Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Re-defining Rape for Medicaid Purposes

Medicaid Rape 2011

  • Please log in to reply
172 replies to this topic

#41 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 03 February 2011 - 03:45 PM

View PostNittany Lioness, on 03 February 2011 - 03:30 PM, said:

I actually didn't assume - I asked first where they're getting the basis for what they're furious about.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  

Quote

And I got confirmation of my opinion that these half-baked reactions are baseless and an opportunistic exercise in flying off the handle over the right to have an abortion.
And now I'll just doubt.   :rolleyes:

:headshake:
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#42 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 03 February 2011 - 03:55 PM

View PostBalderdash, on 03 February 2011 - 02:35 PM, said:

And again, Jon Stewart gets it...

Rapesque
Oh yes he does!   :oh:    

Thanks for posting, I'm glad I didn't miss this.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#43 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 03 February 2011 - 04:09 PM

View PostNittany Lioness, on 03 February 2011 - 03:30 PM, said:

Excuse me, Balthamos?  It's called my opinion; a contrary opinion.

quote:
"While there is certainly plenty of hysteria regarding this topic"

That's what *I* said.  How dare you.

quote:
"assume they have no logical reasoning"

I actually didn't assume - I asked first where they're getting the basis for what they're furious about.
And I got confirmation of my opinion that these half-baked reactions are baseless and an opportunistic exercise in flying off the handle over the right to have an abortion.  
How dare you suggest I'm not taking the topic seriously when I called for more reason and facts.  I'm criticizing the thoughts and claims that have been posted.  I'm sure no one wants to delve into what's been characterized without "staff" question as outlandish in OT; we'd be here forever.  Unmeasured rants is, like, what OT seems built on.

Quote


While there is certainly plenty of hysteria regarding this topic we all know rape and abortion is not a topic anyone should take likely, the definition of forcible rape isn't defined in the criminal code or covered in the bill itself, which leaves lots of room for interpretation.

My rant is pretty measured considering who we're dealing with.  Seems there was enough "hysteria" even from other GOPers
that at least that language is being dropped.  I think that women who don't watch out for themselves are foolish.  Of
course we want it spelled out and turns out even some Republicans did too.

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#44 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 03 February 2011 - 04:59 PM

Quote

Baldy: I wish that when you donate money to a political
party you could say, here's my money, don't use it for this person.


Yep. That's why the Democrats get an earful from me when they call asking for donations. I tell them I refuse to give money to a party that works to elect conservative Democrats whose votes would be indistinguishable from conservative Republicans on many issues. I only give to selected candidates these days.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#45 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 03 February 2011 - 05:11 PM

View PostNikcara, on 03 February 2011 - 03:41 PM, said:

While I'm glad they're dropping that piece of stupidity, I still hope this bill dies.  The part where it basically uses tax code to discourage private insurers from offering coverage for abortions irks the crap out of me.  I mean, if I get PRIVATELY insured for something that is legal, why should the government punish me/my insurers?  I watched the Rachel Maddow clip - I have to admit I didn't pick up on that bit of legal finesse on my own - but this bill would make it so that most PRIVATE insurance won't cover abortions except in cases of rape, which is just a back-handed way of trying to force women to go to term with a child they don't want.  

It also annoys me that it's only if the mother's life is on the line, not her health.  Sometimes there are very real medical problems that may not kill a woman, but makes things that much harder.  And what about in the cases of fetuses who are non-viable?  Deciding to carry to term a child who you KNOW will die very shortly after birth (like cases of anencephaly) should be a personal decision.  Most women wouldn't want to go through both the medical and emotional hardship of bringing to term and delivering a dead child.  Most would rather end the pregnancy and mourn privately.  I see nothing that covers THAT either.

