User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.3256 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I lived in Hyde Park, NY. It was tight, mostly because I was a clothes whore that went to bars but it was doable.
Of course this conveniently omits the fact that in your hypothetical case, I might be forced into bankruptcy, whereas your "pay" would amount to a fraction of a penny, since the cost of my health care would be spread among the population as a whole.
Except everyone's costs would be split in this way. 1/1 = 300,000,000/300,000,000
For someone who understand the logic of insurance, and who's also well versed in the logic of libertarianism, you see curiously uncomprehending of the concept of spreading risk,
I'm sure David has insurance and understands spreading risk. Libertarians just don't believe in forcing someone to spread their risk at gunpoint.
or the corny old left wing concept of human solidarity---
Human solidarity != forced solidarity.
If my friends and I volunteer at a homeless shelter, that's solidarity. If my friends and I rob a bank and give the money to a homeless shelter, that's robbery.
you know, that quaint thing that conservatives like to trot out in wartime. Maybe a year or two in France might help you along this path, and who knows, you might even enjoy it if you could hook up to NESN.
Don't look at me, I don't drag out the war card.
SO?
I lived like that as a student for few years too, so did my Wife,
BUT do you expect low income people to live like that INDEFINITELY?
Or would charge very high rates, yes.
When I was living on $1000/mth, I went a year where I ate out twice (fast food) and bought no clothes. As you might imagine, dating was difficult.
We know from longitudinal income statistics that being low-income is far, far from a set, indefinite condition.
In any case, jobs have requirements. For my academic jobs, it would be completely untenable not to have high-speed internet access, for example; if I didn't buy it, I'd be unable to have that job. If someone is working as a contractor, they pretty much have to have a cell phone. One can go on and on with such examples.
As in a life neccesity? No.
But it really sucks not to have if everyone else does.
You do know you have a contradiction within that statement?
Indefinitely does not equal forever...
sine die
Honestly ... I'm a little more worried about health care and educational opportunities and such than cell phones and cable.
Should've asked me in 2004 - I sold my still-working but old 120K-mile Ford Tempo to a neighbor that lost his job for a pie and some fennel beignets (he's a pastry chef).
I have all those things and it costs me nothing* (in Canada). Now I know you're going to say that it comes out in taxes but that's not true. While taxes are higher in Canada it isn't because of health care since the Canadian government spends less than on health care than the American government. Taxes are higher because of other stupid stuff the government does. It's also not true that someone else is subsidizing my care since I make a pretty good middle class living and am definitely a net payer into the system.
This conversation shouldn't be about the ethical merits of supporting other people. It should be about costs and answering the question: Why does health care in the United States cost twice as much as anywhere else in the industrialized world? Where is all the money going?
*Well not quite nothing since prescription drugs and dental stuff is covered by supplementary insurance.
No, because I expect poor people to work more than 10 to 20 hours a week and not own a BMW Z3 that requires car payments and live in an apartment that costs $1150 a month.
Well, it comes from somewhere unless Canada can suspend the first law of thermodynamics.
Go to private sellers and you have to either know about cars or bring someone along who does. You live in Chicago right? Well, just above you in Racine/Kenosha at the very least should be a bunch of cars that will priced around $500. Yes, they will be old and they will have something wrong with them. But if you are smart about it you can find yourself a car that you don't have to puch money in or no money it all and just ride it out until dies. Obviously cross country trips and drag races are out but if you use it to basically get to work and back it should hold up for several years. The ##### is of course the emission tests which again is why you have to be smart about it.
Being poor is supposed to suck. If it was cushy more people would do it.
For my academic jobs, it would be completely untenable not to have high-speed internet access, for example; if I didn't buy it, I'd be unable to have that job. If someone is working as a contractor, they pretty much have to have a cell phone. One can go on and on with such examples.
Does your academic jobs only pay you $1,000 a month? People who make only a $1000 a month don't have jobs that require constant high speed access. Well, they might if they are one of those work at home selling google ad space but they don't count. Secondly there is always free internet access at your library and various hot spots throughout your town/city.
You can go on and on with examples but the problem is that most jobs that require and out of pocket expense of that magnituted by the employee don't pay $1000 a month.
