Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » How Not to be Poor in America (Page 7)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: How Not to be Poor in America
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have heard some say that Doctors are oposed to socialasation: they arn't. Many are tired of wrestling with corupt insurance companies and would rathe get paid less more consitantly than have to fight to get paid at all.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Specialists tend to oppose to socialization. Generalists vary. You're right that they are harassed terribly by the private insurance folk. On the other hand, the government agencies such as Medicare and Medicaid aren't any more fun for the doctors to deal with either, so many of the generalists are ambivalent.

[ May 14, 2005, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Your right, my sources are generelists, and no that don't like U.S. goverment programs, but they do like Canadian ones.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's of the reason that I say that the US should model its primary care (i.e. generalists) after the Canadian system, except paid for by a VAT. But I think we should leave specialty care alone -- in fact actually remove some of the government funding for it. Focus on making the basics available to everyone, but leave the specialty practices in private hands, where it seems to work best.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It depends on the specialty. Heart surgury is a basinc need for a baby with a heart defect, liposuction is never a basic need.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Focus on making the basics available to everyone
Wasn't this the reasoning behind the newer forms of insurances--HMOs and capitations systems--whereby check-ups and preventative care were totally covered, unlike traditional major medical systems, whereby you paid for the "little things" (like $80.00 check-ups [Roll Eyes] ) and insurance paid for the "big" things (like your heart attack, which was massive because you avoided going to the doc for check ups), after a deductible?

(woohoo! run-on sentence personal best!)

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Superficially yes. But not really the same idea in application. Your company paid for your HMO, and you couldn't demand competence with your vote. And the medical profession generally agreed that anyone going to work for an HMO was a closet masochist. Here, it would probably work best as working payoff on student loans at the same time as getting a reasonable salary. Get a broader base of personalities working in it. Young and eager doctors. Since the government owns the general clinics, it provides the equiptment-insures the doctors for malpractice. Don't fatten private malpractice insurance companies by making generalists insure and basically share the costs of their least competent. If someone screws up, then add that bill to their loan debt.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Heart surgury is a basinc need for a baby with a heart defect, liposuction is never a basic need.
I didn't mean that we should socialize all medicine that might relate to anyone's basic needs. I meant provide the basic care that's cheapest to provide to everyone. Government can't go providing organ transplants.

One type of plastic surgery might be easy and cheap to provide in a way that improves quality of life, e.g. correcting a hare-lip. As I understand that's a fairly simple routine surgery, and saves a child from a life of torment and discrimination.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that the Govrment can. I have never belevied that the U.S. goverment is poor. Every year, every officer teaching at a military acadmey recives a free new furniture set. Congressmen get about every term. I can't link the source, as I got my information from an inside source. When a friend was working at a State goverment agency in the 1970s, he was astonished to see dozens of expenisive new typewritere lying around in disuse. A man expalained to him that they had to spend a certain amount of money or have their budget cut. And that is just hidden waste, the military wastes billions by its very existence, about 100 billion in Iraq alone. Cuba, a much poorer country than the U.S., has aproxemently the same life expectancy. It can also send thousands of doctors to Venezuella (Economist.) If we arn't doing better than Cuba, we arn't doing very well. We arn't doing better than Cuba, use Aristotilian logic to figure the rest out.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that lots of folks whose lives were saved by the military intervention would think that it wasn't a waste, Pelegius. And if you think that oil poor cuba got nothing back from oil rich venezuela in exchange or the thousands of doctors that got sent there ... [Big Grin]

Yes, in the 1970s there was huge amounts of waste in the military. In the 1980s, there was a huge scandal about it, budgets were cut, people fired. So today, if you want to sell a toilet seat for $12,000, don't even bother going to the military. Go to the National Endowment for the Arts.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete -

He's referring to the fact that government agencies that do not spend the funding they were alloted tend to have funding cut. It's true, and an issue. Where is the incentive for a department to cut cost when it will be detrimental to the department. The only ones that (generally speaking) do cut costs are outsiders. They generally do a bad job because they don't understand the system.

--Firedrake

Edit: Spelling mistake

[ May 19, 2005, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: FiredrakeRAGE ]

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My point about Cuba is that it, although it is a deeply flawed country, chooses to provid healthcare and does an excelant job of it, despite the fact that they have had little funding since the collapse of the U.S.S.R.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pelegius -

Yes. If you're a socialist country, some things are easier. I'll keep what liberties I can, thank you.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Listen to Firedrake, Pelegius...it's hell up here in Canada!

[Wink]

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ender wiggin
Member
Member # 9

 - posted      Profile for ender wiggin   Email ender wiggin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why can't the government provide heart transplants? They do here.

And I as a Canadian have more civil liberties: we don't have the patriot act up here.