Ditto.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#46 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 03 February 2011 - 05:14 PM

Clearly the reactions weren't half baked or the proponents of the bill wouldn't have so quickly backed down.
Posted Image

#47 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 03 February 2011 - 05:30 PM

View PostSpectacles, on 03 February 2011 - 04:59 PM, said:

Quote

Baldy: I wish that when you donate money to a political
party you could say, here's my money, don't use it for this person.


Yep. That's why the Democrats get an earful from me when they call asking for donations. I tell them I refuse to give money to a party that works to elect conservative Democrats whose votes would be indistinguishable from conservative Republicans on many issues. I only give to selected candidates these days.

Sounds like a plan!  I've tried writing to them though and never hear a word back.  I think they only
care about my money and not at all what I think.

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#48 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 03 February 2011 - 06:12 PM

View PostBad Wolf, on 03 February 2011 - 05:14 PM, said:

Clearly the reactions weren't half baked or the proponents of the bill wouldn't have so quickly backed down.

It got dropped like the hot potato it was.



Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#49 Nittany Lioness

Nittany Lioness

    Craving a little perspective.

  • Islander
  • 3,537 posts

Posted 03 February 2011 - 07:50 PM

Nope; the over-the-top assertions made about what they intended were 100% wrong.

I'm cold Howard.jpg


#50 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 03 February 2011 - 08:38 PM

View PostNittany Lioness, on 03 February 2011 - 07:50 PM, said:

Nope; the over-the-top assertions made about what they intended were 100% wrong.

You have no evidence, reports, or  first hand knowledge that they were right or wrong.  You have no idea what was intended or might have been intended by the drafters of the law either.  You may be right.  But then again, you may be wrong.  In other words you're taking a stand and guessing.  The same thing everyone else is doing.  Just making an argument on the limited facts we have.


BTW, It's not about what was intended by lawmakers, it's the awkward language of the bill, and what someone could argue because of the language.  I'm sure they intended to limit the scope regarding taxpayer monies  spent on abortion.  And in and of itself, that's not a bad intention at all.  What is/was of concern to many on this board and on others [from what I read] is what could be interpreted from the law the way is was written.  The lack of specificity regarding "forcible rape" left a lot to the eye of the beholder.  It's the sort of thing that opens the door to all kinds of arguments and bad decisions.  

And just to be even more direct, it's not about producing evidence regarding what some argued here.  It was all about what  "could happen" or "might happen",  but,  It hadn't happened yet.  So of course there was no evidence to support such claims.  But there was a whole lot of room to argue what it could be argued to mean because of the lack of definition in the language of the bill.

But, I'm pretty sure you knew that already.

Edited by Certifiably Cait, 03 February 2011 - 08:42 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#51 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 04 February 2011 - 05:31 AM

^What Cait said.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#52 obsidianstorm13

obsidianstorm13
  • Islander
  • 1,118 posts

Posted 04 February 2011 - 06:51 AM

Ditto Cait and Baldy!

#53 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 04 February 2011 - 10:27 AM

Quote

Cait said:

And just to be even more direct, it's not about producing evidence regarding what some argued here. It was all about what "could happen" or "might happen", but, It hadn't happened yet. So of course there was no evidence to support such claims. But there was a whole lot of room to argue what it could be argued to mean because of the lack of definition in the language of the bill.

This!

And

Quote

But, I'm pretty sure you knew that already.

That!   :cheers:

Here's my deal, others mileage may vary, I'm socially liberal and even I don't think that the Government should pay for
all abortions.  But rape, oh yeah and the rapist should never see the light of free day.  Rapists and child molesters are
barely human in my mind (and I actually mean that in a kind of spiritual way).  I've been reading this thread and the
lengths that women have to go to protect themselves is mind boggling.  I'm starting to wonder if maybe packing heat isn't
the way to go.  Rape is rape, it's all forcible.