And they're free to choose that option. If they want to put not having to deal with a roommate over their own health, it's not my problem or responsibility. Someone who puts their wants over their needs shouldn't be surprised when I put my wants over their needs, as well.
There will always be some people that legitimately fall through the cracks, but if we kept it to those people, we'd be talking about a lot less troublesome a financial issue to deal with as a country. Medical bankruptcy is hardly the worst thing that can happen to someone when that actually happens given how lenient the exemptions are in most cases, and certainly a far, far less pressing issue than, say, dealing with the care of indigent people with terrible illnesses.
And dumbing down the world so the dumbest common denominator lives a well off life, is dare I say it, stupid.
If somebody who doesn't make a lot of money decides to live beyond their means and to do so has to cut basic survival needs well, then they are SOL in my book.
So, just to clarify: You're moving out of NYC and apparently abandoning all of your worldly possessions, because you don't have a car or enough money to pay to have them moved. You're taking the cheapest available public transportation to somewhere in middle America, on spec, in the hope that you can land a job as an itinerant outsider with no mailing address or phone, and then living under an overpass until you save up first and last month's rent for the cheapest possible efficiency apartment.
Nope, can't see any holes in that plan.
I also do a lot of tutoring and contract research, which comes in little bits and pays varying amounts. My assistantship did, yes, pay me slightly more than $1,000 a month (and yes, the health insurance subsidy makes it more like $1,200 a month; I don't count the tuition remission, because they're not actually giving me anything they're paying for, just letting me be there).
I also do a lot of tutoring and contract research, which comes in little bits and pays varying amounts. My assistantship did, yes, pay me slightly more than $1,000 a month (and yes, the health insurance subsidy makes it more like $1,200 a month; I don't count the tuition remission, because they're not actually giving me anything they're paying for, just letting me be there).
And you can't take a job waiting tables?
What fun is it to have nice things if you can't lord it over the people who don't?
But again, you did make the choice, with the known upsides and downsides.
Ignoring for a second the anxiety issues that have kept me from performing solo for 20 years, I'd love to play piano for a living or completing new performing editions of the complete works of Louis Spohr, but I had to pick and choose things that I wanted. In the end, I chose moderate amounts of income and a moderate amount of work over high amounts of income with high work and low amounts of income with what I'd love to do. As such, I made tradeoffs - I can have a nice car, comfortable place to live, lots of electronic gadgets, but no yearly jaunts to the French Riviera.
I agree with this. I agree with this sentiment where it comes to almost anything but healthcare. I don't care about having a nice car, I don't care about having nice furniture, I don't care what labels are on my clothes, and I don't care about electronic gadgets other than computers. And I knew those things when I decided what to do with my life. I also agree that people should try to be smarter about how they spend their money--if they were, a lot more of them would find that they can have the things they really want to have. The fact is, they aren't, and thus don't get what they need, which causes endemic social problems that some people are trying to ameliorate.
Dan, the people I know who have actual performing skills are making a pretty nice living. In the Baltimore-DC area, a free-lance performer can do fine with just token part-time jobs filling in the cracks at times.
But my question is, how is removing incentives to be cost-conscious going to remedy problems of cost?
I bought my second car for $300, it was a Plymouth Horizon (same car as a Dodge Omni)
Manual Transmission, no AC, but a working tapedeck... (post factory sound system- the idiot former owner spent more installing that sound system than he later took from me to buy the whole damn car, sound system included).
What astounds me to no end, is that those cars were produced for 13 years: Plymouth Horizon
*My first car was a parental hand me down, a 1976 Pontiac LeMans station wagon... Most of my friends got 2nd hand Dodge Swingers (or the lucky few who had Pontiac Firebirds), but no, I got this shitbrown station wagon, but at least I knew that if something when wrong during the weekly game of chicken I was more likely to walk away than they were...
The same could be said about car insurance. People should be free to go without that as well. It is their choice and they should be free to do so.
I currently live with my parents, so I don't have to pay rent, and my food expenditures are currently discretionary -- there's enough for me to eat if I don't buy anything. Now, I have bills -- paying off debts, paying for storage for the stuff I got out of my apartment after the fire, a gym membership. We won't count those, even though the debt payments aren't really discretionary.
