Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   The Week in Blog: The Return of the Conn (Bill Scher & Conn Carroll) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=3830)

Bloggingheads 08-28-2009 04:02 PM

The Week in Blog: The Return of the Conn (Bill Scher & Conn Carroll)
 

bjkeefe 08-28-2009 04:12 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: The Return of the Conn (Bill Scher & Conn Carroll)
 
Welcome back, Conn. Looking forward to this one.

[Added] Your fearmongering on health care is eye-rolling. I'm sure these "smoking gun" videos play well in the echo chamber, but the more you go on about them, compared to everything Bill is quite reasonably saying in response, the more tinfoil hatty you sound. Plus, the whole thing went on way too long.

[Added2] The rest was pretty good. I especially enjoyed the part about Erick Erickson. My delight about RedFace aside, this was truly a good report on doings in the blogosphere, something I think TWiB can always be reminded to attend to.

bahiano 08-28-2009 05:00 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: The Return of the Conn (Bill Scher & Conn Carroll)
 
WOO HOO!!!! WE MISSED YOU CONN!

Stapler Malone 08-28-2009 05:07 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: The Return of the Conn (Bill Scher & Conn Carroll)
 
TRIUMPHANT RETURN!

bjkeefe 08-28-2009 05:11 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: The Return of the Conn (Bill Scher & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Stapler Malone (Post 127246)

Great dingalink!

harkin 08-28-2009 05:45 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: The Return of the Conn (Bill Scher & Conn Carroll)
 
Welcome back Conn.

Gotta love Bill saying in the same article:

"We should not let our political process be dictated by the emotion of moment."

And

"So yes, we should "do it for Ted""

Would have been much more appropriate if the citizens of MA had thrown him in jail and said "Let's do it for Mary Jo".

And does Bill feel no shame at all that in a tribute to the Ted Kennedy legacy he says "Moderate senators should act on principle and not let selfish interest "politicize" their vote..." about a guy who was all for alternative energy unless it ruined his view at the cape?

And EK's via-John Tunney-to-Yuri Andropov secret message is another great blast from the past for this duplicitous, awful man. Using the former head of the KGB to further the goals of the Democratic Party and weakening the United States? What sort of principle is that?

RIP Ted

rcocean 08-28-2009 07:30 PM

Call it the Mary Jo Kopechne Health care bill
 
I think Fat Ted would have wanted it that way. I think Con and Bill are too old and too Inside-the-beltway to understand that the vast majority of people under 40 and outside the East Coast don't give a flying F*** about Fat Ted.

Most young people think he's a bad joke - a fat, drunk clown who left a women to drown and sexually assaulted waitresses. Those in the "Red States" think of him as the ultimate limousine liberal - an absurd fat drunk fought for "equality" while he lived the millionaires life on Martha's Vinyard. And don't think that workingman have forgotten his fanatical support for NAFTA, open borders, and deregulation.

Fortunately for the "swimmer's" reputation the MSM and liberal elite regard him as a hero.

DenvilleSteve 08-28-2009 07:47 PM

no mention of McWhorter/Behe being sent down the memory hole
 
Are discussions on Bloggingheads considers topics to be discussed in "the week in blog"? Was this episode recorded after the deletion of the McWhorter/Behe episode? If yes, it is very disappointing the topic was not discussed.

nikkibong 08-28-2009 07:52 PM

Re: no mention of McWhorter/Behe being sent down the memory hole
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve (Post 127268)
Are discussions on Bloggingheads considers topics to be discussed in "the week in blog"? Was this episode recorded after the deletion of the McWhorter/Behe episode? If yes, it is very disappointing the topic was not discussed.

DenvilleSteve is making sense.

