We need to let it fail so that the foundation can start again and we can learn from our mistakes. The US is all about more bathrooms, 12 bedrooms, 6 cars, and vacations based on credit. We borrow about 42 cents on every dollar. However because we have that mentality and then honor it with a "safety net" the Americans will run with it taking advantage from every angle.

If it works for you over there, great, but you just explained how you are different from us and if thats true that type of system will fail here as it has in so many countries. Look around as we are staring at the demise of so many countries right now only surviving from bail outs.  
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
xerox
xerox


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 15, 2012 06:41 PM

I'm not completly sure (It was long before I was born), but I think that at the time, a vast majority of all people approved of the million programme as it was very nescessary to support our population who grew very fast at the time. But unlike in the US, the huge oppositiona against the state just doesn't exist here. Most peope trust that the state does a good job (even though that's not always the case, 48 of our 50 worst schools are federal)

Unfortunaly, the Social Democrats who ruled then were pretty shortsighted because today, a negative consequence is that some of the million progamme areas are real segregated ghettos (Sweden succks at integration, instead of demanding immigrants to work, we have seen them as victims and given them wellfare money)

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
justjoe
justjoe

Tavern Dweller
posted July 15, 2012 07:16 PM


Quote:
Lets not start using other countries that pass out all "free" services as a model for the US, we have enough problem.

Are you saying that, learning from other countries' success' is a bad idea?

Quote:
Once the Swed's government became huge GDP sky rocketed

A good thing. I don't really know the history here. But, high GDP is a good thing.

Quote:
All we really need to do is become a bit more primitive and less dependent.The situation improves somewhat in a small, voluntary collective: a partnership with small family's living on their own. Their combined efforts produce more surplus, and they provide the necessities of life with less individual effort.

This is Communism on a small scale. Communism can work up until the point of anonymity.
That point when people can start doing things without the entire community knowing exactly what is being done.
That is when it goes bad.

Quote:
This is how tribes survive, Alaskan families who have live off their lands not waiting for the welfare check each month.

Been to Native American tribal lands lately? Unless they have casinos, and even with them a lot of the time, these people have been economically depressed for a very long time. Most depend on tribal welfare to live.
A lot of alaskans are the same. And they get their supplemental checks,too. This was a bad example for your argument that we can't be dependent on our government, because, for the most part these peoples are dependant on theirs.

Funny, though SS isn't still what the original program was for, it is one of the most efficient and liked across the board programs we have.  
The biggest issue with it was when Reagan established the precedent of dipping into it's funds for other government programs so that it appeared that he was not racking up the debt he did (which we are still paying just the interest on 30+ years later).

As far as our health care system? It sucks. We are trying to make it better. Well, some of us are. We pay far and away more money for it, than any other nation. I believe it was 5x more than the number two nation (Canada?). Yet, even with putting all that money into the system, it only ranks 37th or 35th (as of last year) of the industrialized countries, in quality.
And, the insurance companies are making record profits. For what? Taking the money from us and handing it to the providers. We really don't need them.
It's wrong on every level.
Which brings me back to the original topic of this thread...
**** Mitt Romney and the republicans. I can't think of much of  anything they have done in the last few decades that make me want to vote for them.
I don't always agree with the Democratic party. But, I find myself agreeing with a lot of their ideas and accomplishments.
So, unless we get a better choice I will be voting for President Obama.
We talk about the "Lesser of two evils"... We are never going to agree with every single policy they want to put out there.
Wait, I take that back. We do have that very issue with many Reps.
They have been trained to walk in lock step no matter what.
Even when their leaders flip flop. I don't understand it. It's down right creepy, the control they are under.

@Zenofex Regulation = more freedom to individuals. Like breathing clean air, and drinking clean water, being more secure in their investments, etc. It isn't purely about private companies. One of the main purposes of our government is to protect us from the corporations, and the banking institutions, whose main, if not only true goal is profit. Profit, at any cost to society. I call it greed. They have made greed a good thing.
Just look at what has happened with a deregulated wall street. They have wrung us dry, and brought, not just the U.S., but the entire world to the brink of economic collapse (I don't believe it's over yet). And look at J.P Morgan Chase! They just lost another $5.8 Billion. Due to lack of oversite/regulation. They are gambling with people's money. And, then we get to bail them out when they fail.
Meanwhile, back at the bat cave their execs are reaping record bonuses. PLEASE, PLEASE, let's get some more regulations going.
just(gettin' off my soapbox)joe







____________
A cunning linguist, and a master debater.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 15, 2012 07:47 PM

Quote:
Just look at what has happened with a deregulated wall street.
Ah, yes, of course, deregulated Wall Street. I mean, it could probably have been avoided if we had an Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision, Office of Financial Institutions, Office of International Trade, Office of Banking and Securities, Office of Trade Finance, Office of International Monetary Policy, Office of Financial Stability, Import-Export Bank, Exchange Stabilization Fund, Working Group on Financial Markets, Plunge Protection Team, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB), United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and an Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO).

If we had just passed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Revenue Act of 1913, Securities Act of 1933, Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Banking Act of 1935, Trust Indenture Act of 1939, Investment Company Act of 1940, Investment Advisors Act of 1940, Employment Act of 1946, Federal Reserve-Treasury Department Accord of 1951, Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, 1970, Commodity Exchange Act of 1970, Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970, Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, Federal Reserve Reform Act of 1977, Financial Institutions Regulatory and Interest Rate Control Act of 1978, International Banking Act of 1978, Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978, Monetary Control Act of 1980, Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982, Plaza Accord of 1985, Lourve Accord of 1987, Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996, Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1999, Regulation Fair Disclosure Rule of 2000, Uniform Securities Act of 1956, 1985, 1988 and 2002, Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, Regulation National Market System Rule of 2005, and the Community Re-Investment Act of 1994, we could have avoided all of this.

