• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

On Medicare-for-All, Clinton Reminds Us That She's Part of the Problem

Anomalism

Anomalism

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
2,159
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
"Since when do Democrats attack one another on universal healthcare?" - Hillary Clinton, 2008

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_X-RoRghAY&feature=youtu.be&t=161

On Medicare-for-All, Clinton Reminds Us That She's Part of the Problem | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

If the Hillary Clinton campaign had its way, supporters of Bernie Sanders – whose backing she will obviously want in November should she win the Democratic nomination – would feel that, while Clinton might not be all that they want in a president, she would at least go part of the way there. But if you followed the third debate deep enough into the night, you witnessed, in what stands as the most disingenuous moment of the Democratic race thus far, Clinton not simply disagreeing with Sanders on his Medicare For All, single payer health insurance plan, but knowingly distorting it. This was not Hillary Clinton offering a more moderate version of a solution, this was Hillary Clinton acting as part of the problem.

Clinton argued that the Sanders plan “really does transfer every bit of our health care system including private health care, to the states to have the states run. And I think we've got to be really thoughtful about how we're going to afford what we proposed.” Between that and Sanders’s public university free tuition plan, she said “we’re looking at 18 to $20 trillion.” And indeed, the single-payer bill Sanders introduced in 2013 called for a 2.2 percent tax on individual incomes up to $200,000 and couples up to $250,000 (and higher rates for higher brackets), a group she pledges would see no tax increases under a Clinton administration. But the reason that a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll found 52 percent of Democrats strongly backing a Medicare For All plan, and another 29 percent somewhat favoring it, is that they understand that there is a payback for that tax increase. And so does Hillary Clinton.

In ignoring the fact that a single payer plan would, as Sanders quickly pointed out, do “away with the cost of private insurance,” meaning that “the middle class will be paying substantially less for health care,” not only was Clinton wrong on the claim that the Sanders plan would cost the middle class more, but she knew it. As Sanders said of her, “I know you know a lot about health care.” Hillary Clinton, let’s remember, was the point person for Bill Clinton’s unsuccessful 1993 health insurance reform, to the point where it was sometimes called “Hillarycare.” People have applied a lot of negative labels to Hillary Clinton over the years, but “stupid” is not one you hear very often. This was not an actor like Ronald Reagan, delivering lines he may or may not have understood. This was not George W. Bush, struggling over words and concepts. It was a telling, cynical moment.
Click to expand...
 
Anomalism said:
"Since when do Democrats attack one another on universal healthcare?" - Hillary Clinton, 2008

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_X-RoRghAY&feature=youtu.be&t=161

On Medicare-for-All, Clinton Reminds Us That She's Part of the Problem | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
Click to expand...

I enjoy the way Democrats always hark back to their time of dreamed economic greatness with Roosevelt and Truman. One would think it would be an embarrassment to them. No knew ideas in over a half century. ;)
 
joG said:
I enjoy the way Democrats always hark back to their time of dreamed economic greatness with Roosevelt and Truman. One would think it would be an embarrassment to them. No knew ideas in over a half century. ;)
Click to expand...

1890's-2015 is more than a half a century. Democrats have been the party of claiming they're the party of new ideas while at the same not having any for more than a century. The best part is that they originally stole their ideas and claimed them as they own.
 
Last edited:
joG said:
I enjoy the way Democrats always hark back to their time of dreamed economic greatness with Roosevelt and Truman. One would think it would be an embarrassment to them. No knew ideas in over a half century. ;)
Click to expand...

Better than the great ideas of the great minds that we've been following for the past half century --massive financial collapse, massive income inequality, massive tax cuts for the rich, ever growingly large too-big-to-fail banks, no more unions, most of the decent jobs have been shipped over seas, the American democracy is now bought and paid for by corporations, the environment could be irreversibly damaged, and we have the highest incarceration rate of all first world countries.

Yeah, Democrats do have a lot to embarrassed about --that they ever went along with Republicans in the first place on any of these issues. But these ideas come from the conservative ideology. Behold their success, there's so much to be proud of. What great new ideas that are no longer new and not only don't work, but never worked.
 
joG said:
I enjoy the way Democrats always hark back to their time of dreamed economic greatness with Roosevelt and Truman. One would think it would be an embarrassment to them. No knew ideas in over a half century. ;)
Click to expand...