Now, if I did not live with my parents, I would have to pay rent, I would have to buy food. I would have to pay for electricity, and I would need a phone. In order to keep the MLB job I would need to get internet to keep in touch with my bosses and co-workers, but dialup would be fine for those purposes -- it would still be a net positive income, unless I also gave up the car with the MLB job.
Were I to rent my own apartment, I would not be able to afford health insurance. Were I to split an apartment with a roommate, I could afford it, but I would have no disposable income left at the end of the month -- and by disposable, I'm including money to save to improve my life.
I could, of course, work another job for 20 hours a week which would net me an extra couple hundred a month. But now we're going from one extreme -- a lazy person with unreasonable expenses -- to another -- an overworked person with no leisure time or discretionary expenses.
Oh, the horror of finding a roommate to be able to afford health insurance!!!!
People have had roommates throughout history so they have beer money and an xbox, but heaven forbid they do it to help protect their health.
I really have no idea. I just see the examples of European countries seemingly doing that with a better overall effect than the U.S. seems to be doing. But I haven't lived in those places. As I've said, changing policy only trades some problems for other problems, and what people disagree about is what kinds of problems they think are the most important ones to solve, and what kinds are the one they're most willing to put up with.
Good point.
Hell, I need them to protect my sanity.
(*) In most states; in some states, like New Hampshire, you're not required to have any. And of course you're only required to have car insurance if you choose to drive on public roads, not if you merely happen to be born.
(**) Not saying I agree with that requirement either, but it's a very different situation.
I agree. If someday I were a rich widower, I would get a roommate just to not live alone.
But it doesn't protect other people. You have injured them or their car. What the insurance can do is give them money to pay for their medical bills. I see the parallels.
I would require people to get insurance with a high deductible. I would also require people to contribute to a 401k or IRA.
People (for the most part, there are some exceptions) do not do these things not because they are rational or making the best choices. They do it out of laziness, inertia, acceptance of the status quo, or a lack of appreciation of the true risk.
If necessary to keep Dave's taxes down and options open....
It should be about both (and more), but I agree that your question would be a better place for this discussion to head.
Considering the billions they have spent on propoganda over the years, the greedy bastards will probably continue to rape the general public.
Oh, thank god, we have a solution. Everybody should just get better jobs.
####### bootstraps mentality is ridiculous.
But the idea of intrinsic morality brings up that of intrinsic worth, as does a sub-plot of this thread, the choice of money-making careers over academia. If everyone with a desire and talent for studying, for example, music, chose for financial reasons not to do it, then there wouldn't be musicians or music scholars (and if there weren't music scholars, half the "art" music that gets performed nowadays wouldn't have ever been performed in our time). That would severely affect Dan's and Ray's enjoyments of their lives, since they love music, and Dan, at least, loves what I've called art music (not saying Ray doesn't). And they're able to enjoy it because of people like me, who chose to forgo worldly comfort to pursue our desires.
So all of this--what I do and what they do--has been calculated by the people involved to provide all three of us with the ability to maximally enjoy our lives. I have no doubt that what they do contributes to my enjoyment of my life, as well, even if it's just that I enjoy their message-board posts. The point is, though, that their libertarian point-of-view, which boils down, in the end, to "if you wanted to be able to live, you should have gone into a career that the market supports," would result, if everyone followed that advice, in a world without these things that they love and enjoy. The observation had to be made.
This is where "the Nanny-stater v. the Libertarian" argument has its tire tread meets asphalt moment.
I tend to view things from a utilitarian POV
I think as a general rule people should be free to make their own choices, they know their specific individual needs better than some bureaucrat.
But some people are stupid and will make irrational choices that will harm themselves and others.
I have car insurance (comprehensive) I would have it even if the law didn't require it (and it doesn't require comprehensive- only liability).
When I was 20-25 I had liability insurance- and only because I had no choice- the law required it- (Ok I had a choice, I could have driven without insurance but I was too chicken to break the law)- back the I was poor, young, stupid, and didn't give the slightest thought to the harm I could have caused to someone else.