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#54 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 04 February 2011 - 10:54 AM

What is particularly repugnant to me is the notion that victims should have to defend their right to survive.  Been there, done that.  I can still see the pinched, angry face of the woman who did my interview when I was suffering my first fatal pregnancy, both before Roe v Wade, demanding answers to horribly intrusive questions.  My pregnancy was the result of sex with my fiancee.  Had it been the result of the rape, that horrifying interview would have been worse, because Pinch-Faced Angry Woman would have been spewing her hatred in the form of the theory that there was no such thing as rape, current among the überreligious of the time.  

If that language had remained, there would be a revival of the no such thing as rape stuff.  If indeed it isn't already happening.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#55 Nittany Lioness

Nittany Lioness

    Craving a little perspective.

  • Islander
  • 3,537 posts

Posted 04 February 2011 - 05:02 PM

Cait, the title of the thread and the article that began this is:  " Re-defining Rape / Lightning Rod- Republicans Redefine Rape, Outraging Liberals".  So that's what "this is about".
Clearly.  What followed was open season on the "evil" lawmakers with their "evil" plan to scrub out the meaning of rape.  
Not - "oh down the line, this could be abused" you're fronting.
Here's the highlight reel:

"Why do they always pick on the vulnerable when they are trying to save a few dollars?"

"SEXIST MISOGYNISTIC PIGS! Date rape, being DRUGGED or being mentally disabled aren't FORCIBLE???????????????"

"It's the same old crap... rape is only rape when a man in the bushes jumps out and beats you up first then rapes you.... oh wait no... it's not I'm sorry to say."

"So a 10 year old now who's been brutalized by some moron(or any other choice of word) is going to have pay to terminate the pregnancy or be forced to have the child"

"This is why I can't vote Republican, ever. This is just evil as far as I'm concerned."

"I'm tired of f*ck-wits trying to decide what's best for us."

"so if she's not drugged or beat to a pulp just 'feared' into it, it's not a violent rape ... well , yeah, to the neo religious right, you must pay your own money for any type of evil blasphemy damning abortion."

"what kind of self-righteous A-hole decides that they are ok with further traumatizing rape victims?"

"What's Behind The Drive To Redefine Rape In New And Insane Ways?"

"f*ck*ng people in Congress. Throw ALL of them out and elect decent human beings."



And so on.

I actually agree that clarity was called for and am glad it was quickly repaired to the Hyde language.  That the authors acquiesced without argument demonstrates their intention was not what was being assigned to them, and their genuine purpose going forward is not harmed by reasonable changes.  So yea - I was 100% correct that the ranters were 100% wrong.

quote:
"But, I'm pretty sure you knew that already."

What is that supposed to mean?  When accusing me of dishonesty - spell it out.  Go 'head.

Edited by Nittany Lioness, 04 February 2011 - 05:04 PM.

I'm cold Howard.jpg


#56 Nittany Lioness

Nittany Lioness

    Craving a little perspective.

  • Islander
  • 3,537 posts

Posted 04 February 2011 - 06:01 PM

Meanwhile ...

http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/04/3-planned-parenthood-videos/


Three more Planned Parenthood videos released seemingly show staff aiding Pimp’s underage prostitutes

I'm cold Howard.jpg


#57 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 04 February 2011 - 06:46 PM

View PostNittany Lioness, on 04 February 2011 - 06:01 PM, said:

Ridiculous.

They "seemingly show" this because the tapes were doctored.

http://www.dailykos....e-copycat-video




Furthermore,

http://www.washingto...1012404462.html

Quote

AP Exclusive: Planned Parenthood seeks FBI probe


By DAVID CRARY
The Associated Press
Monday, January 24, 2011; 5:08 PM

NEW YORK -- Planned Parenthood, a perennial protest target because of its role in providing abortions, has notified the FBI that at least 12 of its health centers were visited recently by a man purporting to be a sex trafficker but who may instead be part of an attempted ruse to entrap clinic employees.

In each case, according to Planned Parenthood, the man sought to speak privately with a clinic employee and then requested information about health services for sex workers, including some who he said were minors and in the U.S. illegally.

