|
Stanos posted:That's because Illinois would be red as poo poo if it weren't for Chicago. Yeah but nobody would care because without Chicago it'd have like 4 electoral votes.
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
Amergin posted:But honestly I don't think it's the government's role to "protect you from homelessness." At the very least I would raise the retirement age and attempt at making the disability benefits more strict. But I don't think the government should be in the business of helping people save money, rather it should focus more on educating folks on how to save money and let them have at it. So in your ideal scenario, this would happen, and the end result would be a lot more people losing all their money, being taken advantage of, and suffering? You acknowledge this is going to happen, and you're fine with it? Unsurprisingly, it turns out another person with conservative leanings isn't doing it for any logical reason, they're just a huge fucker.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Lemming posted:So in your ideal scenario, this would happen, and the end result would be a lot more people losing all their money, being taken advantage of, and suffering? You acknowledge this is going to happen, and you're fine with it? The end result would be future generations focusing on saving their money through their employers and the private sector rather than through government. I'm a moderate liberal who wants to cut costs from places in government other than (rather, in combination with) the military and what I get in response is "if you cut anything millions will suffer, therefore you're a callous fucker." So what, in your ideal scenario people don't have to worry about homelessness because gently caress it, let's make money out of thin air to act as a cushion in case anything in your life ever goes wrong?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Amergin posted:The end result would be future generations focusing on saving their money through their employers and the private sector rather than through government. Well you might be a liberal, but you're the kind of liberal whose blue dog, regressive politics is dragging everything down the right-wing gutter. hth. But you're probably proud of that and think yourself a reasonable, rational human being. You're not, you're just a myopic rear end. MLKQUOTEMACHINE fucked around with this message at 19:36 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Amergin posted:I can't imagine that there's no middle ground here. Government agencies aren't able to reward based on merit, effort and quality of work rather than time spent on the job? Government agencies aren't able to quicken the firing process while still making it based on a lack of effort or quality of work while attempting to shield employees from politics? This is exactly how it works now. Federal employees receive promotions and raises based on performance assessments. Federal employees can be fired for poor performance, but there needs to be sustained documentation of that poor performance. This is certainly more fair than the private sector, where you can be (completely legally) summarily dismissed because your manager had a problem with the color of your socks. And yes, federal employees can be fired immediately for egregious matters (again, assuming you can actually document the issue). The issue is that most managers are too lazy to go through the effort, and find it easier to deal with problem employees by giving them lovely projects, etc until they up and transfer on their own. At least it's someone else's problem, right? And finally, providing oversight via a third party, non-partisan review committee is pretty much the definition of providing an appeal process. I don't think that you realize that the situation you consider absurd (mass political hiring/firing) is literally how it used to work. Before the implementation of a professional civil service, organization of federal employees, etc - most of which happened barely a hundred years ago, but the way - a new president coming into town effectively meant the dismantling of the existing government and reforming it based on patronage. What do you think that might do to continuity of services in a government that is now far more involved with what are often highly technical and long-term projects?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Amergin posted:The end result would be future generations focusing on saving their money through their employers and the private sector rather than through government. To quote a funny man on Twitter (@crushingbort) "hmm well I'd say I'm fiscally conservative but socially very liberal. the problems are bad but their causes...their causes are very good" You slash the bottom out, you're not solving inequality problems. You're making them worse.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Amergin posted:So what, in your ideal scenario people don't have to worry about homelessness because gently caress it, let's make money out of thin air to act as a cushion in case anything in your life ever goes wrong? Or use the money we created out of thin air to bail out the financial sector, a number which is still unknown since technically the Fed doesn't have to report it to Congress. Conservative estimates are somewhere around 1-2 trillion just of what we know was lent out. Also homelessness is a bad example since it's actually cheaper to supply the homeless population with cheap subsidized housing than it is to constantly pay for the dozens of hospital visits and 911 calls they create when they're on the street.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Amergin posted:The end result would be future generations focusing on saving their money through their employers and the private sector rather than through government. Yes, obviously. We should have a guaranteed basic income that would let everyone afford food and shelter so nobody would have to die in the street. Everyone should have their health care covered. We don't need to create any money out of thin air (although we could and it'd be fine).  The US already has more than enough wealth to support this. The top 1% has 35% of the wealth while the bottom 40% has 0.2%, and this was in 2007, so it's gotten even worse after the recession. All we'd need to do is distribute it more fairly and have the rich finally pay their fair share. We can still have rich and poor, but there's no reason for anyone to be in poverty, full stop. In what universe would you want to institute your libertarian Christmasland when we can already easily take care of everyone?