Don't Republicans call themselves "The Party Of Lincoln" and can only reference that president when it comes to the last time they reached out to Black voters in a genuine way?
 
FieldTheorist said:
Better than the great ideas of the great minds that we've been following for the past half century --massive financial collapse, massive income inequality, massive tax cuts for the rich, ever growingly large too-big-to-fail banks, no more unions, most of the decent jobs have been shipped over seas, the American democracy is now bought and paid for by corporations, the environment could be irreversibly damaged, and we have the highest incarceration rate of all first world countries.

Yeah, Democrats do have a lot to embarrassed about --that they ever went along with Republicans in the first place on any of these issues. But these ideas come from the conservative ideology. Behold their success, there's so much to be proud of. What great new ideas that are no longer new and not only don't work, but never worked.
Click to expand...

:lol:

The government has been puppets of corporations dating back to the 19th century. It's an issue that involves both republicans and democrats.

Companies going overseas has more to do with their profits, taxes and freedoms being better overseas than here. If anything republicans do a better job of keeping them in the country than the democrats.

Unions no longer existing to a large degree again has nothing to do with republicans nor is there any sort of legal reason they shouldn't strive. In fact, laws are vastly in favor of unions.

The economy collapsing again is not just the fault of republicans, but with bubbles built up in part by government.

Income inequality is a natural part of the economy and can only be corrected by government sanctioned theft.
 
FieldTheorist said:
Better than the great ideas of the great minds that we've been following for the past half century --massive financial collapse, massive income inequality, massive tax cuts for the rich, ever growingly large too-big-to-fail banks, no more unions, most of the decent jobs have been shipped over seas, the American democracy is now bought and paid for by corporations, the environment could be irreversibly damaged, and we have the highest incarceration rate of all first world countries.

Yeah, Democrats do have a lot to embarrassed about --that they ever went along with Republicans in the first place on any of these issues. But these ideas come from the conservative ideology. Behold their success, there's so much to be proud of. What great new ideas that are no longer new and not only don't work, but never worked.
Click to expand...

No horse in this race as a nonpartisan but just to help you out here and to be fair, HOOVER is almost the epitome of financial collapse. Hoover Blankets (newspapers) and Hoover Soup (ketchup in hot water) never really became all the rage.
 
Henrin said:
1890's-2015 is more than a half a century. Democrats have been the party of claiming they're the party of new ideas while at the same not having any for more than a century. The best part is that they originally stole their ideas and claimed them as they own.
Click to expand...

I guess you could go further back than fdr.
 
Ah well. Liberals believe money grows on trees and that deficits and debt don't matter. Unfortunately, if it keeps up they will find out they were wrong.
 
FieldTheorist said:
Better than the great ideas of the great minds that we've been following for the past half century --massive financial collapse, massive income inequality, massive tax cuts for the rich, ever growingly large too-big-to-fail banks, no more unions, most of the decent jobs have been shipped over seas, the American democracy is now bought and paid for by corporations, the environment could be irreversibly damaged, and we have the highest incarceration rate of all first world countries.

Yeah, Democrats do have a lot to embarrassed about --that they ever went along with Republicans in the first place on any of these issues. But these ideas come from the conservative ideology. Behold their success, there's so much to be proud of. What great new ideas that are no longer new and not only don't work, but never worked.
Click to expand...

You probably believe that, don't you. But do you realize the extent American policies have done to raise living standards around the globe while maintaining a very high income level at home?
 
Ntharotep said:
No horse in this race as a nonpartisan but just to help you out here and to be fair, HOOVER is almost the epitome of financial collapse. Hoover Blankets (newspapers) and Hoover Soup (ketchup in hot water) never really became all the rage.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your help, but I'm well aware of Hoover. Some salient highlights:

Hoover was a Republican, and many of the policies that set the Great Depression into place were the same policies that we have enacted now --limited to non-existent regulation of Wall Street being a pretty key one. It turns out that when you give all of the money and major corporations over to the hands of incredibly money-hungry people and let them make bets with it --yeah, surprisingly really bad **** follows.
 
joG said:
You probably believe that, don't you. But do you realize the extent American policies have done to raise living standards around the globe while maintaining a very high income level at home?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I imagine that's why wages have remained stagnant for the bottom 70% and why the top 10% continues to get wealthier every year, even though American productivity and hours increased over that same 40 year period.