Ergo- I whole heartedly agree that everyone who owns and drives a car be forced to obtain liability insurance. There should be a floor, some choices are just irrational and destructive, and those that are irrational and destructive to 3rd parties Should be subject to some level of Govt coercion.
Of course vehicle liability insurance is easy- drawing the line on other topics is far harder.
For instance:
1: Getting your kid immunized protects them in the future from a variety of loathsome diseases
2: Not getting your kid immunized protects them from small risk of short term consequences- while exposing them to far greater risk of contracting a loathsome disease in the future.
3: Herd immunity: if X% of a population is immune the risk of an epidemic drops, at some point if X% is high enough (still less than 100%) the risk of an epidemic craters- even if someone unvaccinated gets the disease the odds of them passing it to another unvaccinated person are negligible.
1: Should the Govt COMPEL people to get their kids vaccinated?
2: If not, should the Govt bar unvaccinated kids from public school (I say yes BTW)
3: Should the Govt simply deny health benefits to the unvaccinated if they later contract the disease the vaccine would have prevented?
4: Should the government take no position whatsoever vis a vis vaccines?
"You don't really think they spend $800 for a hammer do you?"
You see the world is going to end in 2012, and the Govt knows that, and they've been diverting billions and billions of dollars over the past 40 years to build a fleet of really cool space ships...
There is a bit of an argument that the US subsidizes the rest of the world with the medicines and procedures developed here. Much like the US armed forces allowed Europe not to have to build all the expensive tanks during the cold war, or learn to speak Russian.
That said, not worth it for us.
Okay, here's a good one.
1. Yes. Same principle as liability auto insurance.
2. Moot.
3. No, because the kid didn't make that decision, the parent did.
4. No, because 300 million people are all living here coughing on each other and sneezing into each other's library books.
or
1. No; keep your laws off my body.
2. Yes, because it would be dangerous to the other children.
3. No, same reason as above.
4. Yes, because what people do to their own bodies isn't the government's concern.
Either list makes a certain amount of sense.
What is hilarious is the contempt people have for the notion of personal responsibility.
And the pretending by people that one's financial situation is wholly a function of randomness and of the poor being screwed over by the heartless rich.
If you just hand people full health care provided by others, you're not doing a damned thing to break the cycle of dependency they're in.
FWIW, neither makes sense in conjunction with the data I've seen. Particularly the time spent.
in a world without these things that they love and enjoy.
On the contrary. I pay for those things now as do others.
Moreover, you're a utility maximizer, not an income maximizer - if what makes you happy is being poor and working in music (with or without other comforts), you'll do it anyway.
I kind of do, but utility is so frickin' hard to measure and you run into some situations where you can do real harm to people w/ that approach (take it to its logical extreme and you get Jackson's Lottery). That said, econ was my background in school and its framework very neatly fit the way I already looked at the world. (Probably why I'm a left leaning independent.)
I've never even bought a car, let alone a first, second, or third racing yacht.
That's obviously true. But it seems that most libertarians are asking everyone to be income maximizers. Those musicians I was talking about who make a decent living aren't income maximizers, either; I'm talking about $30,000 here, not $80,000, and indeed, they're making it because people are paying it. People who shell out money for entertainment aren't being income maximizers, either. If they were, they'd invest the money to make them more money. Clearly, they want to maximize their income for the utilitarian purpose of using it to get the things that make them happy; it's happiness they're after, and it's happiness I'm after.
Now, I think that a lot of what people think makes them happy is the result of peer pressure and a ruthlessly efficient advertising industry, but that's a different discussion.
See... This is where the libertarian clique loses me.
ALL of the plans. ALL of them simply fine you if you don't have insurance. As I understand them, the fines just be tacked on to your tax liability. If you have insurance - what are you complaining about?
Every other industrialized nation on earth has figured out how to collectively pool health risks. Some do it with a completely nationalized insurance plan. Some do it with heavy-handed minimums, caps, and regulations on private insurers. Some mix both. Still others just nationalize providers.
It's inevitable that something is going to happen. If by some miracle not this time - at some point we're going to have nationally mandated health coverage.