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:This is exactly how it works now. Federal employees receive promotions and raises based on performance assessments. Federal employees can be fired for poor performance, but there needs to be sustained documentation of that poor performance. This is certainly more fair than the private sector, where you can be (completely legally) summarily dismissed because your manager had a problem with the color of your socks. And yes, federal employees can be fired immediately for egregious matters (again, assuming you can actually document the issue). The issue is that most managers are too lazy to go through the effort, and find it easier to deal with problem employees by giving them lovely projects, etc until they up and transfer on their own. At least it's someone else's problem, right? And finally, providing oversight via a third party, non-partisan review committee is pretty much the definition of providing an appeal process. So then focus on the carrot rather than the stick- You know what, how about this - how would you make government employees work more efficiently? Lemming posted:Yes, obviously. We should have a guaranteed basic income that would let everyone afford food and shelter so nobody would have to die in the street. Everyone should have their health care covered. We don't need to create any money out of thin air (although we could and it'd be fine). Would you replace all current benefits with a UBI? A UBI wouldn't do anything to curb wealth inequality unless you paid for it by raises taxes on the wealthy - which would either encourage them to collude in hiding their finances better or encourage them to simply leave. UBI would also inflate prices - housing isn't going to become "suddenly affordable" for the poor, especially in urban areas. Plus not all poor families will spend the money wisely, so now you have fungibility concerns. Amergin fucked around with this message at 20:00 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Amergin posted:The end result would be future generations focusing on saving their money through their employers and the private sector rather than through government. Anyway, your example here seems to put someone's potential to retire at the mercy of their employer (who is NOT their friend) and the private sector (known for blowing money on bad investments, and also for raking in sweet, sweet fees). I can think of a lot of places where we can save money, but I think for the disability payments and social security situation you're describing, yeah actually, cutting those would cause a lot of suffering for a ton of people who are currently able to live reasonably independent if meager lives on their assistance money, supplemented often by small sums they can earn by doing whatever work their ailments or age permit, or other savings. These people would be rendered destitute, and in many cases (the disabled) would have no opportunity to pull themselves up by their bootstraps or save money - because they can't work, or can't work very much. Will they be put in institutions? In my ideal scenario a basic support for subsistence would exist, yes. It might not be for a luxurious home, or for the finest in gourmet foods (as opposed to a reasonably balanced diet including fresh ingredients when feasible - not the same thing).
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Amergin posted:The end result would be future generations focusing on saving their money through their employers and the private sector rather than through government. Ah yes, the social liberal, fiscal conservative rally cry of people who actually have no understanding of the real world. Fiscal conservatives aren't liberals, it's yet another dogwhistle so that regressive harmful economic policies can do the work for people without the balls to stand up for their hateful and harmful conservative opinions. You aren't actually a liberal if you want to cut services from the most exploited and weakest members of society, you're either conservative without the guts to say so or just an idiot/rear end in a top hat or some combination thereof. And this is coming from someone who used to consider myself a social liberal, fiscal conservative until I realized I was only calling myself that because I didn't know any better and "more efficient government" is a effective rallying cry for those who don't understand how that poo poo works. Harry Joe fucked around with this message at 19:43 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Stanos posted:That's because Illinois would be red as poo poo if it weren't for Chicago. That's true of literally every state except like Massachusetts.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Amergin posted:So then focus on the carrot rather than the stick- Why the insistence that government is particularly inefficient now? Look at a program like Medicare, where something like 2-3% of total program receipts go to administrative expenses. Private insurance, in large part because the various inefficiencies inherent in providing healthcare coverage privately, instead spends something along the lines of 15-20% on non-healthcare expenses. And that's before they skim a few percent off as profit. Serious question, is there data that would lead to the conclusion that government workers (particularly federal workers) are particularly unproductive or inefficient compared to their private sector counterparts? e: To actually answer the question, pretty much the same way as any other employer of largely white collar workers would. Pay people well enough and provide flexibility to minimize turnover, provide opportunities for education and advancement, emphasize open communication with managers. Have you ever had a good boss that went out of their way to threaten to fire people as a means of motivation? Any worker who has an in-demand skillset and hears that will start looking for new work, and morale will suffer among those who stay. Why in the world would this be an effective way to motivate government workers when it's basically top of the list of poo poo not to do as a manager in the private sector? AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 19:51 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Also as a former "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" idiot I can say it's a dumbass outlook that is based on incredibly naivety or lack of knowledge. Anyone who says they are that and over that age of 21 is probably a rich person that doesn't want to be seen as a bigot but also doesn't give a poo poo about how much poor people are screwed since he or she is totally seperated from any visual affect of poverty outside of Bill O'Rielly showing how terrible "those" people are on Fox News.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's true of literally every state except like Massachusetts. 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Amergin posted:
Yeah, I didn't say that. I said that specialists are more efficient than generalists. Which if you take even 1 minute to think you can see why that's self evident.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:To setup and coordinate security details alone I know for the president trips are usually scheduled about 3 months in advance, so for the sec state I would imagine that his trips would be scheduled anywhere between 30-60 days out. Nessus posted:It is probably #3, these are not exactly the Normandy invasion but there's a lot of logistics involved. Kerry has staff, aides, probably secret service, etc. But it will do wonders for my Issa/Commings fanfiction.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's true of literally every state except like Massachusetts. True, true. I've just lived in Southern Illinois for too long. Outside of a few union pockets, it's red all over. Though I suppose it's the same elsewhere outside of major cities.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:I don't think that you realize that the situation you consider absurd (mass political hiring/firing) is literally how it used to work. Before the implementation of a professional civil service, organization of federal employees, etc - most of which happened barely a hundred years ago, but the way - a new president coming into town effectively meant the dismantling of the existing government and reforming it based on patronage. What do you think that might do to continuity of services in a government that is now far more involved with what are often highly technical and long-term projects? When Lincoln had been inaugurated, he was so overwhelmed by office-seekers he couldn't get any work done for weeks until he declared he'll only see petitioners for a few hours a day. It was a huge problem in 1861.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Amergin posted:So then focus on the carrot rather than the stick- How is it possible to come up with some sort of grand unified solution to waste and/or inefficiency everywhere without even specifying what the causes are? And how does this solution somehow solve all problems everywhere when the causes inevitably vary by department?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Amergin posted:So then focus on the carrot rather than the stick- This is a fun thought experiment. I would totally rework the existing private contracting guidelines. They've been so badly twisted over the years that they've become a cash giveaway to businesses in return for nothing or just shoddy products. Case in point: healthcare.gov. Now imagine that fiasco with almost everything in the military. I would change the incentive structure for managers of units. Currently in the military if you don't spend your allocated budget this year then next year it gets cut to the level you did spend even if you have a large expenditure, new computers, on the horizon. So I would allow budget rollovers once every lets say three years. On top of that I'd give performance feedback based on the managers ability to cut the budget long term without increasing personnel hours or cutting personnel. So ideally you'd get a promotion for making your unit run more efficiently with current personnel. I would expand the powers of some branches so they can be more effective. The IRS, for instance, doesn't have the political backing to shut down overseas tax havens. I'd give it to them. I would streamline the bureaucracy whenever and wherever possible so instead a few hundred different tax exemptions there would a dozen or so. Or anywhere with employees filling out 9 different forms that say the same thing just to make sure that nine different systems which don't talk to each other get the info, I'd do my best to create some sort of cross platform program to take care of that. As a result I'd definitely be hiring more specialists to focus on areas with the greatest chance for improvement like the VA. I'd also be hiring people to hammer harder on medicare fraud. Social Security wouldn't be an IOU box any longer. It'd be as locked down as I could make it. No government would have permission to bower from it now or in the future. It would exist solely to hold money for SS. And it would not be invested. At absolute most it could be converted into a certain percentage of T bills. I don't trust banks with a pile of money that big for investing. I would add teeth to a lot of regulations but in return I would add a mandatory 5 year waiting period between finishing gov't work and accepting an industry job that was part of that regulators previous purview. This I would treat harshly. In general conflict of interest issues would be treated as harshly as possible. Since I've focused mostly on military stuff I might as well keep pushing it. Unit commanders would no longer have the power to initiate investigations into rape/sexual harassment accusations. That would be run by an organization outside the typical command structure. Officers would be able to gain rank without switching jobs. So if you're an amazing small unit leader you could stay in that position and not be forced to work as a general's aide or a large unit commander if you didn't want. Same with pilots who just want to continue flying. In fact I'd allow for completely different career tracks for officers. Unit commanders both large and small, and specialists. Both officers and enlisted with positive feedback would be allowed to apply for their next base of command and be chosen on merit rather than the current lottery system. It might force terrible unit commanders out when all of their troops apply for a different command. That one could use some work though. I know the current system is terrible but I'm not sure how to replace it. How's that strike you? Relentlessboredomm fucked around with this message at 20:09 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Are there good blogs about American politics/issues? Something to follow beyond these threads.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Amergin posted:1) Create a mandatory personal finance curriculum spanning grades 9-11/12 (which I admit would be difficult to fit in with all the There's already a legal framework through an appellate court that mediates complaints/protests of termination. There is already a third party to review any incidents. edit: wow that page came up fast Berke Negri fucked around with this message at 20:18 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
It's hilarious this happens exactly the same way every single time, a guy shows up in the thread supporting random republican garbage, everyone pounces on him, he claims he is "fiscally conservative and socially liberal"(doesn't want to be seen hating gays) and wants "less waste in government", people then ask for examples of this idiocy usually its some garbage list of cutting from social programs that they heard were inefficient with 0 evidence to back it up and a token military cut thrown in to show they are liberal then a bunch of people with evidence show them how stupid it is. Eventually someone will come in and call us a hivemind for disagreeing with him and everything will fade until the next one shows up next month, but it is uncanny how this has happened exactly like this like 100 times now.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Radish posted:Also as a former "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" idiot I can say it's a dumbass outlook that is based on incredibly naivety or lack of knowledge. Anyone who says they are that and over that age of 21 is probably a rich person that doesn't want to be seen as a bigot but also doesn't give a poo poo about how much poor people are screwed since he or she is totally seperated from any visual affect of poverty outside of Bill O'Rielly showing how terrible "those" people are on Fox News. Did I say I was fiscally conservative? Is it "fiscally conservative" if I want government spending to be curbed slightly? I'm touched to see so many people see this in black and white - "if you don't agree with my fiscal notions you are immediately part of the 'other' and are therefore an idiot who hates poor people'." This thread right here is what's wrong with American politics. That all strikes me as fine, but how would you enable the IRS to have any effect on a foreign country's tax policies and "tax haven" status?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Amergin posted:The end result would be future generations focusing on saving their money through their employers and the private sector rather than through government. Great. What do you do with the current generation of people past the retirement age? Or who are straddling the raised retirement age you propose. They're not going to have a chance to build a personal retirement account before SS gets pulled out from under them. Are you writing them off? You want high school education to teach personal finance with an eye toward retirement planning. Do you have a way to teach the people who have already gone through the school treadmill and are already into their working career? They have some catching up to do if they're going to have a personal retirement account that will sustain them. Sure, you want them to retire later, which might pose a problem when their children start looking for jobs of their own. The problem with draconian cuts in the short term with a claimed eye for long-term results is that you're not solving the immediate problem and wind up with even bigger crises in the middle term.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:I'm not a lawyer but the way I see it, if you and the entire school board are Satanists and you all agree to endorse a Satanic daily prayer or something, that's technically OK. However your school will be burned down pretty soon after and you can bet that fundies will be lobbying the state and/or local governments to pass some kind of law that makes it so that no religions can be promoted in schools. Then they'll find a loophole to get Christianity exempt and law enforcement will probably ignore that and etc etc. Remember the one from iirc 2008 with an old guy throwing a rock into a pond? That was the best 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Did I say I was fiscally conservative? Dismantling social security, pushing for more to be involved with 401ks (little better than a scam by this point) and driving up retirement ages isnt even fiscally conservative, it's far-right wing policy.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Is it "fiscally conservative" if I want government spending to be curbed slightly? Honestly, yes, I think that would be fair. The US non-defense discretionary budget is already below the post-WWII average as a percent of GDP and would (probably) be much lower had it not been for the Recovery Act. The fiscal moderates have already won and the debate at the national level is between a party that wants draconian cuts and a party that wants to pay for relatively minor increases for programs like an infrastructure bank by ending some tax write-offs.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
effectual posted:Remember the one from iirc 2008 with an old guy throwing a rock into a pond? That was the best That's former senator Mike Gravel.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtTaokySAfU Mike Gravel is a national treasure.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Did I say I was fiscally conservative? No, this post as well as your others are what's wrong with American politics. I have no loving idea where people get this idea that private businesses operate in a more efficient manner than government does. It's just some stupid loving catch-all people use to cut social programs that don't benefit them. Like somehow it's a good thing for everyone if more old people are poor, or SNAP is reduced to nothing. You want the government to reduce spending, but where the gently caress do you think money is going? Does it just disappear from the economy because government spent it rather than some fortune 500 company? Government is the smallest it has been in what, decades? That still isn't enough? We have to cut more because of? That's not to say there aren't parts of government that don't need some cleaning up, but if you think for a second that it can be done with a broadsword over a scalpel you are just insane. Also, as someone who was fired twice over the course of 3 years for poo poo that was entirely outside of my control (a round of layoffs to please shareholders once, and because I didn't want to purchase a phone with my own money to pay more monthly for a phone plan that didn't give me the coverage I need. Yay T-Mobile.) gently caress you so hard for even suggesting that's the kind of thing we need more of in government.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Did I say I was fiscally conservative? Government spending, as a percentage of GDP, has been going down at an unprecedented rate* over the last few years. There have been numerous tangible, largely negative effects as a result, and there is no evidence that this austerity has resulted in any economic growth or really done anything good for the country. Schools have closed, teachers fired, people in Arizona literally died because funding for organ transplants was withheld. At the same time, mainstream economists have more or less universally concluded that the current slow growth is a demand-side issue, and not something that increased austerity would help with. The US is paying sub-inflation interest rates on debt it issues while programs with a clearly positive return on investment are being cut in the name of austerity, it's absurd. Austerity has not been more successful in the various forms it has been attempted overseas since the financial crisis either. Why exactly do you want to continue a policy that is not working? *The years immediately following WW2 excepted. Amergin posted:That all strikes me as fine, but how would you enable the IRS to have any effect on a foreign country's tax policies and "tax haven" status? By regulating American entities. Other countries can do what they want, the issue is that American incorporated companies can do things like indefinitely avoid repatriating profits to dodge taxes and reincorporate American assets overseas to dodge taxes. The US can also be more proactive about working with foreign governments to share information about Americans dodging taxes, as it has done to decent effect with Switzerland over the last few years. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 20:31 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Amergin posted:1) Create a mandatory personal finance curriculum spanning grades 9-11/12 (which I admit would be difficult to fit in with all the There's a bunch of foundational steps you'd have to take to get to (1) being worth a drat. Minimum living wage, medicare for all, probably a wealth tax, etc. Just to get it out there, would you disagree that government's role includes "Ensure every citizen has access to a life worth living" - without any unrealistic assumptions like everyone gets a pony and has a castle?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Did I say I was fiscally conservative? Yes excuse me for confusing raising the retirement age, making disability payments stricter, gutting social security (I assume since "letting people be in charge of their own savings" is code for this), advocating businesses with fewer but more overworked employees, and absurd Laffer curve nonsense about increasing taxes will lower revenues when the rich Go Galt with economic conservatism. We've been playing the austerity game that serious, sensible people like yourself have been advocating for years and seen no benefit unless you are mega rich so really the "we have to make cuts, maybe even the MILITARY!" deal isn't very leftist regardless of how you spin it. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 20:30 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Stanos posted:That's because Illinois would be red as poo poo if it weren't for Chicago. Yes, thank goodness for Chicago holding back the tide of corruption in our state.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Did I say I was fiscally conservative? Your beliefs being right wing antigovernment ad-copy is what's confusing everyone. Accretionist fucked around with this message at 21:04 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Why is "B...but if we do something to hurt the tender  JOB CREATORS they'll leave!' even a god drat issue? Who gives a flying sideways gently caress if they go Galt? CEOs die or step down all the time, it's a thing that happens. The economic opportunity they fulfilled to do their precious job creating will still be there. Set things up so someone in that position has to play by a more fair set of rules and if they don't like it they can just go screech about their feelings to people who give a poo poo while someone willing to take their role and play by the new, more fair, set of rules will do so because Free Market And Personal Opportunity.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Amergin posted:That all strikes me as fine, but how would you enable the IRS to have any effect on a foreign country's tax policies and "tax haven" status? AreWeDrunkYet posted:By regulating American entities. Other countries can do what they want, the issue is that American incorporated companies can do things like indefinitely avoid repatriating profits to dodge taxes and reincorporate American assets overseas to dodge taxes. The US can also be more proactive about working with foreign governments to share information about Americans dodging taxes, as it has done to decent effect with Switzerland over the last few years. Precisely. I was actually going to use Switzerland as an example.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
Amergin posted:Is it "fiscally conservative" if I want government spending to be curbed slightly? You want to completely dismantle Social Security, a program that makes up nearly a quarter of the US Budget. This isn't "slightly curbing" government spending. If you're curious as to why you're receiving such a hostile reception in this thread, it's likely due to that kind of equivocation. J. P. Beagley fucked around with this message at 20:48 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 20:42
|
|