Yeah, you can sell yourself whatever nonsense makes you sleep at night regarding US policy. My advice: Definitely don't read the fine print of what US foreign policy has done around the globe or how income has been distributed over the past 40 years.
 
FieldTheorist said:
Thanks for your help, but I'm well aware of Hoover. Some salient highlights:

Hoover was a Republican, and many of the policies that set the Great Depression into place were the same policies that we have enacted now --limited to non-existent regulation of Wall Street being a pretty key one. It turns out that when you give all of the money and major corporations over to the hands of incredibly money-hungry people and let them make bets with it --yeah, surprisingly really bad **** follows.
Click to expand...

Herbert Hoover could hardly be called a Republican. Herber Hoover was a Progressive. I suppose he could be called a Progressive Republican of the era, but in the context you're attempting to suggest, he was far from being what would be considered a Republican today.

It seems your understanding of Hoover is clouded by the facts. Here are some.

The Ordeal of Herbert Hoover

https://mises.org/library/hoovers-attack-laissez-faire#_edn


And as if he could not denounce the largely hands-off, laissez-faire economic policies of most of his predecessors enough, he specifically calls out the economists who advised him to take a laissez-faire course, saying "Some of the reactionary economists urged that we should allow the liquidation to take its course until we had found bottom…. We determined that we would not follow the advice of the bitter-end liquidationists and see the whole body of debtors of the United States brought to bankruptcy and the savings of our people brought to destruction."

Hoover was a champion of big government, anti-laissez faire market intervention.
 
FieldTheorist said:
Yeah, I imagine that's why wages have remained stagnant for the bottom 70% and why the top 10% continues to get wealthier every year, even though American productivity and hours increased over that same 40 year period.

Yeah, you can sell yourself whatever nonsense makes you sleep at night regarding US policy. My advice: Definitely don't read the fine print of what US foreign policy has done around the globe or how income has been distributed over the past 40 years.
Click to expand...

More or less. Don't forget that American policies have seen about 2 billion people go from utter poverty to global middle class. That labor competes with the bottom half of our population putting a cap on wages here. Take the disruptive effects of the new data technologies and the structural shifts after the Cold War and I would say, that we have done quite well. That does not mean we do not have to be aware of the dangers to growth and thence income from social programs. But if we do not cede to populist temptation and try to increase competitiveness? We should get back on an upward trajectory for the poor alright. Just don't think that the socio-economic processes are instantaneous.
 
ocean515 said:
Herbert Hoover could hardly be called a Republican. Herber Hoover was a Progressive. I suppose he could be called a Progressive Republican of the era, but in the context you're attempting to suggest, he was far from being what would be considered a Republican today.

It seems your understanding of Hoover is clouded by the facts. Here are some. [...] Hoover was a champion of big government, anti-laissez faire market intervention.
Click to expand...

1.) I love the false dichotomy that exists in conservatives minds about what they actually stand for. There hasn't existed a single conservative in the history of the last, say, 150 years who has actually stood for "limited government." Let's set aside the obvious bull**** about the government getting involved in people's bedrooms, and let's talk about the fact that conservatives and liberals both champion Big Government. And they champion Big Government because it's good for Big Business. The idea that you would ever have anything but a huge government under capitalism is ridiculous. Companies exist to make money. No one loves welfare more than corporations --contracts, the military industrial complex, subsidies, and so forth. It's why whether they've got an R or a D next to their names, presidents are just as big of a fans of Big Government as any politician or businessperson. Oh yes, Republicans complain about government being too big, but the only thing that they ever accomplish is making government bigger, they just also choose to tax the wealthy less. Somehow, that has something to do with making themselves more laissez faire and small government. What the connection is, I have no idea.