Gulp.

nikkibong 08-28-2009 07:53 PM

Re: Call it the Mary Jo Kopechne Health care bill
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 127265)
Those in the "Red States" think of him as the ultimate limousine liberal - an absurd fat drunk fought for "equality" while he lived the millionaires life on Martha's Vinyard. A

Right - much better to live a rich man's life, and not give a f*ck about the working man. (c.f. George Bush Sr. and Jr.) At least there's no "hypocricy" there.

claymisher 08-28-2009 08:02 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: The Return of the Conn (Bill Scher & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 127238)
Welcome back, Conn. Looking forward to this one.


[Added2] The rest was pretty good. I especially enjoyed the part about Erick Erickson. My delight about RedFace aside, this was truly a good report on doings in the blogosphere, something I think TWiB can always be reminded to attend to.

Dingalink please!

uncle ebeneezer 08-28-2009 08:02 PM

Re: How Did Conn Carroll Mourn For Ted Kennedy?
 
!@#$%

DenvilleSteve 08-28-2009 08:24 PM

Re: no mention of McWhorter/Behe being sent down the memory hole
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 127269)
DenvilleSteve is making sense.

Gulp.

let me tie this in with the secessionist movement ... In the democrat states of america there would be no mention allowed of IE or any challenges to TToE. In the USA educators would be encouraged to present ID simply as a device to illustrate the incredible complexity of molecular machines and inform students that there remains much that science cannot yet explain about the workings of the physical world.

bjkeefe 08-28-2009 08:34 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: The Return of the Conn (Bill Scher & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by claymisher (Post 127271)
Dingalink please!

It was a whole section.

bjkeefe 08-28-2009 09:06 PM

Re: Call it the Mary Jo Kopechne Health care bill
 
Shorter rcocean:

Quote:

I only know one word to use as an insult, but please oh please, won't somebody pay attention to me?
P.S.

Quote:

Who you calling a troll?

bjkeefe 08-28-2009 09:34 PM

IOKIYAR, part eleventy-kabillion
 
Steve M.:

Quote:

Oh, and as for the naming of that bill, gee, I just can't imagine Republicans wanting to name things for a political hero, can you?

Whatfur 08-28-2009 10:12 PM

Wellstone memories
 
Billy B. was right.

Conn!!

From Slate:

"There's a salutary practicality about many of the liberal clichés repeated and applauded tonight. But there's a creepy arrogance about them, too. The ceremony's closing speaker, Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, says Wellstone "never took himself too seriously" and "never had to proclaim his decency." Yet tonight, the men and women who purport to represent Wellstone's legacy are taking themselves quite seriously and constantly proclaiming their decency. "We can redeem the sacrifice of his life if you help us win this election for Paul Wellstone," Kahn tells the crowd. Somewhere, Wellstone must be turning on his cross.

Above the stage hangs an immense cubic scoreboard. During basketball games, it's electrified and illuminated from above. Tonight it looms just above the stage lights, blank and unlit. A man has died. This is no time to keep score."


...read whole thing.


I found the above article while looking for video of the Wellstone Memorial...specifically Bill Clinton's entrance. A good trivia question, maybe. What song started playing over the loudspeakers when Bill Clinton made his entrance at the Wellstone memorial??

I kid you, not.

I always thought it rather funny.

rcocean 08-28-2009 10:34 PM

Re: Call it the Mary Jo Kopechne Health care bill
 
[QUOTE=bjkeefe;127280]Shorter rcocean:


No I've used stupid, drunk, philanderer and all-round #@@! to describe Ted. The latest Joke about Drunk Ted:

"Ted is dead, its all just water under the bridge now." and "Ted Kennedy has been sober for 24 hours now".

Fuquier 08-28-2009 10:35 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: The Return of the Conn (Bill Scher & Conn Carroll)
 
Conn, the law is *not* unclear about torture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_1996

It is only unclear to the ignorant or dishonest.

Bill Scher 08-28-2009 10:38 PM

The Founding Documents
 
Just wanted to call attention that I have the "founding documents" of the public health insurance plan option from Prof. Jacob Hacker in the links section above. Also below. Good readin'!

http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp180.html

http://www.ourfuture.org/healthcare/hacker

bjkeefe 08-28-2009 10:50 PM

Re: Wellstone memories
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 127288)
[...]