Planned Parenthood's vice president for communications, Stuart Schear, said the organization has requested an FBI probe of the man's claims and has already fielded some initial FBI inquiries. However, Schear said Planned Parenthood's own investigation indicates that the man has links with Live Action, an anti-abortion group that has conducted previous undercover projects aimed at discrediting the nation's leading abortion provider.


So Planned Parenthood was fooled--and reported this new incarnation of the right's not-so-clever pimp-n-ho ruse to the FBI. Right....

And what is your position, anyway? That it is "hysterical" to claim that the right is seeking to restrict abortion even further, which is what you seemed to snark above, or that abortion needs to be restricted even further? There seems to be an inconsistency here....
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#58 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 04 February 2011 - 07:07 PM

View PostNittany Lioness, on 04 February 2011 - 05:02 PM, said:

Cait, the title of the thread and the article that began this is:  " Re-defining Rape / Lightning Rod- Republicans Redefine Rape, Outraging Liberals".  So that's what "this is about".


You're kidding right?  You don't think the original reading of the Bill was re-defining rape?  You don't think it was a lightening rod?  You don't think Liberals were outraged?  There is a truth in that title.  The GOP has it in their platform to abolish any federal funds from being used for abortions and they want to over turn Roe V. Wade.  Don't tell me [please] that you don't know that.  And that the Democrats would oppose all of that.

Please don't tell me that you're surprised by the immediate polarizing that took place?   Please don't tell me that if the law had read, that any abortions could be subsidized by federal funds that the right wing would have become just as hysterical about the expansion?

Truthfully, the thread title doesn't inflame anything.  The topic itself is the call to arms on both sides of the aisle.


Quote

Clearly.

LOL, only in the mind of a right wing Conservative.
  

Quote

What followed was open season on the "evil" lawmakers with their "evil" plan to scrub out the meaning of rape.

Don't get me wrong, Liberals can jerk their knees just as high defending their POV as Conservatives, but in general because of the language in the Bill, and given the goals of the Fundamental Right Wing Conservative Christians, some opinions expressed  aren't that much of a stretch.  Liberals see some law makers as evil and mad, but I never noticed any restraint in what you have called the uber-Liberal Socialists Left Wing.  

Liberal hysteria is just as rampant as Conservative hysteria.  Don't believe me, just go find a gun control thread, or an Obamacare thread.  The evil intent of the Socialist bastards will leap off the page [in the eyes of some].  LOL

Trust me, all you [both Right and Left] partisans travel the same path, with the same outrage, giving the same answers, you all just have different pet projects.  The country doesn't need to be saved from the right or the left wing, it needs to be saved from both.  Parisian people are as out-of-date as corsets and parasols.  

Quote

Not - "oh down the line, this could be abused" you're fronting.


You're kidding right?  Each comment was exactly about what could be done in the future.  Were some afraid of the worst? Sure.  Because of the language, and if it passed, there was plenty of things that could have been argued, and been upheld.  So please.. It's no different that your side of the aisle barking about what will happen with ObamaCare, or Cap and Trade, or Gun Control.  The list is long, wild, and full of the same self-righteous outrage as the fears expressed in this thread.  The GOP has made clear their intent to reverse Roe V Wade, so any language that would seem to erode abortion rights would be jumped on by the Left.  So, I find your surprise at the comments to be just a tad amusing.  I could have laid a bet on the reaction here.  There are a few wedge issues, where all partisans will act predictably.



Quote

Here's the highlight reel:

"Why do they always pick on the vulnerable when they are trying to save a few dollars?"

"SEXIST MISOGYNISTIC PIGS! Date rape, being DRUGGED or being mentally disabled aren't FORCIBLE???????????????"

"It's the same old crap... rape is only rape when a man in the bushes jumps out and beats you up first then rapes you.... oh wait no... it's not I'm sorry to say."