2.) As for Hoover, yes, he called himself a progressive, and you're right that the facts are clouding my judgment. I'm not sure how that's an insult. Back to Hoover though, you might guess that a term like "progressive" means something very different in 2015 than it did in 1928. Let's take a full look at part of Hoover's economic platform:

"Hoover entered office with a plan to reform the nation's regulatory system, believing that a federal bureaucracy should have limited regulation over a country's economic system. A self-described progressive and reformer, Hoover saw the presidency as a vehicle for improving the conditions of all Americans by encouraging public-private cooperation—what he termed "volunteerism". Hoover saw volunteerism as preferable to governmental coercion or intervention which he saw as opposed to the American ideals of individualism and self-reliance. Long before he had entered politics, he had denounced laissez-faire thinking."​

And then he did some other reforms, or proposed them, anyways. Sure, fine, perhaps in 1928 terms, he was a progressive, but it sort of misses the point of my claim, doesn't it? And in any case, Hoover wasn't responsible for economic collapse, although he did precious little to help it. That would have been the fault of many presidents, many congressmen, and the history of corruption that surrounded corporations in America some 3 to 6 decades before Hoover even entered the Oval Office.
 
Henrin said:
1890's-2015 is more than a half a century. Democrats have been the party of claiming they're the party of new ideas while at the same not having any for more than a century. The best part is that they originally stole their ideas and claimed them as they own.
Click to expand...

A rather hysterical indictment from someone that votes for a party that has had NO ideas / original legislation ever.....

The Dems did bring us:

Next time your relative, friend, neighbor, or boss challenges you to tell them what the Democrats have ever done for America, let them know!

Military
WW1 Victory(1919) - Woodrow Wilson(D)
WW2 Victory(1945) - Franklin D Roosevelt(D) / Harry S. Truman(D)
GI Bill (1945) - FDR(D)
NATO(1949) - Truman(D)

Foreign Relations
Marshall Plan(1947) - Truman(D)
Peace Corp(1960/61) - John F. Kennedy(D)

Space Exploration
First Manned Moon Mission(1969) - Under Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson(D)
First American to Orbit the Earth(1962) = John Glenn \ Under Pres. JFK(D)
Oldest Person in Space(1998) = Sen. John Glenn(D)\ Under Pres. Bill Clinton(D)

Socio-Economic Programs
40-hour Work Week(1938) - Roosevelt(D)
Minimum Wage Law(1938) - Roosevelt(D)
Overtime(1938)- Roosevelt(D)
Social Security Act(1935) - Roosevelt(D)
Unemployment Compensation(1935) - Roosevelt(D)
Rural Electrification Act(1936) - Roosevelt(D)
Federal Deposit Insurance(1933) - Roosevelt(D)
Federal Home Loan Program(1934) - Rossevelt(D)
Securities & Exchange Act(1934) - Rossevelt(D)

Education
Guaranteed Student Loan Program(1965) - Johnson(D)
School Lunch Program(1946) - Truman(D)
Operation Head Start(1965) - Johnson(D)

Health
Medicare(1965) - Johnson(D)
Medicaid(1965) - Johnson(D)
Family and Medical Leave Act(1993) - Clinton(D)

Civil Rights
Women's Suffrage Amendment
Civil Rights Act(1965) - Johnson(D)
Voting Rights Act (1965) - Johnson(D)
Motor Voter Act(1993) - Clinton(D)

https://www.democrats.org/about/our-history
Great Democratic Party Accomplishments - Democratic Underground

...and our friends from the Republican party have brought us:

Tax cuts we can not afford (leading to substantial deficits and a run up in debt),
wealth disparity; and
a mess in the middle east from unnecessary to downright stupid meddling.

Other than the framework of the PPACA (yes, an idea stolen from the Republicans, but since they have disowned it, they get no claim on it), the Republicans have not had a good idea in over 100 years. There only ideas involve cutting taxes when we have debt and deficits or advocating wars, which we can not afford financially, politically or morally.
 