I'm sure the voices in your head would be proud of your parroting.

(via)

TwinSwords 08-28-2009 11:18 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: The Return of the Conn (Bill Scher & Conn Carroll)
 
Here's one's of Conn Carroll's colleagues talking with Glenn Beck about the personal civilian army Obama is now setting up on the model of the Nazi SS.

I haven't watched the diavlog yet, but I'm guessing the Heritage Foundation, in the person of Conn Carroll, puts forth a much more reasonable face to the BHTV audience than the one it puts forth to Glenn Beck's audience. I won't be surprised if Conn sounds downright reasonable, in fact, while (obviously) working from the same play book (if not advancing approximately the same talking points) as his colleagues appearing on Glenn Beck.

(CF, same topic, different video.)



.

Unit 08-29-2009 12:53 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: The Return of the Conn (Bill Scher & Conn Carroll)
 
I'd been missing Conn's public reading skills....but I have to say he's generally more competent than Matt Lewis.

TwinSwords 08-29-2009 12:56 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: The Return of the Conn (Bill Scher & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unit (Post 127322)
I'd been missing Conn's public reading skills....but I have to say he's generally more competent than Matt Lewis.

That is the single worst feature of TwiB: reading aloud of long passages from blogs. Glad we've had a lot less of it in the last several months.

DenvilleSteve 08-29-2009 09:27 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: The Return of the Conn (Bill Scher & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 127301)
Here's one's of Conn Carroll's colleagues talking with Glenn Beck about the personal civilian army Obama is now setting up on the model of the Nazi SS.

I haven't watched the diavlog yet, but I'm guessing the Heritage Foundation, in the person of Conn Carroll, puts forth a much more reasonable face to the BHTV audience than the one it puts forth to Glenn Beck's audience.
.

I thought the heritage fellow did a good job trying to bring the focus back from Glenn's view of a civilian military corps like Saddam's fedayen to one of a corp of civil workers who pledge allegiance to their jobs and the politician that provides those jobs. Glenn Beck is brilliant at what he does and I am sure he is not blind to the distinction.

Notice that Beck and Rush and Sarah Palin all mutually support each other? The audience of Americans who listen to them is very large.

DenvilleSteve 08-29-2009 09:35 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: The Return of the Conn (Bill Scher & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Toryentalist (Post 127348)
True enough -- but the chipper good ol' boy schtick does makes it easier to take some of Matt's more reactionary and eccentric views. I can't say the same of others on the American Right, conservative movement, cult of Reagan, or whatever it's called.

Neither Matt or Conn are good spokesmen for conservative ideas. I never hear them mention the importance of slashing government spending, balancing the federal budget, that the Fed has to stop inflating the money supply. No talk of US foreign policy ( stop the spread of nukes ), trade policy ( dont import more than we export ). Nothing on missile defense ( full speed ahead ).

Whatfur 08-29-2009 09:58 AM

Re: The Founding Documents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Scher (Post 127291)
Just wanted to call attention that I have the "founding documents" of the public health insurance plan option from Prof. Jacob Hacker in the links section above. Also below. Good readin'!

http://www.sharedprosperity.org/bp180.html

http://www.ourfuture.org/healthcare/hacker


You were correct...Hacker does not mention a trojan horse in his papers and Conn kind of stretched the truth as Hacker even in the video denies that the public option is a trojan horse cloaking single payer..."its not a trojan horse...its right there!!!""

To use an over-utilized cliche...you seem to be asking us to ignore that man being the curtain even though he is the author of your public option bible.

badhatharry 08-29-2009 10:27 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: The Return of the Conn (Bill Scher & Conn Carroll)
 
Public option = Trojan horse/ stealth single payer

Amazed that this hasn’t gotten out of the conservative echo chamber? …too busy with funeral arrangements.

Why do liberals think that any playing field with a public option and private insurance would be level? How can public option and private insurance compete? They can’t. Private companies have to be fiscally responsible. They have to be able to pay out reimbursements out of what they take in from premiums. Government plans are famously not fiscally responsible. All they have to do is either raise taxes or print money to pay for the services patients’ access.

Also, hospitals and doctors will have to agree to the reimbursement as they do with Medicare. It seems that eventually hospitals will be forced to fall within these guidelines or charge what they want, lose customers, only accept private insurance or people will have to have ‘gap’ coverage to make up what the public plan won’t pay.

See there’s a good role for private insurance!!

Employer mandates….deficit neutral, whaaaa?

Government control of the market means ‘no market’.

Liberals know so little about real world (kitchen table)economics.

Can’t we just focus on people with preexisting conditions?

Geez!

PS Did Friedman really back vouchers to put an end to public education? or was that just an analogy?

AemJeff 08-29-2009 10:37 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: The Return of the Conn (Bill Scher & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 127353)
Public option = Trojan horse/ stealth single payer

Amazed that this hasn’t gotten out of the conservative echo chamber? …too busy with funeral arrangements.

Why do liberals think that any playing field with a public option and private insurance would be level? How can public option and private insurance compete? They can’t. Private companies have to be fiscally responsible. They have to be able to pay out reimbursements out of what they take in from premiums. Government plans are famously not fiscally responsible. All they have to do is either raise taxes or print money to pay for the services patients’ access.

Also, hospitals and doctors will have to agree to the reimbursement as they do with Medicare. It seems that eventually hospitals will be forced to fall within these guidelines or charge what they want, lose customers, only accept private insurance or people will have to have ‘gap’ coverage to make up what the public plan won’t pay.

See there’s a good role for private insurance!!

Employer mandates….deficit neutral, whaaaa?

Government control of the market means ‘no market’.

Liberals know so little about real world (kitchen table)economics.

Can’t we just focus on people with preexisting conditions?

Geez!

PS Did Friedman really back vouchers to put an end to public education? or was that just an analogy?

Who cares if the playing field is level? Seriously. I don't know why people imagine that the health care market - which barely acknowledges the interests of consumers - is good for anybody except the profiteers in private industry.

The existence of a public option inserts a player into the game whose interests are arguably aligned more closely with those of health care consumers than with private shareholders, and its existence would change the rules of the game. If private insurers suffer under such a system, that will be because they've failed to find a way to respond to the, hopefully, increased importance of consumer concerns in the marketplace.

DenvilleSteve 08-29-2009 10:44 AM

Re: The Week in Blog: The Return of the Conn (Bill Scher & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 127353)
Public option = Trojan horse/ stealth single payer

Why do liberals think that any playing field with a public option and private insurance would be level? How can public option and private insurance compete? They can’t.

it depends on the mandates imposed on the private insurers. Can the private insurer sell high deductible, low cost insurance? Do they have to sell all types of policies ( varying co-pays, deductible, cap doctor visits per year, ... ) What restrictions are there on the prices private insurers can charge? Even if the private insurer cannot reject the application of someone with a pre existing condition, if they only sell high deductible plans then those will pre existing conditions will use the public plan, freeing up the private plans to compete in the high deductible market.

badhatharry 08-29-2009 12:04 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: The Return of the Conn (Bill Scher & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve (Post 127355)
it depends on the mandates imposed on the private insurers. Can the private insurer sell high deductible, low cost insurance? Do they have to sell all types of policies ( varying co-pays, deductible, cap doctor visits per year, ... ) What restrictions are there on the prices private insurers can charge? Even if the private insurer cannot reject the application of someone with a pre existing condition, if they only sell high deductible plans then those will pre existing conditions will use the public plan, freeing up the private plans to compete in the high deductible market.

Thanks!
OK, so are the particulars of this spelled out anywhere I can access? It seems from what you are saying that people with pre-existing conditions would be treated as medicare patients currently are. However Medicare is paid from payroll over a lifetime, so would the others just pay the premium to the government agency as they do private insurance now? This would mean that the public option would have the worst risk pool.
Would the rest of the citizenry be obliged to help pay for what will be an extremely costly system? And if so, wouldn't that encourage people to just go with the public option since they are already contributing to it?
And what about the reimbursement to hospitals and doctors? Would they be obliged to accept assignment as they now do if they participate in the medicare scheme?
I think another alternative would be to regulate insurance companies in such a way that they had to accept some people with pre-existing conditions.

Whatfur 08-29-2009 12:45 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: The Return of the Conn (Bill Scher & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 127356)
...I think another alternative would be to regulate insurance companies in such a way that they had to accept some people with pre-existing conditions.

Most insurance companies right now are amenable to that and I agree.

Again...
Close to a 1/4 of the uninsured are already covered and don't know it or have not bothered. Close to another 1/4 are illegals. Close to another 1/4 have chosen not to be covered and can afford it. The last quarter have dubious inclusions also but I have already done that breakdown elsewhere...

But with that said we are going through all this to accommodate less than 10 million people.

So lets take some minute fraction of the trillions and chase down those that are already covered. Let's come up with a plan or inducements to get those choosing no insurance to maybe reconsider but giving those who can afford it the ability to jump on in times of trouble. I think a penalty could be devised if when "trouble" happens, that might make it less prudent to not carry insurance. This still sustains choice. Then insurance companies would be required to take them and their pre-existing conditions on at normal rates. Saving individuals and hospitals from catastrophic financials hits while maybe spreading around the hit on the insurance companies.

Illegal is illegal.

That last quarter we certainly can accommodate with a plan far less costly than what the CBO tells us this can of worms is going to cost.

badhatharry 08-29-2009 01:12 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: The Return of the Conn (Bill Scher & Conn Carroll)
 
OK, we have that solved.

But wait! Do you think there is a reasonable free market way to bring down costs? I think Mackey's idea about shopping makes sense because as a person with a high deductible, that's what I do. I also forgo unnecessary doctor visits which people with more comprehensive care think nothing about making. poor me!!

And what about the fact that each doctor has to employ a slew of clerical people to work with insurance company claims? This seems so wasteful and most assuredly adds to the cost of our system. Can we somehow make it less advantageous for insurance companies to throw out legitimate claims?

And what about malpractice? Is there a way to punish incompetence and yet reduce the cost to the doctors who do a good job?

I love free market principles but they require the type of personal responsibility a lot of people can't muster. And there are always villains.

badhatharry 08-29-2009 01:30 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: The Return of the Conn (Bill Scher & Conn Carroll)
 
And just one more thing... Is there a free market way to regulate the profits insurance companies make?

I know that sounds sacrilegious, because the profit motive is key in creating the incentive to take risk. But can we somehow reduce the incentive to throw out claims in order to improve profitability?

I think a well run efficient company is entitled to profitability, but this should not include unethical withholding of treatments. And I wonder how widespread this problem is. You hear a lot of anectodal evidence that it is a huge problem....but one does wonder.

claymisher 08-29-2009 03:08 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: The Return of the Conn (Bill Scher & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 127361)
And just one more thing... Is there a free market way to regulate the profits insurance companies make?

I know that sounds sacrilegious, because the profit motive is key in creating the incentive to take risk. But can we somehow reduce the incentive to throw out claims in order to improve profitability?

I think a well run efficient company is entitled to profitability, but this should not include unethical withholding of treatments. And I wonder how widespread this problem is. You hear a lot of anectodal evidence that it is a huge problem....but one does wonder.

Many developed countries have a regulated private insurance industry (Japan, Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Ireland, etc) and universal coverage. People who read Ezra Klein's blog know this inside-out. :)

It's too bad America only borders two countries. We've got a terrible case of not-invented-here.

sirfith 08-29-2009 03:40 PM

Read the Bill vs. Read the Geneva Convention
 
Bill S. used the Read the Bill defense for the video of various progressives "thinkers" saying the Public option is a backdoor way of implementing Single Payer.

At the end of the diagvlog he talked about "breaking the Geneva Conventions"
Seems that Bill S. believes that people who violate the Geneva Convention are still entitled to the protections.
Maybe Bill S. should read the Geneva Conventions.
This comment by Dale Franks on QandO covers the Geneva Conventions and Terrorists.
Quote:

As for the Geneva Conventions, it seems to me like Hamdan consituted a direct disagreement with your point of view.

And Congress just overturned that decision, and told the Court to but[t] out. One of the reasons why...well, You quoted this bit, but apparently, didn't catch it:

They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

If the party does NOT accept and apply the conventions, the other parties are not bound by them. Convention protections are reciprocal.

So much for that argument."
The Progressives defense for giving Geneva Conventions protections to those who do not follow it will be "I am quoting the Geneva Conventions out of context".

badhatharry 08-29-2009 05:15 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: The Return of the Conn (Bill Scher & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by claymisher (Post 127367)
Many developed countries have a regulated private insurance industry (Japan, Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Ireland, etc) and universal coverage. People who read Ezra Klein's blog know this inside-out. :)

It's too bad America only borders two countries. We've got a terrible case of not-invented-here.

Thanks for the tip and especially for not calling me a moron or a troll.

I don't read Klein obviously. I don't have the time to frequent any other blogs because I have to work so hard to pay my insurance premiums.

I think I can support an overhaul of the private insurance industry. It seems to me that if there's money to be made someone will step in and do the job, so I guess I'll have to find the time to read Klein.

DenvilleSteve 08-29-2009 05:18 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: The Return of the Conn (Bill Scher & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 127356)
I think another alternative would be to regulate insurance companies in such a way that they had to accept some people with pre-existing conditions.

I dont like this idea. The problem with forcing insurance companies to accept PEC is it allows people to go without insurance until they get sick. Which raises the cost of covering the regular rate payers. More important to me is that it is wrong for government to force buyers and sellers to buy and sell products they don't want. If the contract is worded properly, a person who never drops their insurance will not be faced with having their insurance converage denied. Those who do develop a condition when their insurance has lapsed should be able to get government provided insurance where care is rationed and has a minimal cost.

Unit 08-29-2009 05:51 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: The Return of the Conn (Bill Scher & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DenvilleSteve (Post 127351)
Neither Matt or Conn are good spokesmen for conservative ideas. I never hear them mention the importance of slashing government spending, balancing the federal budget, that the Fed has to stop inflating the money supply. No talk of US foreign policy ( stop the spread of nukes ), trade policy ( dont import more than we export ). Nothing on missile defense ( full speed ahead ).

Is slashing govt spending a conservative position? Bush didn't do it, Reagan didn't do it,....

How do conservatives plan to stop the Fed from inflating the money supply?

Don't import more than we export????? Why would we want to do that? So we can go back to the cave age?

Bill Scher 08-29-2009 06:17 PM

Re: The Week in Blog: The Return of the Conn (Bill Scher & Conn Carroll)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 127356)
OK, so are the particulars of this spelled out anywhere I can access?

The Senate health committee's version (aka Sen. Kennedy's version) is here:
http://help.senate.gov/Maj_press/2009_07_15_b.pdf

House Energy & Commerce Cmte version (Blue Dog compromise): http://energycommerce.house.gov/inde...ttee&Itemid=85

House Ways & Means version: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/MoreInfo.asp?section=52

Jacob Hacker's analysis of all pending versions: http://www.ourfuture.org/files/Hacke...ugust_2009.pdf


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.