Member since: Fri Dec 10, 2010, 10:36 PM
Number of posts: 40,138
Number of posts: 40,138
- 2014 (395)
- 2013 (1364)
- 2012 (188)
- 2011 (3)
- December (3)
- Older Archives
Peter Carmel and Bruce Malone: The TT Interview
by Emily Ramshaw and Thanh Tan
January 31, 2012
FYI: Peter Carmel is one the left, and the president of the AMA (American Medical Association) and Bruce Malone is on the right and the president of the TMA (Texas Medical Association). They both answer the TT (Texas Tribune) interviewer's questions regarding the sonogram law in Texas and the attack on Planned Parenthood:
Carmel: It is a needless, dangerous interference with the practice of medicine by politicians. And as physicians, we have to oppose all interference that we possibly can by politicians in the practice of medicine. There are all sorts of rules all over the country, with state legislatures trying to dictate what doctors do. In the state of Florida, it is illegal for a doctor to ask the family of a child whether there are guns in the home. You can ask about storage of chemicals, about fire alarms, fire escapes, open windows, how the windows are sealed. You’re allowed to ask all those questions, but you cannot ask whether there are firearms in the home. Firearms are a major cause of childhood mortality and injury. It’s so extreme as to be ludicrous. The important principle is, the government shouldn’t interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. The government shouldn’t practice medicine.
TT: And what about Texas lawmakers’ efforts to slash spending on family planning? Now they’re threatening not to participate in the Medicaid Women’s Health Program if they can’t exclude Planned Parenthood.
Malone: That would be a really stupid thing to do. Planned Parenthood does not do abortions in the state of Texas with state funds. So this is a very stupid political thing. It’s not like the state of Texas has another safety net for these women for medical care. The Texas Medical Association doesn’t want to get into the issue of whether a patient wants an elective abortion. That’s not what we’re dealing with. We’re talking about well woman services, pap smears and breast exams, things that make public health sense. And we don’t want to see those women who are vulnerable denied essential medical services because someone wants to debate an ethics issue. That’s their right to debate that. That’s fine, but these are essential medical services.
Carmel: What it sets up is two classes of patients. If you’ve got rocks, you’ve got the ability, you’ve got access to contraception, to women’s health, to all of these things. If you’re poor, we’re going to deny you access to that kind of health. That’s first of all not tolerable for medicine, and it can’t be tolerable for Americans. No American would say, "Yes, the poor should get inferior treatment."
They covered every point that a progressive would make. Whether they've been run out of town since the interview, I don't know. But they were well-informed and acting like rational human beings.
Texas has always had a strong progressive streak and citizens there have just been overwhelmed by an all out attack on sanity, IMO. I found that article by going through what I thought was for women's rights, but realized it was a pro-life apologists story, the first that showed up under my search terms:
The home page shows it's a radical blog:
The contention in the articles show that it smears women chastising them for being callous, or acting like someone telling them what to do that rich people don't have to ask permission for, like DeMint's bull.
I don't know if TRMS went into the real issue, that this is for oppressing and creating chaos in the lives of poor and middle class women, as rich women have never had any problem getting a pregnancy terminated. If nothing else, they would fly to another area or country in the past.
These lawmakers know that the target group can't do that. The last paragraph in the TT article shows that the doctors know what is going on with this, and dispute it in some of the strongest terms I've heard yet.
Naturally, the Live Action Blog wants to paint the doctors as wanting to make money off the procedure and protecting a lucrative business, which is a myth. Much more money is made in prenatal, birthing and pediatric care.
What it would be good to know is who is funding Live Action Blog? We can see that she is right wing darling and is no doubt paid for here appearances and interviews, and enjoying non-profit status as group, most likely has filed to not pay taxes as well.
I smell Koch/ALEC money. I'm not buying the cover story. This is an organizing tool of the religious rights and political all the way.
Thanks for leading me to research that.
Posted by freshwest | Mon Jul 1, 2013, 11:53 PM (0 replies)
pushing and doing the Koch brothers will in everything else, calling it civil liberty, my 'fishy meter' goes into overdrive as well. I agree with the plan of the man they hated more than life itself, Franklin D. Roosevelt:
Second Bill of Rights
The Second Bill of Rights was a list of rights proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt during his State of the Union Address on January 11, 1944. In his address Roosevelt suggested that the nation had come to recognize, and should now implement, a second "bill of rights". Roosevelt's argument was that the "political rights" guaranteed by the constitution and the Bill of Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness." Roosevelt's remedy was to declare an "economic bill of rights" which would guarantee:
Employment, with a living wage
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
Roosevelt stated that having these rights would guarantee American security, and that America's place in the world depended upon how far these and similar rights had been carried into practice. Later in the 1970s, Czech jurist Karel Vasak would categorize these as the "second generation" rights in his theory of three generations of human rights.
Franklin Roosevelt -Second Bill of Rights
Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed a Second Bill of Rights in a speech on January 11, 1944. This was an economic Bill of Rights.
“The Economic Bill of Rights”
Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union:
“It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.
For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.”
This is the legacy of the Democratic Party, being shredded by the Koch brothers, right wing religion, GOP lies and media compliance. I focus on poverty and basic rights, for as FDR, said above:
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
It is why the GOP want Obama and the government to fail. It is why they obstruct everything Obama proposed, which was also called a New Deal with many of the same alphabet government employment programs FDR enacted. The GOP fought him from Day One, calling his programs Obama Youth Squads, his plans for health care Death Panels, and so on.
They want misery and people on the run, listening to grifters, cultist and demagogues so they can step in and create their dictatorship.
That's why I have little patience for those who don't get down to Earth and deal with what affects real people and that's the pain of being shoved around by the rich. No amount of smearing is going to convince me that who follow every Koch inspired media sensation when we have the dire wolf at the door. While people squabble, they are pulling the rug out from under us.
I really appreciate the link you posted. It's very enlightening.
P. S. Also at the Wikipedia link is the story of the video. The audio was lost for many years, until Michael Moore found it and put it in Capitalism: A Love Story.
Posted by freshwest | Mon Jul 1, 2013, 09:50 PM (1 replies)
Warrant46, what a great piece on this hateful fraud. While I don't agree with all of it, I liked it.
My advice to Bible thumpers who are in that same camp, and I can thump with the best of them:
Racist? Sexist? Homophobe? Prejudiced against people because of where they were born, what religion they were reared or not, what political party or anything else?
Did not your God create the races and all the shades thereof? Did not your God create the sexes, and all the variations thereof? Did not your God create he Earth and all the countries of the world? Did not your God create the human mind and heart, and all the infinite kinds of thinking and feeling?
And did not your God declare that the works of His hands were good? Who do you think you are talking to when you spout your hate and attack your equals? Your argument is with God, don't bring it to me.
I suggest you take up with your God, for your argument is with the work of His hands and His choices for what body and place the human spirit would dwell. Don't come to me with your insanity. Stop your blasphemy against the Lord who made all equal.
For we are all created equal under God, no one has not sinned (been separated from God) and is not under judgment.
I could rant on with a few other things, but you get my drift. DeMint would have been ill advised to spew his hatred of God's creation in front of me. This is how these characters need to be told to get their feet back on Earth with rest of us!
Posted by freshwest | Mon Jul 1, 2013, 09:08 PM (0 replies)
Well, that says a lot right there! What's next, secret ballots at night like the GOP did to screw up
Medicare under Newt Gingrich?
And loved your post here:
It doesn't get any clearer than that!
Posted by freshwest | Mon Jul 1, 2013, 04:43 PM (0 replies)
Note the Koch kingdom on the left and their armed minions in RED working with their media, aiming to cut out the BLUE, which are Democrats and all of us!
Posted by freshwest | Mon Jul 1, 2013, 04:27 PM (0 replies)
M$M decided the use of it in Wisconsin was proof of unions and public workers being in favor of Sharia law. Sigh...
Posted by freshwest | Mon Jul 1, 2013, 04:15 PM (0 replies)
Prescott's Hot Shot Fire Fighters
Posted by freshwest | Mon Jul 1, 2013, 04:06 PM (0 replies)
The graphic says what is happening, but media diverts people from the big picture:
I suppose you've seen me ranting about the 14th amendment that Ryan wants to repeal. This is what repealed DOMA. But 14th can be legally done away with as Ryan, Paulites and Libertarians want, by the use of state conventions. Those RED legislatures people seem to think don't matter, unless they live under their thumb. The most important parts of the 14th:
This was needed as the 13th Amendment wasn't clear enough, despite the Civil War. The Confederacy was built on the belief of white supremacy (check my journal for the public domain, university publication). Their philosophy directly opposed hat of the Founding Fathers who saw black slavery as the end of the America they started but wanted to eventually live up to the core values of equality.
But that was not so for the Confederacy as Jefferson Davis' vice president spells out. They wanted those ideals gone. He actually makes a 'logical' case and invented the idea of those who are liberals and believe in equality are ignorant mentally ill, which is recurring theme from the GOP and their media.
A determined portion of the electorate now funded with billionaire dollars, believe in inequality and is working to dissolve this nations. Thee GOP are still employing the Southern Strategy by Nixon's Lee Atwater. The same arguments have never left. Read it and weep. They don't believe in equal rights and they even bring God into their equationt to silence oppostion. It has worked very well.
The loss of birthright citizenship will kiss voting rights goodbye unless approved by a theocrat, a scion of wealth or by the right kind of birth as decided by Republicans. Sadly, many Americans won't make the list due to the actions of the same Republicans. They have done this in small locales, changing the American political landscape in their favor, leaving future generations without remedy for the loss of that particular civil liberty for the less popular and powerful. Yet all I hear are those darn cicadas. Or is it crickets?
Due Process Clause
Due Process under the law is the right to be treated fairly and to have a fighting chance when facing legal action. It is mentioned twice in the U.S. Constitution. But it needed more to make it clear in a nation built on conquest and slavery. So Amendments Four, Five, Six and Eight were passed, but the Fourteenth is the one that seals the deal:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This is the clause that fed all liberal and progressive movements since then and works to create a country the Founders most likely dreamed of having. Most Americans have come to rely upon the protections it affords in environmental law, employment, housing, health care and other ways.
It is not just in regards to the legal system and has been sorely abused by the Patriot Act and other legislation passed by the GOP at a time Democrats were mailed anthrax letters and people died. There has since been a media induced collective amnesia is on how this was orchestrated at the time, but media had a huge hand with making it pass. The Goebbels media called for the death of those who opposed it on Constitutional grounds, and the traumatized populace decided it had better pass, or else someone would be hung as a traitor for being soft on terrorism.
Welcome to the landscape we have been living in since September 11th. It can be repealed, but privatization advocates have put in the poison pill every time. Add in any number of stochastic and extremist terrorist acts which have given it a life that has made it acceptable to some, so in general it has been accepted, out of justified fears, others not. Privateers see a gold mine in contracts.
But parts of the Patriot Act have been declared to be unConstitutional, even by that crew of corporatists at the USSC. But it takes a grass roots voting effort to repeal it at its source, the elected officials. And those who make the money will show up at every single election. They aren't going away, so we have to get out and vote,or we will be the ones who allow it.
Equal Protection Clause
Welcome to Animal Farm. Where some animals are more equal than others. All your uteri are belong to us. This is why I see the wailing over the 4th, a particular fetish of the Paulites, to be the most hypocritical, when half the populace have lost their rights under the 4th in the most intrusive manner by the actions of the Kochoctopus. Wait, I think I hear our allies in protecting women's rights rising up in their defense of the violation of privacy for women!
And what is that sound I hear building from those who scream about the Fourth in the distance? Is it cicadas this time? No, it's the same damn crickets. Animal Farm again.
It took a Civil War to get the 14th with more death than any other war the USA has been involved in, percentage wise in population. Other laws like the Voting Rights Act and other amendments are also written in the blood of those who wanted to see this nation become all it could be, and was intended to evolve into.
The original Constitution the Koch funded Tea Party and Libertarians and others want to beat everyone over the head with the sacred relic of their religion, was not what it has been amended to be, as the Founders intended:
As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality. ~ George Washington
The original did not have the right to vote for women, minorities and the young, or those who did own property. It enshrined giving representation in the fraction of 3/5th per slave to slave owners. The very people they held in chains were used to increase their power in government, which was a grievous and mind-shattering depravity. As the GOP seek to deny the right to vote to millions, they likewise intend to use the census numbers of those they deny a voice, to grant them more power. As another Founder said:
I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~ Thomas Jefferson
We should be trembling over inequality and unjust treatment of large groups of people from basic rights. Not from being online, or the ones that media wave in front of us as an apocalyptic vision of authoritarian dystopia. Those visions are used to discourage and scatter those who would stop it happening. There are many more millions beyond the myopic scope of the classes of people with enough wealth to truly participate in this venue here online. The invisible ones who talked person to person and showed up to re-elect Obama to the horror of media shills. Their well-paid diversions failed, and no wonder they were in shock. As they believe that dollars equal freedom of speech, as they are paid handsomely, there may have been a bit of anxiety over their incomes.
And back to the original Constitution that some cry about, even going as far back in time to invoke the Magna Carta, that only applied to freedmen, not women or slaves. There are many who state and are working to re-create, the Articles of Confederation to guarantee their liberties, just as they had then. The Constitution was too liberal and godless for them, as they've said. But Democrats like it that way, as they believe in evolution, too.
And Native Americans were only mentioned in the most derogatory terms from the outset of this nation in primary founding documents. No, we have come a long way, but billionaire owned media has been used to destroy us. Our natural love of knowledge and scientific invention, has been used to enslave us.
Ironic, now, that the media owners have created a caste system of the mind, from which they have not spared our bodies either. They have used modern technology to assign segments of the populace to indulge in and masturbate mentally to fantasy, superstition and mind-numbing cultism by appealing to the lowest denominators of human behavior, fear, panic, hate and the love of scandal.
We are in danger from the ground up, and focusing on the head is not what the GOP have done. They have mutated the grass roots and the stolons have multiplied like weeds. We have not choice but to focus on GOTV.
Posted by freshwest | Mon Jul 1, 2013, 02:22 PM (1 replies)
Glenn Greenwald's Anti-Obama Vendetta Continues
May 30, 2013
Mild stuff. I'm not really mad at GG. He's just a tool. Stronger stuff here, even though this is an old story:
Glenn Greenwald Of The Libertarian Cato Institute Posts His Defense Of Joshua Foust…The Exiled Responds To Greenwald
By Team eXiled, January 3, 2012
A few charges are made about the CATO Institute, which fans have no problem with because XYZ covers all objections? And even though any self-proclaimed should.
Because it was founded and has been used by the Koch brothers for their agenda to slaughter the poor and the civil rights of Americans under the glorious names of liberty and freedom. Animal Farm style.
In the next few paragraphs, GG defends himself. Good defense on drug policy but is that sufficient to give him a pass when so many others support legalization, too? Not unlike a standard liberal. Then the reply:
...Moreover, as Greenwald himself knows better than anyone, his ties to the Cato Institute and the Koch-funded libertarian nomenklatura go deeper than this. For example, Glenn Greenwald was one of the keynote speakers at an elite “Cato Benefit Sponsors” event, featuring Glenn and Cato fellow P.J. O’Rourke and winger Michael Barone. Who among progressives is invited as a top entertainer for the elite Cato Institute Benefit Sponsors event? Glenn Greenwald, that’s who.
Glenn Greenwald, “freelancer,” entertains more than 100 Cato Benefactors
My question is why would anyone want to spend any time with those fuckers? I wouldn't wanna be in the same zipcode. They mean me no fucking good. It's not like they put a gun up to GG's head. No, these are friends and colleagues. And it costs money to gallivant all over the world.
So who's paying the bill? We know who pays a lot of the Kochroaches. We know who pays O'Keefe and Rove and the whole swarm of ratfuckers. Certainly they have the ability to sway the masses, or they wouldn't be in the inner circle. Glib of tongue and able to fashion a tale.
Don't think they are not going to get paid for this. And why would GG stop shilling to get money to pay for his own bills? And who foots his lifestyle? It ain't pennies from heaven and it ain't magic, folks.
Okay, back to the eXiled:
But even if Greenwald’s ties to the Cato Institute didn’t go deeper, the idea that taking money from the Koch brothers for a one-year drug-decriminalization project shouldn’t be disclosed each time Greenwald attacks progressives while defending the Kochs’/libertarians’ pet projects—as when Greenwald defended Citizens United, much to progressives’ confusion, or when Greenwald attacked our article in The Nation about the Koch-funded libertarians leading the anti-TSA union campaign—is plain wrong and ridiculous. Payoffs and influence-peddling usually come in more subtle forms than payments marked “BRIBE.” In Russia, bankers would pay off government ministers not by giving them money earmarked “Vzyatka” but rather by giving them a “book advance” on a completely unrelated, intellectual endeavor. But even in Russia, bribery schemes like that, which clearly tie the recipient of that money to the donor of that money, led to ministers being fired. So when the Koch brothers pay for Greenwald to spend a year on a policy whitepaper, even on something as “benign” as a drug policy whitepaper, we don’t see it as benign when Greenwald simultaneously protects libertarians, defends Citizens United, and attacks journalism critical of Koch-funded libertarians.
We find it disturbing that Greenwald never said a single critical word about his benefactors the Koch brothers until a Weekly Standard interview with Charles Koch in March 2011, which finally elicited a mildly critical column (by Greenwald’s standards) of his Koch benefactors.
We believe that when you take money from the Koch brothers and a notorious corporate-rightwing libertarian outfit like the Cato Institute, that you should disclose your conflict-of-interest when you attack the credibility of journalists who expose Koch-linked libertarians running the TSA media hype, as we did at The Nation, or when Greenwald defends the Citizens United decision against progressives, as Greenwald did in 2010, much to progressives’ confusion.
Someone is funding GG. It's not like it's never been done. It's not like they can't afford to pay an infinite variety of stooges to fuck with the minds of the public.
The Koch brothers are a bigger menace to democracy and civil rights than any past or current government program. Anyone who knows what ALEC has done to this nation, is aware that it's the Koch brothers plan.
GG supporting Citizens United supports the Koch brothers. Ratfucking Democrats supports the Koch brothers. GG supported Ron Paul and all the Paulies support Rand, who support the Koch brothers.
You know, Rand, personhood bills, end social security and all those liberal and progressive ideas. That's GG's kindred spirit. Which means GG doesn't give a fuck about me and I take it personally. As Tim Wise said in 2012:
Of Broken Clocks, Presidential Candidates, and the Confusion of Certain White Liberals
...And please, Glenn Greenwald, spare me the tired shtick about how Paul “raises important issues” that no one on the left is raising, and so even though you’re not endorsing him, it is still helpful to a progressive narrative that his voice be heard. Bullshit. The stronger Paul gets the stronger Paul gets, period. And the stronger Paul gets, the stronger libertarianism gets, and thus, the Libertarian Party as a potential third party: not the Greens, mind you, but the Libertarians. And the stronger Paul gets, the stronger become those voices who worship the free market as though it were an invisible fairy godparent, capable of dispensing all good things to all comers — people like Paul Ryan, for instance, or Scott Walker. In a nation where the dominant narrative has long been anti-tax, anti-regulation, poor-people-bashing and God-bless-capitalism, it would be precisely those aspects of Paul’s ideological grab bag that would become more prominent. And if you don’t know that, you are a fool of such Herculean proportions as to suggest that Salon might wish to consider administering some kind of political-movement-related-cognitive skills test for its columnists, and the setting of a minimum cutoff score, below which you would, for this one stroke of asininity alone, most assuredly fall.
I mean, seriously, if “raising important issues” is all it takes to get some kind words from liberal authors, bloggers and activists, and maybe even votes from some progressives, just so as to “shake things up,” then why not support David Duke? With the exception of his views on the drug war, David shares every single view of Paul’s that can be considered progressive or left in orientation. Every single one. So where do you draw the line? Must one have actually donned a Klan hood and lit a cross before his handful of liberal stands prove to be insufficient? Must one actually, as Duke has been known to do, light candles on a birthday cake for Hitler on April 20, before it no longer proves adequate to want to limit the overzealous reach of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms? Exactly when does one become too much of an evil fuck even for you? Inquiring minds seriously want to know.
Meanwhile, at what point do you stop being so concerned about whether a presidential candidate is pushing the issues Paul raises (so many of which do need raising and attention), and realize what every actual leftist in history has realized, but which apparently some liberals and progressives don’t: namely, that the real battles are in the streets, and in the neighborhoods, and in movement activism? It isn’t a president, whether his name is Ron Paul or Barack Obama who gets good things done. It is us, demanding change and threatening to literally shut the system down (whether we mean Wall Street, the Port of Oakland, the Wisconsin state capitol, Columbia University, a Woolworth’s lunch counter, or the Montgomery, Alabama bus system) who force presidents and lawmakers to bend to the public will.
In short, if you’re still disappointed in Barack Obama, it’s only because you never understood whose job it was to produce change in the first place. But don’t take out your own failings in this regard on the rest of us, by giving ideological cover and assorted journalistic love taps to a guy who believes the poor should rely on the charitable impulses of doctors to provide for their medical needs, including, one presumes, chemotherapy; or that America was meant to be a “robustly Christian” nation, but is being currently undermined by “secularists;” or who puts the term gay rights in quotation marks when he writes it, and believes states should be free to criminalize homosexual intercourse, and who is such a homophobe that he won’t even use the bathroom in a gay man’s house; or who has all but said that he would like to take America back to the early 1800s, in terms of the scope of government: a truly glorious time to be sure, if you were white, male and owned property.
Ya know, like some of the liberal “thinkers” who have, as of late, decided to praise Ron Paul.
A case can be made that the powerful have associations that don't match up to their highest ideals when they get in office. They have to face the beast in the face to get things done for others. But that's not what's going on between these media figures and the Koch brothers. And you can't run from the deadly stench that comes from hopping in bed with the Koch brothers. No, that doesn't wash off.
I want the Koch brothers and their enablers in media to quit fucking with my life and those of the people I love. They stop doing it and they'll get off my shit list.
Posted by freshwest | Mon Jul 1, 2013, 02:47 AM (5 replies)
Posted by freshwest | Mon Jul 1, 2013, 12:25 AM (1 replies)