Even the most left-leaning of the plans on the table are so milquetoast that they're hardly going to collapse the private insurance system. They didn't in Japan. They didn't in Taiwan. They didn't in Switzerland - hardly socialist hotbeds, any of 'em -- and all 3 nations employed a much heavier hammer than any of the current plans on the table here.
It's beyond my ability to comprehend the paranoid fantasies that get bandied about because -- heaven forbid -- we're all of us going to be paying into a system, into a quasi-complete risk pool, rather than using the unfunded mandate of EMTALA or the draining of individual solvency to the point of Medicaid qualification to meet health care costs.
I realize Dan was probably just using the "point of a gun" as a turn of phrase, but jeebus already...
There's plenty more that needs to be fixed in our system than just universal coverage, but it's near impossible to accurately quantify and qualify those other fixes until we have the entire nation covered under some sort of plan.
Unless, of course, you are helping them break the cycle of dependency they're in.
And if you don't pay that, they put a tax lien on your property or garnish your wages. And if you get around that, they do something else or throw you in jail for tax evasion. Or if you don't show up for a court date, they arrest you. If you resist arrest, they throw you in jail. And so on and so forth.
The very basis of every last shred of governmental power is that every possible path either ends with:
- You complying with what the government wants, whether voluntarily or involuntarily.
- You being dead.
- You leaving the country
This is no different.
I bet you could if you'd just stay a few hours extra at work every week. Why don't you have the ambition necessary to afford the good things in life, Ray?
No, they're still income maximizers, they've simply chosen to compensated in a non-monetary method. A lot of people do the opposite - work 80 hours a week, make excellent money, but have no social lives. I don't see any reason to give the former an entitlement to subsidized health insurance anymore than any more than to give the latter an entitlement to subsidized friendships and sex.
My problem, again, is that while we chose going in to take less monetary compensation in return for our preferred type of compensation, we didn't choose to be less healthy than other people in return for it. We didn't make that conscious choice, anyway. And we shouldn't have to make it, and you don't think we should have to make it, no matter what you say.
That is fine with me because I am incapable of seeing the alternative as a libertarian utopia, but rather Somalia.
Or more to the point, I see the possible societies as running on a line from Somalia to Nazi Germany/Stalin's USSR. We (meaning the US of A) are about 1/3 of the way up from Somalia, most Scandinavian Countries are about 1/3 of the way from the USSR- that's the sweet parts- move closer to Somalia from where we are and things can derail quickly if a crisis hits, move closer to the USSR from Scandinavia and all freedoms get squashed.
Libertarin Utopia? Socialist/MarxistUtopia? They are both far off the line and out in imaginary space, they do not and cannot exist.
No better way to do that than give them free stuff!
This isn't true. Its all supply and demand. There is a point at which it would make financial sense for a certain percentage to remain. Perhaps the more talented percentage....
This is the second time you've tried to bring up Somalia as having something to do with libertarianism. Somalia is as similar to libertarianism as the Khmer Rouge were to American progressivism. I'm guessing if I compared Obama to Pol Pot, you'd cry foul?
17 cents!!!
and,
Boom goes the dynamite!!
There's just no way to convince you that someone who hasn't been supported by anyone else for the last 20 years and has always worked and paid their taxes without a shred of government programs or personal charity and yet still truly can't afford decent health insurance due to, say, diabetes, is not in a mottherfucking cycle of dependency, is there?
You'll pardon the language, but jesus that just burns me. I haven't been ####### dependent on anyone since I left home. So you can take the cycle you think I'm on and pedal it off a short pier.
Read again, I don't think Libertarianism = Somalia
I think the breaking of all Govt power leads to Somalia (rather than to Libertarianism as some seem to believe)
Yep. And Communist Russia was just as similar to what Marx actually wrote about....
Yep, I'd also complain if a lefty compared George W to Hitler, what's your point?
It is indeed part of the problem in our particular discipline that too many people are in it. Unfortunately, we depend for our jobs, in the end, on even more people wanting to get into it, since if enrollment dwindles, funding will dwindle along with it. The university model in the U.S. has become almost as broken as the health care model. The only way to fix it, however, is increased government funding or increased private donorship. I'll take either, preferably as much as possible of both.