Oh, wait.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
justjoe
justjoe

Tavern Dweller
posted July 15, 2012 08:16 PM

@MV
Actually, I think it DEregulating these financial institutions that led to the problems we are experiencing.
Particularly, the dismantling of Glass-Steagall.

If you just let them do whatever they want in the name of profit, they will screw everyone they can.
The reasons for all those regulations is because they figured out way to do things in the name of profit, that hurt people and other companies.
Sorry, but you have to keep capitalism under controls, or you get what we are experiencing now. The Forbes 400, just 400 people own more wealth than 50% of the rest of the U.S. population. That's about 155 million people. I don't want them to lose their wealth, but I would really like to see the rest of us benefit a little more from our collective effort that makes them so rich.
We have issues like the fact that since 1980, Ceo salaries have increased by 400%. While the general population income has gone down by 2%.
Capitalism = good.
Unfettered, unregulated capitalism = bad

justjoe
____________
A cunning linguist, and a master debater.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
del_diablo
del_diablo


Legendary Hero
Manifest
posted July 15, 2012 08:45 PM

JJ:
Quote:
Remember, we are still operating under the assumption that soeciety won't let anyone die because they cannot pay for some treatment. So medical costs MUST be paid one way or another.

But this was never what was the core issue, its not death: Its suffering and expanded lifetime.
Under the US system the "for profit" will in the long term inflate the costs of healthcare, not all providers give proper coverage, and at some point Corribus will come in and shout: "In you are dieing, then you will be cured at your nearest hospital! Thats how it works!", but what Corribus forgets to mention is long term torment and operations to increase life expactancy. If you are on your way to death, but its still quite some time until its lethal, you won't get help.
So lets not talk about death, but about suffering.


violent_flower:
If I figured out your quoting system, then I might have some replies.

-Highest state profit when low spending? Basic Keynesian theory, only do austrian measures when the economy is in high conjucture. And lets talk about the 1930s: A Period of economic collapse, and yet the Social Democratic policy of doing a effort on public spending was what made the nation good during that decade, and still makes the country good to this decade.
If the economy is in good shape, why would the goverment need to do anything? It stop spending and pay the debt it aquired during the low conjucture period, and the corporations will profit immensly from not having to start from bare bottom due going bankrupt during a low conjucture.
____________



 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 15, 2012 09:10 PM

I really have to say that this ongoing discussion about sozializing of medical costs is pissing me off, and a lot.

Aren't there more pressing problems in that regard? Why ARE the costs for health care so dramatically rising, anyway?

I can tell you why. What is really upping the costs are the "hopeless cases". The really old and sick ones who would have died long ago if it wasn't for the medical system keeping them alive, virtually no matter the cost - or better, BECAUSE of the cost, because obviously a lot of people are making a hefty buck with keeping hearts of people ticking that are otherwise as good as dead or WERE even dead, but have been reanimated, and in some cases reanimated for worse.

Now this is of course a very sensible issue, but it is high time to discuss it. It makes no sense to keep people alive, no matter what, especially when they are really old.
Society needs a reasonable and unemotional discussion about this because we must get the health care costs down, otherwise the costs will eat us alive in a future not so distant.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Zenofex
Zenofex


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
posted July 15, 2012 09:36 PM

Quote:
@Zenofex Regulation = more freedom to individuals. Like breathing clean air, and drinking clean water, being more secure in their investments, etc. It isn't purely about private companies. One of the main purposes of our government is to protect us from the corporations, and the banking institutions, whose main, if not only true goal is profit. Profit, at any cost to society. I call it greed. They have made greed a good thing.
Just look at what has happened with a deregulated wall street. They have wrung us dry, and brought, not just the U.S., but the entire world to the brink of economic collapse (I don't believe it's over yet). And look at J.P Morgan Chase! They just lost another $5.8 Billion. Due to lack of oversite/regulation. They are gambling with people's money. And, then we get to bail them out when they fail.
Meanwhile, back at the bat cave their execs are reaping record bonuses. PLEASE, PLEASE, let's get some more regulations going.
just(gettin' off my soapbox)joe

I think you misunderstand me, I'm totally for regulation and limiting the ability of profit-orientated entities to exploit the numerous flaws of the so-called "market economy" (also an ideal notion). What I'm saying is that the current Western-type state tries to balance between the public good and the private freedom and that is often very hard to achieve and it's hardly the best thing that one can think of.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted July 15, 2012 09:48 PM

justjoe:
And who do you think regulates them? People who are neutral and unbiased? No, there's something called regulatory capture, which happens when companies realize that they have a lot to gain from corrupting the agencies that are regulating them. They can give stocks and such to individuals high up in the hierarchy of the regulatory organization, offer jobs to people who would be leaving the organization ("When you leave the SEC, we'll have a nice job lined up for you if you do what we want now"), or just staff the regulatory organizations with their own people.
People often like to say, "If only we had more regulation, we could keep them in check", but they overlook that often regulators act to help large banks and corporations.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 59 pages long: 1 10 20 30 ... 35 36 37 38 39 ... 40 50 59 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1365 seconds