Posts: 971 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ender wiggin:
And I as a Canadian have more civil liberties: we don't have the patriot act up here.

And just to infuriate the canadians...

Sci-fi author Terry Goodkind, writing in sci-fi weekly:

quote:

The United States, for example, is the first country in the history of the world that constitutionally stated that an individual has the right to exist. There's no country on the face of the earth today, other than the United States, that says an individual has a right to exist. In Canada, for example, you can be arrested for saying anything against the government. And that's the basic conflict. Do you have the right to exist as an individual, or are you owned by a group that says they're functioning for the greater good of mankind?

Understandably, some Canadians took offence at this in the following weeks letters page, not to mention pointing out that actually he was entirely wrong.

His comeback the week after, again on the letters page includes the following gems:

quote:

And even Canada, because of our clear example of the ethical value of liberty upon which America was founded, has come to grant its people the right to speak freely. But you cannot compare a patchwork of circumscribed permission in any other country to the concept of the inalienable right of the individual to his own life, as recognized by the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, because it is that singular noble human ideal that has been the engine that has driven the free world and lifted mankind out of darkness and oppression.

It is this—the concept of the fundamental freedom of the individual—that draws bitter hatred and resentment from the champions of every festering form of tyranny all around the world. Ask yourself, why do these people hate that we are free? Why do they lust to change that, or to see us destroyed? And don't fool yourself for a moment—our belief in that inalienable right of the individual to exist for his own sake is the object of the hatred and the heart of the issue. This is why Canada is not hated for granting its subjects the right to speak freely, but we are hated for our freedom. Those who hate freedom understand the difference.

So, liberty only exists anywhere in the world because of the example of the USA (and the constitution), and terrorists hate American freedom more than Canadian freedom because the Canadians were only copying the Americans in the first place.

Good job I've never felt inclined to read any of his books, or I'd have to refuse to ever do so again. [Smile]

Posts: 1768 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On the bright side, IIRC the Canadian constitution guarantees you the right to think religious thoughts [Smile]

As opposed to say, the right to make religuous statements or to practice religion.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How did we get to discussing civil liberties?
quote:
So, liberty only exists anywhere in the world because of the example of the USA (and the constitution), and terrorists hate American freedom more than Canadian freedom because the Canadians were only copying the Americans in the first place.

I think you will find the precedent for most American refors in the English bill of rights, and some in Magna Carta. The two that I know of which arn't in there, freedom of speech and freedom of relgion, were sugested by many philosophers before they becam part of the constitution.

America used to be the leading light in the field of civil liberties, no longer. Although it no longer jails political disidents, as it did during the era of the Viet Nam war, it is still engaged in some highly dubious, and unconstitunional, activites.

For example, the F.B.I. was recently found spying on political, relgious, enviormental and anti-wae groups. http://www.aclu.org Or how about the fact that the holding prisoners at Gitmo; which, by the way, constitutes something along the lines of 70 violations of the Geneva convention, I counted them up once (it took about 2 hours), but I don't have the time now; is clearly a violation of habeus corpus, in that they have not been charged with a crime. And, while this may not take place at the Federal level, America is a land of book-burners. Almost every school distrect in America has at least one "chalange" a year, i.e., a parent tells them that a book is unsuitible, and then there is a big hearing in which the book is debated. The very idea that a goverment-run, tax-payer funded, enterprise would even consider banning a book is bad enough, but the books that are chalanged are often some of the greatest works of literature. Many would consider Huck Finn, one of the most frequently chalanged ones, the great American novel.

Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
gasp...choking..under...oppression...

Last I looked, Pete, there was a thriving Mormon community in Alberta. Enough for two temples, anyway.

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mormon communities thrive in lots of places that don't have constitutional rights. Canada has historically given the LDS people more rights than any other country on earth. But these are statutory rights, and could be withdrawn with a 51% vote in the legislature. Canada is also socially more tolerant to different religions than the US or any other country I know of, which is why recent legal developments are so tragic.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, that being said..in every "free" nation, in a time of emergency, all individual rights can be superceeded by the state. So...we all have rights because the State allows it.

But I don't know about the recent legal developments to which you refer.

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We also have goverment becouse we allow it. Society can rise up in arms against goverment and has been known to do so. So, it works both ways.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Canadian -- DonalD and I were discussing this topic on the ssm thread on World Watch.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pelegius -

Government control over more things means that individuals are more restrained. This may be good in instances where the government is protecting the rights of one individual over another (YRTSYFEAMN). Health care is not one of those instances. We do not have the 'Right to Universal Health Care' in our Constitution. Because it is not enumerated, it is a power reserved for the States or the people.

If Canada allowed individuals to bear arms, that would not change my objection if Canada stifled free speech. Likewise, simply because the United States government may have committed some violations of law (constitutional or otherwise), it will not change my objection to other things that I view as outside the purview of the Constitution of the United States.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is not nescary for something to be written in the constitution for it to be right. I would point out that the constitution does not gurentee public transport, but the state proivides it, albeit for a price, albeit not everywhere. The constitution outlines what *must* be done, I am talking about what should be done.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is not nescary for something to be written in the constitution for it to be right. I would point out that the constitution does not gurentee public transport, but the state proivides it, albeit for a price, albeit not everywhere. The constitution outlines what *must* be done, I am talking about what *should8 be done.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well-said, pelegius. Constitutional rights outline what "MUST" be honored, while statutory rights outline what SHOULD be honored. Someone else mentioned, under martial law, even constitutional rights may be temporarily suspended. This is true, but technically since that's mentioned in the constitution, thats a constitutional qualification on those rights.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And doesn't the Constitution also say that rights are not limited to those specifically protected therein?
Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes. That's why it would actually take away civil rights, if the US constitution added an amendment that people had the right to think religious thoughts.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pelegius -

quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
While there are a few things that can fit under the umbrella of the 'General Welfare', I do not feel that you can make a case that Universal Healthcare does fall under that umbrella.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The general welfare provision certainly would allow Congress to create a Universal Healthcare system.

But I have no idea how in the world anyone could hijack a constitutional provision that gives Congress power to legislate, into a licence for the court to turn universal health care into a right.

One line that the US courts have consistently refused to cross, is creating any sort of POSITIVE right out of the 9th amendment. See the Winnebago case where they explain their reasoning. (I think the kid should have won that case, which IMO should not have turned on positive rights, and that's kind of what the dissent said as well).


OTOH, if the government started giving health care to workers but not to nonworkers, there might be an equal protection argument.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete -

I disagree. I believe the 'General Welfare' provision should be interpreted more narrowly. I do not think that Congress should be able to legislate health care at the Federal level except for standards et al. (which relate to interstate commerce more than anything).

I'm not sure what case you're referring to. Do you have a link?

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I believe the 'General Welfare' provision should be interpreted more narrowly. I do not think that Congress should be able to legislate health care at the Federal level except for standards et al. (which relate to interstate commerce more than anything).
If you are right about the welfare clause, then the commerce clause does the trick, since as I showed at the top of the VAT/Socialized Medicine saves the economy thread, socialized medicine is necessary to keep the trade deficit from killing domestic manufacturing.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete -

'Interstate Commerce' does but should not refer to 'Commerce that affects more than one state'. That is the same logic that the Federal government attempted to apply in stopping medical marijuana use in California. That same logic could be applied to stem cell research. 'Interstate Commerce' is just that: the ability to establish standards, police interstate commerce, regulate manufacturing. 'Keeping the economy afloat' might fall under the 'General Welfare' clause, but that is a mighty slippery slope.

My apologies if some of this is babble. I'm quite tired [Smile]

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Healthcare is the general welfare. I am not the only one who thinks, every member of the E.U. thinks so as well. Did you know that Cyprus, at the date of its acceptence to the E.U., had better healthcare than the U.S., and presumibly still does. (Economist, I belive, although it might have been another Newsmag.) The general welfare is the welfare of the general public, except when interfering with private rights, and sometimes even then. If you can prove that healthcare interfers with the basic rights of the populace, I may change my mind.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's easy to have better health care when your average population life-span is 10-15 years shorter, Pelegius.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pelegius:
The general welfare is the welfare of the general public, except when interfering with private rights, and sometimes even then.

By this definition, is there anything that the government shouldn't get involved in?
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pelegius
Member
Member # 2399

 - posted      Profile for Pelegius     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Only if it interferes with individual rights. I am an anti-libertarian. I belive in Free expresion and privay. But I also belive that the goverment has a duty to its citizens. The people must provide for the goverment, the goverment must provide for the people. Not total communism, by any stretch, but a health Social-Democracy. Or Welfare-state-Capitalism, as the Christian Democrats argue, and implemented with sucess in Germany.
Posts: 1644 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pelegius, I agree with some of what you say, except when you say "must." On another thread you drew the important distinction between constitutional "must" rights, and other "should" rights. I think that the "must" rights of the government include the basic civil rights -- life, liberty, speech, freedom from unnessary government interference, freedom from invasion. I see health care and economic prosperity as a "should" right. The government should promote education, health care, and help the economy to flourish precisely because that makes it easier to protect the rights of the people to life and liberty. A healthy and prosperous people are less inclined to crime, more able to defend themselves. People should be responsible for their own happiness. One thing I fear is that if we start saying that the government "must" absolutly create positive rights, then government will give itself the assignment to make people happy. When that happens, we lose all rights, even freedom to think.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete -

'Should' rights are -reserved for the States-, at best.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1