For my part, I assure you that your implication of my lack of fitness for the profession is baseless, so you can sleep soundly tonight. Another problem is that the demand to consume art music hasn't kept up with the seeming increase in the number of people who are able to perform and study it at a high level. This is due, I think, to the increased spread of education--a higher percentage of the people who like it become able to do it themselves--, and also to the '60s and '70s "be what you want to be, believe in yourself" philosophy, which has probably caused more people to take the plunge into liberal arts disciplines rather than something more "secure."
In the end, however, I'm more secure than those who went into many other endeavors, because when their jobs are gone, they'll be left with nothing; no goods, no services, none of the satisfaction that they did of course get from doing their jobs and doing them well. I'll still have the knowledge that I did what I wanted to do because I wanted to do it and not because the market forces of capitalism wanted me to do it. And I'll still have the true and sublime joy that music brings to him who lets it come.
Libertarians, generally speaking (I can't speak for all as libertarianism isn't an orthodox religion), want to diminish the reach of government more than the force.
His country was pissant but he was definitely upper tier.
What really separated Hitler from most other genocidal murderous tyrants was that he inherited both an industrialized nation and what was left of the Prussian General Staff. If Mussolini ran Germany he would have just as much initial "success" as Hitler had... (militarily that is).
If you really want upper upper tier, you have to go with Joe Stalin.
.... what preemptive War was Hitler engaged in?
Or W for that matter?
Pol Pot's body count divided by length of regime is quite impressive that's why I'd put him upper tier- very high peak
edit- someone else post dammit and break my posts up
I was not implying that you were not fit for the profession. I'm sorry if you perceived that from my comments. I have no idea how good your music skillz are.
Hitler & Stalin are Pete Rose - long careers can make huge counting stats, but Pol Pot had the huge peak and the rates stats: murdering 1/3 of a nation in 4 years in pretty impressive. You don't have to be a big-hall guy to let him in.
See, I think you have to have real longevity to be an upper-tier dictator. For just 4 years, you need to be a genocide master. Pol Pot killed a lot of people, but he didn't do it with a whole zany backstory and mythology, it was just kinda arbitrary.
It wasn't arbitrary, he was purging anybody who could potentially be considered a rival. He was able to kill off 1/3 of the Cambodian population, that's pretty damn good. His regime was so bad that the freaking Vietnamese felt they they had to take over Cambodia for a decade just to stop his dumb ####. Pol Pot and his cohorts had a really bad anti-technological/urban jint that replaced religion/race as their methodology and excuse to commit genocide against his own people.
Geez, when P.J. bought a bunch of books and posters from me in my shop, he paid that blood-stained 5% sales tax without a peep. I guess I should have checked the obituary section the next day to see if his kindly, gray-haired Mom made it through the night, because what he paid in sales taxes could have bought a hell of a lot of bullets.
It's really striking to me the insane hubris of libertarians in this thread - they really seem to believe that they know, if they were born in a different body to different parents in a different situation, exactly what they would choose to do, be able to do, and so on. Basic human compassion runs only so far as the other person made choices directly symmetrical to a libertarian's notion of right. Hell isn't other people, hell is libertarians.
He complied.
Geez, when P.J. bought a bunch of books and posters from me in my shop, he paid that blood-stained 5% sales tax without a peep.
He complied.
But only because I kept my loaded gun in clear sight.
The debate over whether folks in tough situations actually are to blame for their situation is deeply ugly, and needs to stop.
As long as you continue to portray compassion as forcing A to give to B, you don't really have standing to discuss what "basic human compassion" is or is not.
I'm also tired of the assumption that everybody has limitless options. It's just not tethered to reality.
And -- presto -- we have compassion.
But who has been compassionate in this scenario? A, who never wanted to give his money forcedly to B? B, who supported the notion of taking A's money? C, who forced A to give to B?
I don't see where the magical compassion presents itself.
On the other hand, if A voluntarily gave to B, or voluntarily gave to a charity that helped B, or if A volunteered his money or time to B, _that_ would be compassion.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main