"So a 10 year old now who's been brutalized by some moron(or any other choice of word) is going to have pay to terminate the pregnancy or be forced to have the child"

"This is why I can't vote Republican, ever. This is just evil as far as I'm concerned."

"I'm tired of f*ck-wits trying to decide what's best for us."

"so if she's not drugged or beat to a pulp just 'feared' into it, it's not a violent rape ... well , yeah, to the neo religious right, you must pay your own money for any type of evil blasphemy damning abortion."

"what kind of self-righteous A-hole decides that they are ok with further traumatizing rape victims?"

"What's Behind The Drive To Redefine Rape In New And Insane Ways?"

"f*ck*ng people in Congress. Throw ALL of them out and elect decent human beings."



And so on.


Yep.  Quite an array of opinion.  Given the ambiguous language of the original Bill and the stated platform of the GOP, all of it was expressed because of fear, and the possible interpretation of a badly written law.  Imagine.  Keeping tabs on the lawmakers and the language they use.  Shocking.  We must be crazy to become alarmed when men and women in Congress don't know how to write law.  

Quote

I actually agree that clarity was called for and am glad it was quickly repaired to the Hyde language.  That the authors acquiesced without argument demonstrates their intention was not what was being assigned to them, and their genuine purpose going forward is not harmed by reasonable changes.


Nicely said.  

Quote

  So yea - I was 100% correct that the ranters were 100% wrong.


If you say so.


But you still miss my point.  I don't think any of the lawmakers are or were evil.  Best case scenario has already occurred.  They caught it and will make it read better, and it will therefore be enforceable.  Worst case scenario would have been--we have stupid lawmakers.  But Evil was not my take.  Others can speak for themselves.

However I do notice that you ascribe bad intent to those who expressed opinions.  Kinda the pot calling the kettle black don't you think.  

Quote

What is that supposed to mean?  

  
I meant that you knew no one could provide evidence of evil intent or the things people seemed to be afraid of-- because the law wasn't even passed, and therefore had no precedents.  Pretty straightforward.  

Quote

When accusing me of dishonesty - spell it out.  Go 'head.

Since I wasn't accusing you of being dishonest, I've nothing to spell out.  But, I think it's cute you jumped to that conclusion right off the bat. I actually thought you used a pretty clever debating device  You ask for what can't be proven.  It was clever.  I just pointed out that you knew no one could provide much evidence.

Since I don't really like you, or the way you threat people here on EI, I wasn't about to compliment you directly.  So, I used a sarcastic way to compliment you.  In the future, I'll be sure to keep my compliments [direct or indirect] to myself.  Posted Image

Edited by Certifiably Cait, 05 February 2011 - 03:01 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#59 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 04 February 2011 - 09:29 PM

^

*SNAP*

That is all.

Oh except that I disagree with the idea that their backing off proves the benevolence of their intent in the first place.  Some people don't get the benefit of the doubt from me.  If someone else wants to give the benefit of the doubt that's their business.  But if those people want to start calling me hysterical because I don't give the benefit of the doubt then I reserve the right to call them gullible in return.

Lil
Posted Image

#60 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 04 February 2011 - 09:45 PM

View PostBad Wolf, on 04 February 2011 - 09:29 PM, said:



Oh except that I disagree with the idea that their backing off proves the benevolence of their intent in the first place.  Some people don't get the benefit of the doubt from me.  If someone else wants to give the benefit of the doubt that's their business.  But if those people want to start calling me hysterical because I don't give the benefit of the doubt then I reserve the right to call them gullible in return.

Lil


Agreed.  What probably happened is... the ill-written Bill polarized the Left wing.  They like to keep their base polarized and the Left wing scattered.  This polarized the wrong base.

Had it been worded differently it would not have angered the moderates.  You can sell "no taxpayer" money for abortions to the middle, but you won't close the deal with moderates if you try and re-define rape.




Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Medicaid, Rape, 2011

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users