Last edited:
Anomalism said:
"Since when do Democrats attack one another on universal healthcare?" - Hillary Clinton, 2008

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_X-RoRghAY&feature=youtu.be&t=161

On Medicare-for-All, Clinton Reminds Us That She's Part of the Problem | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
Click to expand...

Hillary's a bitch and a snake.

Hillary Clinton: 1994 statement on single payer

I think the momentum for a single payer system will sweep the country. And regardless of the referendum outcome in California, it will be such a huge popular issue in the sense of populist issue that even if it’s not successful the first time, it will eventually be. So for those who think that building on the existing public-private system with an employer mandate is radical, I think they are extremely short-sighted, but that is their choice.

Hillary Clinton: 1994 statement on single payer | Physicians for a National Health Program
 
FieldTheorist said:
1.) I love the false dichotomy that exists in conservatives minds about what they actually stand for. There hasn't existed a single conservative in the history of the last, say, 150 years who has actually stood for "limited government." Let's set aside the obvious bull**** about the government getting involved in people's bedrooms, and let's talk about the fact that conservatives and liberals both champion Big Government. And they champion Big Government because it's good for Big Business. The idea that you would ever have anything but a huge government under capitalism is ridiculous. Companies exist to make money. No one loves welfare more than corporations --contracts, the military industrial complex, subsidies, and so forth. It's why whether they've got an R or a D next to their names, presidents are just as big of a fans of Big Government as any politician or businessperson. Oh yes, Republicans complain about government being too big, but the only thing that they ever accomplish is making government bigger, they just also choose to tax the wealthy less. Somehow, that has something to do with making themselves more laissez faire and small government. What the connection is, I have no idea.


2.) As for Hoover, yes, he called himself a progressive, and you're right that the facts are clouding my judgment. I'm not sure how that's an insult. Back to Hoover though, you might guess that a term like "progressive" means something very different in 2015 than it did in 1928. Let's take a full look at part of Hoover's economic platform:

"Hoover entered office with a plan to reform the nation's regulatory system, believing that a federal bureaucracy should have limited regulation over a country's economic system. A self-described progressive and reformer, Hoover saw the presidency as a vehicle for improving the conditions of all Americans by encouraging public-private cooperation—what he termed "volunteerism". Hoover saw volunteerism as preferable to governmental coercion or intervention which he saw as opposed to the American ideals of individualism and self-reliance. Long before he had entered politics, he had denounced laissez-faire thinking."​

And then he did some other reforms, or proposed them, anyways. Sure, fine, perhaps in 1928 terms, he was a progressive, but it sort of misses the point of my claim, doesn't it? And in any case, Hoover wasn't responsible for economic collapse, although he did precious little to help it. That would have been the fault of many presidents, many congressmen, and the history of corruption that surrounded corporations in America some 3 to 6 decades before Hoover even entered the Oval Office.
Click to expand...

Well, I would suggest that as an admitted socialist, a multitude of things cloud your judgment, so stop slinging your BS as some sort of authority on anything other than your radical views.

So, having admitted you've already misrepresented the facts regarding Hoover, why should anything else you have to offer be worth the effort to consider. I offered no insult, just a correction, so I guess you got that wrong as well.

It would seem your exercise in presenting anything of value here has come up considerably short of your promise. Rather underscores the entire socialist ideology and agenda.
 
FieldTheorist said:
Better than the great ideas of the great minds that we've been following for the past half century --massive financial collapse, massive income inequality, massive tax cuts for the rich, ever growingly large too-big-to-fail banks, no more unions, most of the decent jobs have been shipped over seas, the American democracy is now bought and paid for by corporations, the environment could be irreversibly damaged, and we have the highest incarceration rate of all first world countries.

Yeah, Democrats do have a lot to embarrassed about --that they ever went along with Republicans in the first place on any of these issues. But these ideas come from the conservative ideology. Behold their success, there's so much to be proud of. What great new ideas that are no longer new and not only don't work, but never worked.
Click to expand...

ObamaCare ! Great New idea that the Democrats cant run away from fast enough

It's so bad they literally tried to pretend it didnt exist in the 2014 Midterms and they still got their butts handed to them in the election.

It's so bad even the Democrat Presidential candidates are avoiding it like the plague.

" Green Jobs " ! Great New idea. The Obama administration wanted to fund a manufacturing base that would build a product NO one wanted and that could be Manufatured in China at a fraction of the cost.

Billions of tax payers monies wasted and all the American public got back for their investment was a bunch of 5th amendment pleas.

Stimulus, and " Shovel ready jobs " ! Great new idea ! That didnt create any shovel ready jobs.

What other " New ideas " does the party on the left have in store for us ? Socialized healthcare ? Nothing new about Socialism

So the rest of America can learn what it feels like to serve your country and then be put on a waiting list and ignored ?
 
FieldTheorist said:
Thanks for your help, but I'm well aware of Hoover. Some salient highlights:

Hoover was a Republican, and many of the policies that set the Great Depression into place were the same policies that we have enacted now --limited to non-existent regulation of Wall Street being a pretty key one. It turns out that when you give all of the money and major corporations over to the hands of incredibly money-hungry people and let them make bets with it --yeah, surprisingly really bad **** follows.
Click to expand...

You DO realize Government policies and unprecedented Government intervention into the private sector economy for the explicit purpose of " fixing " social and economic disparity are at the root of the 2008 Financial Crisis, right ?

Well, that and the two extremely corrrupt GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In the early 90s the Clinton administration declared that the decades old standards used by Lenders to safely vet the ability of a borrower to repay their loans were innately Racist, so Clinton set up a 10 Agency strong " Fair Lending Task Force ", made changes to the CRA law that included public posting of Financial iinstitutions CRA scores and co-opting of GSEs into the Subprime markets via " affordable lending " quotas that started at 46% in 1995.

Nearly half of Fannie and Freddies loan purchases had to be from borrowers who were considered to be low to moderate income with damaged credit or NO credit.

Prior to 1993 the GSEs never purchased more or held more than 10% in stressed loans
 
Montecresto said:
Hillary's a bitch and a snake.

Hillary Clinton: 1994 statement on single payer

I think the momentum for a single payer system will sweep the country. And regardless of the referendum outcome in California, it will be such a huge popular issue in the sense of populist issue that even if it’s not successful the first time, it will eventually be. So for those who think that building on the existing public-private system with an employer mandate is radical, I think they are extremely short-sighted, but that is their choice.

Hillary Clinton: 1994 statement on single payer | Physicians for a National Health Program
Click to expand...

Her analysis was correct:

You either have a general tax — the single payer approach that replaces existing private investment — or you have an employer mandate, or you have an individual mandate. And there isn’t any other way to get to universal coverage. The market cannot deliver universal coverage in the foreseeable future, and any compromise that people try to suggest that would permit the market to have a few years to try to deliver universal coverage without a mandate that would take effect to actually finish the job will guarantee a single payer heath care system.
Click to expand...

She just guessed wrong on which approach would win out (and when). Obviously we've built on the existing public-private system using an employer and an individual mandate, instead of going the single-payer route.
 
Fenton said:
" Green Jobs " ! Great New idea. The Obama administration wanted to fund a manufacturing base that would build a product NO one wanted and that could be Manufatured in China at a fraction of the cost.

Billions of tax payers monies wasted and all the American public got back for their investment was a bunch of 5th amendment pleas.
Click to expand...
If you would educate yourself on the issue you'd know that the public utility companies who mantain monopolites fought to limit the access to solar panels. It had nothing to do with supply & demand. Conservatives should be opposed to such things but as you display they're not.
 
Greenbeard said:
Her analysis was correct:



She just guessed wrong on which approach would win out (and when). Obviously we've built on the existing public-private system using an employer and an individual mandate, instead of going the single-payer route.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but that really wasn't my point. She's been a supporter of single payer, but now criticizes Bernie for it.
 
fmw said:
Ah well. Liberals believe money grows on trees and that deficits and debt don't matter. Unfortunately, if it keeps up they will find out they were wrong.
Click to expand...

Cheney: "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter. We won [more tax cuts are] our due."
 
JasperL said:
Cheney: "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter. We won [more tax cuts are] our due."
Click to expand...

I guess I have to say politicians instead of liberals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom