About Me

Name: Ryan Hawkins
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
Uncategorized

To Those Who Wish to Stop Obamacare...

Posted by Ryan Hawkins on Friday, November 13, 2009 1:21:52 AM
Let me first say that I am a strong supporter of Healthcare reform. Our system has experienced healthcare inflation at double digit rates for years and that is exactly what has made healthcare unaffordable and unavailable to millions of Americans. Unfortunately, the healthcare reform now being proposed by the Democrat party leaders is the wrong course...the simple economics of this proposal is far more likely to make matters worse.

House Democrats barely passed (220 votes to 215) a Healthcare bill last week that is so ridiculously liberal that even 39 House Democrats voted against it. America deserves much better than this...we need to send them back to the drawing board. Fortunately, the Healthcare bill passed by House Democrats still has to get through the Senate before President Obama can sign this disastrous 2,200 page train wreck into law.

Here's what can happen in the Senate

For those familiar with the cloture rule, the Senate can invoke cloture with 60 votes. If a cloture vote comes down party lines, then they should have 60 votes. For those unfamiliar with a filibuster, a filibuster is a move that can allow a minority to defeat a measure by tying it up in debate indefinitely (which is how a GOP Senate minority can defeat the healthcare bill.) Cloture prevents a filibuster. If cloture is invoked, it essentially sets a time limit on debate and places a deadline for final vote that can allow a bill to pass on a much slimmer margin (say 51-49.)

There are several Democrat Senators whose constituents overwhelmingly oppose a public option and whose constituents overwhemlingly voted against Obama in the election. Needless to say those constituents aren't excited with the House bill. Ironically, these same Senators are up for re-election in 2010 and are understandably very hesitant sell out their constituents and support the more liberal versions of healthcare reform. These Senators' votes are desparately needed to reach 60 votes, invoke cloture, and prevent a GOP filibuster.

Do not be duped by what these senators try to pull off this next week. I believe these vulnerable Senators will attempt to please their party by voting for cloture (thus preventing a GOP filibuster) then attempt to subsequently please their constituents by voting against the bill on the final vote (but allowing the bill to pass on a slimmer margin.) That way, those Senators can offer lip service to their constituents and hope to escape the consequences in 2010 elections. For that reason, Americans need to make it clear that anyone who votes for cloture OWNS OBAMACARE.

Here's what you can do to stop Obamacare:

1. Make sure the Senators listed below have their phones ringing off the hook, not only with your voice of opposition to Obamacare, but also with the reminder that voters will hold Senators responsible for a vote on cloture; and

2. Nothing speaks louder than money. Talkpac (http://talkpac.com/) has set up a campaign donation fund that will be used exclusively to help defeat the vulnerable democrats who chose party over constituents in their support of Obamacare. Make a donation...all these Senators have to see this next week is how quickly their 2010 opponents' campaign coffers are filling up because of this highly controversial, highly opposed healthcare reform bill.

3. Spread the Word right away.

Act quickly - Harry Reid will try to offer the motion for this next week (11/16 - 11/20). Don't worry if you aren't from these Senators' states - these Senators already know this bill is unpopular among their constituents - you don't have to pretend you are a voter from their state. Simply make it clear that

1) your dollars are still going to help their 2010 opponent if they sell out their constituents on this highly controversial bill; and
2) voters will hold Senators accountable for a cloture vote.



These are the vulnerable Senators who need to hear from you:

Sen. Evan Bayh, Indiana
DC Phone: (202) 224-5623
Local Phone: Evansville (812) 465-6500, Fort Wayne (260) 426-3151, Hammond (219) 852-2763, Indianapolis (317) 554-0750, Jeffersonville (812) 218-2317, Southbend (574) 236-8302


Sen. Michael Bennet, Colorado
DC Phone: 202) 224-5444
Local Phone: Denver Metro Office: (303) 455-7600 Toll Free: (866) 455-9866 Fax: (303) 455-8851
Colorado Springs Office: Phone: (719) 328-1100


Sen. Byron Dorgan, North Dakota
DC Phone: (202) 224-2551
Local Phone: Bismarck (701) 250-4618, Fargo (701) 239-5389, Minot (701) 852-0703, Grand Forks (701) 746-8972


Sen. Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas
DC Phone: (202) 224-4843
Local Phone: Dumas (870) 382-1023, Fayetteville (479) 251-1224, Little Rock (501) 375-2993, Jonesboro (870) 910-6896, Texarkana (870) 774-3106
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Opposition to Obamacare

Posted by Ryan Hawkins on Thursday, November 05, 2009 4:17:17 PM
Someone recently sent a comment to me in response to my opposing views on Obamacare.  Here is an excerpt of her response:  
 
"I know a lot of you think it is horrible to have every American healthy and insured but oh well. I know I know it is horrible to think that an insurance company that makes billions is going to have to cover you know matter what and they can't drop you when your condition gets too expensive. Is that really such a bad thing. Wait, why do I care who has health insurance and who doesn't? I have great coverage and so does my daughter. Oh, I know why because I have a heart and care about human beings as a whole, not just mine."

...and here is my response to her:  

Dear Ruth: (name changed to maintain her anonymity) 

Just because I (along with tens of millions if not hundreds of millions) of Americans vehemently oppose the healthcare reform currently being proposed in congress doesn't mean we all believe the current healthcare system is perfect, nor does it mean we are all heartless human beings who only care about ourselves.  I am absolutely livid that you (along with some disgustingly pathetic democrats) would even suggest that...it shows how ignorant you really are in this debate.    

Most Americans (myself included) support healthcare reform - it is desperately needed.  However, to fix the current system - we don't have to massively expand government and deficit-spend our way into oblivion.  (That might be the way y'all handle things in California, but in case you haven't noticed the California state government is almost bankrupt.)  
  • It is okay to change the rules for heath insurance companies in such a way that they have to expand coverage to all Americans.  
  • It is okay to change the rules to prevent insurance companies from dropping coverage or omitting coverage for pre-existing conditions.  
  • It is okay for the government to divert some federal funding to help unemployed households maintain coverage.  
  • It is okay to knock down states' regulatory barriers that preclude more in-state competition between insurance companies
We can fix most of the problems without bringing in a ridiculous public option that creates far more problems than it fixes and that (via the inconsequential penalties against employers who fail to offer coverage) pushes more Americans onto the public option and eventually toward a single-payer system.  

Another problem that Obama, Reid, Pelosi and all their cronies haven't even addressed in their 2,200 page waste of paper is that (as I have said before) insurance is merely a conduit for the real problem - the real problem is the cost of medical care itself.  You can fix insurance all you want, but if the cost of medical care keeps inflating the way it has - those costs will continue increasing the insurance premiums at double-digit rates, which will continue to make insurance less affordable for more and more Americans.      

That is why so many millions of American oppose Obamacare - it wastes taxpayer dollars and ultimately puts us back where we started because it won't fix a thing.  

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Successful Healthcare Models??

Posted by Ryan Hawkins on Tuesday, October 13, 2009 11:00:00 PM
I recently read an article by T.R. Reid of the Washington post that discussed successful healthcare models in other countries.  The conclusion on U.S. Healthcare was this:  
" In many ways, foreign health-care models are not really "foreign" to America, because our crazy-quilt health-care system uses elements of all of them. For Native Americans or veterans, we're Britain: The government provides health care, funding it through general taxes, and patients get no bills. For people who get insurance through their jobs, we're Germany: Premiums are split between workers and employers, and private insurance plans pay private doctors and hospitals. For people over 65, we're Canada: Everyone pays premiums for an insurance plan run by the government, and the public plan pays private doctors and hospitals according to a set fee schedule. And for the tens of millions without insurance coverage, we're Burundi or Burma: In the world's poor nations, sick people pay out of pocket for medical care; those who can't pay stay sick or die."
 
Its also fair to point out that Burundi & Burma don't have Medicaid while America does.  The reality is if you get sick in America and go to hospital, they will treat you first and bill you later...America isn't inhumane in treating the sick...(but that is part of why healthcare costs so much.)  The article also points out (and this is a big problem) that the U.S. system forces 700,000 Americans per year into bankruptcy while the systems of Japan, Germany, and Britain force no one into bankruptcy.    
 
My reading of that article led me to conclude that Japan's system is far superior to all others.  Unfortunately (and this next point is omitted from the earlier-referenced Washington post article) many economists predict the Japan model is unsustainable.  A recent analysis by the consulting firm, McKinsey & Co., concluded that Japan's demand for medical care will triple in the next 25 years and that the current healthcare system will need major changes to handle that demand.  I don't know enough about Germany's or Britain's system to comment on those, but if those countries had it perfect then we'd certainly hear more politicians raving about those countries' flawless systems.  There are certainly pros & cons with every country's system, including the U.S. system - which brings me to my next point.   
 
What's the U.S.' Problem???

A lack of affordable insurance isn't the problem in America - it is only the symptom of a much larger problem.  What then is the much larger problem? 

How about the care itself?  Forget the insurance, I am talking about the costs of prescriptions, treatments, the medical equipment, the doctors, & the hospitals.  Efforts to bring about insurance reform are misguided and will ultimately be ineffective because those efforts don't address the sky-rocketing costs of the medical care/treatment.  Allow me to illustrate:  suppose you have been tasked with filling an Olympic size swimming pool with water.  Your only means of getting the water is a small, square 1/4 measuring cup.  Obama comes in and offers to fix the problem by giving you a much more stream-lined oval-shaped 1/4 measuring cup.  Did he fix anything?  Similarly, the current plans of the Obama administration (and the democrat-controlled congress) do nothing to address the real problem and rein in healthcare costs--their reform efforts seek only to tweak the insurance conduit and the manner in which those ever sky-rocketing healthcare costs are passed on to taxpayers/employers/insurance companies.  Healthcare costs will continue to sky-rocket and subsequent government officials in a newly created level of bureaucracy will be left searching for ways to balance their "new" healthcare budget.  As we have seen with every other government entitlement program, those officials won't know what they are doing and they will irresponsibly rack up unprecedented new deficits and continue to mortgage away America's future.

What about all the money those insurance companies make?
 
I most certainly don't believe that the profit motive of insurance companies in the U.S. is the problem.  After all, if an insurance company can provide a service by offering me access to healthcare and they can do so at a lower cost than I could achieve on my own...then what's the problem if the insurance company makes a little money as they provide me that service?  Am I not still better off than I would have been otherwise?  (If not, then the insurance company does not have a sustainable business model and it will be bankrupt very soon.)  Besides, providing a service and making a profit is simply the American way, and just about every American business in every industry makes its profits doing that very thing. 
 
If the insurance company gouges its customers then its competitor will come steal the customers away.  (Unfortunately, the U.S. system does need to break down some of the regulatory barriers among the states if we want insurers to truly compete with each other.  That level of competition is in the best interest of Americans and that will do wonders to lower the cost of insurance and increase its availability for more Americans.) 


Can the Current U.S. System be Salvaged? 

I suggested some of my solutions in the previous post, most of which are directed at containing healthcare costs themselves - which (unlike insurance reform) are the problem, not the symptom.  A large part of the healthcare problem goes back to simple supply & demand economics.  If we had more hospitals, doctors, and nurses then our supply of healthcare would be sufficient for the demand.  If the demand were not artificially inflated by an ever-increasing population of illegal immigrants, then supply & demand would have a greater likelihood of maintaining some level of balance.  Allow me to further illustrate:  if a city of 1,000,000 people only has one doctor that can perform MRI's - and if daily demand for MRI's in that city is enough to keep 50 doctors busy, you'd better believe the price of those MRI's is going to get very expensive.  On the other hand, if that same city had 300 doctors that could perform MRI's then chances are, those doctors who can perform the MRI's at a lower cost are going to take all the business from those who can't...the competition brings down the cost of the MRI because it increases the supply.  In either of these scenarios, Obama could gather all of the insurance reform in the world and it will have no impact on the price of that MRI as long as the supply/demand are out of balance.  In fact, of all the insurance systems currently being discussed -- a fully private insurance system is probably the only insurance system that puts any pressure on the demand side of the equation to keep the costs down.  Conversely, universal insurance coverage will put a spike in healthcare demand, which will put further pressure on supply and further accelerate the healthcare inflation we are already experiencing.          

The true socialist would then say we need price ceilings on medical care, which is another thoughtless quick fix.  If I am the MRI doctor described above, and the government imposed a $300 price ceiling on my MRI's, then the demand spikes right back up and I won't have enough hours in the day to meet the demand.  I will either use cost shifting to raise my prices in other areas that aren't subject to the ceilings or I will venture out of the MRI business into something more profitable.  Either way - anyone who wants an MRI is going to have to get in line and wait.   

Any Specific Solutions?

Any measures that can be taken to lower the cost of medical care are worth examination.  Barack Obama dismisses tort reform because he doesn't seem to believe frivolous law suits are a drain on healthcare resources.  Regardless of what his opinion is and regardless of his factual inaccuracy, tort reform is--at very least--an attempt to treat the problem - not the symptom.  Thus - tort reform should be given far more attention anything in the realm of insurance reform.  (By the way, improving technology in every other industry tends to lower the cost for that industry.  Can you think of any reason why improved technology hasn't lowered the cost of healthcare?  I'd venture to hypothesize that the current tort laws and the malpractice costs of frivolous law suits offset all the cost reductions of improved technology.)

Unfortunately, the ideas on bringing down the costs of medical care are not quick fixes.  We can't flood America's healthcare system with 10 million new doctors overnight.  We can, however, invest in doubling the size of America's medical schools.  We can further eliminate some of these barriers to the supply of medical care in the U.S. (Although it probably isn't humane to deny care to an illegal immigrant who shows up at a hospital needing treatment, it is humane to step up our border enforcement so that we can at least limit the drain on our healthcare resources that comes from illegal immigrants.)

What will all of this accomplish?  Well, since I have said many times that insurance is merely the conduit for passing on healthcare costs to the recipients - the do the math:  if the cost to your insurer comes down, doesn't it make sense that your insurance premiums will become more affordable too?  (If not, check with a competitor...competition keeps price gouging in check.)  We still need insurers to cover pre-existing conditions and we still need insurance to be more available and affordable to all Americans, but those are minor tweaks compared to everything congress is currently discussing.  If we can lower the cost of medical care itself, private insurance (not government insurance) will become more affordable and more available.  That's the American way to fix it.                       
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Initial Thoughts on Obama's Healthcare Speech

Posted by Ryan Hawkins on Thursday, September 10, 2009 11:34:17 AM
I can't believe I am saying this, but I liked a lot of what I heard Obama say last night during his 09/09/09 healthcare speech to congress...was it because Obama was using all the right buzz words that everyone wants to hear or was it because he presented meaningful dialogue and reform?  The beginning of the speech wherein Obama outlined the problems with our current system were things both sides agree with.  No one disagrees that our current healthcare system desperately needs reform.  

I was hopeful as Obama included valid points from the opposition and seemed to imply a future of bipartisanship as they work through these deals.  Unfortunately, there were many things he said that either highlighted his ignorance on some of the issues or that just plainly don't add up to the promises he made.  For example:  

  1. Coverage for Illegal Aliens.  Although I didn't like Joe Wilson's tact, I am glad someone called out Obama on that illegal alien verbiage.  I don't believe any conservatives have ever said the health care bills explicitly cover illegal aliens...Obama's comment here was misdirected.  The conservative criticism has been that the bill does nothing to explicitly EXCLUDE or PROHIBIT illegals from obtaining coverage nor does the bill address any measures to ENFORCE those prohibitions or even VERIFY CITIZENSHIP.  That is the problem - click here for more information. How is Obama's point (the the bill does not extend coverage to illegals) relevant if the bill does not include any language to prevent illegals from obtaining coverage?  A lack of citizenship verification (or lack of enforcement plans) for illegal aliens is by default an extension of coverage because illegals will exploit that to their advantage as will the trial lawyers.  On this issue, Obama still just doesn't get it. 
  2. Pretty much any reference to "Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy."  That is a partisan as it gets.  The Bush tax cuts are more accurately described as tax cuts to the taxpayers...if you paid a lot of taxes, you got more of a tax cut that you did if you paid no taxes.  If you were already getting a free ride by paying no taxes then I'm sorry - you didn't get your taxes cut below zero.  How can Obama promise bipartisanship when he keeps throwing partisan jabs at his opponents in the same breath?    
  3. When Obama justified the cost of his program by contrasting it with the cost of the wars, I thought that was idiotic.  At the time those wars were declared (by both parties) it was a matter of national security.  Regardless of how fiscally irresponsible the Bush administration was (and my biggest gripe with G.W. Bush was his out-of-control spending) - Obama's spending makes Bush look like Dave Ramsey.  You don't justify another trillion dollar spending package by claiming that it costs less than our last fiscally irresponsible spending package.  Is it not just as idiotic for me to buy a car that my wife and I cannot afford, then buy my wife another car we cannot afford and proceed to justify those irresponsible decisions by claiming these cars still cost less than the house we bought last month (which we also cannot afford.)  Do those Federal Government chambers have some electronic field that zaps away a person's common sense once they are elected?  Once again, how can you promise bipartisanship when you keep throwing jabs at your opponents?
  4. (As an afterthought to #3, I'd be more accepting of Obama's promise to cut inefficiencies and waste to pay for the program if I had ever seen our government succeed in delivering on such a promise.  I don't mean to be skeptical and pessimistic here, but the government's track record of failing to deliver on this type of promise extends far beyond my lifetime.  I'd rather find an alternative where I don't have to put my trust in a government that hasn't earned my trust.)   
  5. Overall, when Obama seemed to address critics of his plan - he pointed to their charges as ridiculous and false and remarked that the bill contained no such things.  As indicated in #1 above, there is a difference between items that are specifically addressed in the bill and consequences resulting from the bill.  The critics of Obama's healthcare reform raise many legitimate concerns about the CONSEQUENCES of this reform as it is written.  For example, Obama dismisses the "death panels" as a ridiculous scare tactic and points out that the bill contains no such measures.  That is not the point his critics are making...the "death panels" could very well be a consequence of what happens when the decision of how to ration health care (which is a scarce resource that accordingly has to somehow be rationed in one way or another - that's simple Economics 101) is turned over to the government.  If 1000 individuals need life-saving care and the government-run healthcare system only has resources to provide care for 500 of those, someone in the government will make a decision on which 500 get care and which get delayed care or no care.  That is the death panel concern and it is a very legitimate concern (read more about it here and also more specific comments from Obama & his advisors here) that Obama blew off as a "falsehood" and a "ridiculous scare tactic."  His critics all point to Section 1233 of the bill, and Obama continues to avoid any meaningful dialogue on those concerns.  
  6. Tort Reform - Obama has clearly underestimated how big of a problem this really is.  The problem isn't limited to the skyrocketing malpractice costs for doctors who have to pass those costs on to thier patients.  The problem also includes doctors having to perform all kinds of additional (and many times unnecesary) tests merely to cover their ground from a legal perspective.  I truly hope Obama is open-minded about what the panels find in this area and I hope he is prepared to deal with the trial lawyers' special interest groups as he seeks reform in this area.
  7. Some other problems with Obama's healthcare reform shown here. 
  8. Some other solutions that should be considered/included.
My overall philosophy is as follows: 
    1. Keep government involvement as minimal as possible; Isn't it ironic that the 10th amendment of our constitution prohibits our congress from meddling outside of their enumerated powers (which enumerated powers DO NOT include anything remotely connected to healthcare or a "public option") yet our entire congress ignores that fundamental problem to their approach?  
    2. Attack the problem at its source (hint:  insurance isn't the source, it is merely a conduit for the real problem - escalating heath care costs are the real problem.)  I liken insurance reform to bailing water off the Titanic...and I believe the "public option" only pokes a bunch of holes in your "bailing bucket."    
    3. Limit insurance use to the large, catastrophic-type events, and have Americans pay for the basic day to day stuff either out of pocket or with HSA's.  (ie:  I am happy to have my insurance pay $900 for a sonogram, but I'll scrap the sonogram if the $900 has to come out of my pocket...and we wonder why healthcare costs so much?  If a sonogram were not covered by insurance and Americans all had to decide whether to pay that out of pocket, the sonogram providers will have to either drop their price to get any customers or make their living doing something else.  Hmmmm.)
    4. Speaking of HSA's, how about getting rid of that senseless "use it or lose it rule?"
    5. How about a system that rewards elements of healthy lifestyles - how's that for attacking the problem at the source?
    6. Tort reform will do a lot to bring down health care costs...to apply my Titanic example, tort reform is equivilent to closing up one of the big holes wherein the ship is taking on water.
    7. How about getting some balance to the supply & demand problem with healthcare.  How about some incentives to create more doctors.  How about expanding the capacity of the medical schools and knocking down some of the barriers that limit how many doctors we have?  Again - to apply the Titanic example - this is another hole that is taking on water...but these are fixable without a massive expansion of government.        
I am as hopeful as anyone that our healthcare system gets the badly needed healthcare reform.  Much of the needed tweaks to our current system could be accomplished through tax credits & incentives calculated to change behavior for the medical community, the insurance companies, and the American people.  That keeps the reform constitutional.  The highest priority in my opinion is right in line with many things Obama said:  coverage for pre-existing conditions, curbing medical inflation, allowing better access to healthcare for more Americans--(which is best accomplished by lowering the costs), preventing insurance companies from dropping you when you don't want to be dropped, tort reform, etc.  I'd prefer to fix these problems in a way that costs taxpayers and employers as little as possible and in a way that limits government powers to those permitted within the constitutional framework.      

I truly hope Obama was sincere in his call for bipartisanship to fix this, but that sincerity remains to be seen in the coming weeks/months.    

UPDATE:  Heard an interview with Joe Wilson regarding his "that's a lie" outburst during the Obama speech.  Wilson pointed out that republicans proposed an amendment to the house bill that would further prevent illegal aliens from abusing the system by requiring citizenship verification.  Democrats defeated the amendment and prevented it from making its way onto the bill.  (Now can you understand why it pushed Wilson over the top when Obama claimed illegal aliens would not receive coverage under the bill?  Obama knew about the defeated amendment yet he still deliberately and dishonestly claimed illegals would not receive coverage under his bill...in other words, he lied through his teeth to congress and America.)  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Perils of Higher Minimum Wage

Posted by Ryan Hawkins on Friday, July 10, 2009 10:53:00 PM
Before I get into how ludicrous it is to keep raising minimum wage, let me first state that I am 100% supportive of finding ways for everyone to better their lives and earn better wages...I would just rather have the individuals do things to make their raise a merit-based raise rather than have it dictated by the government. 
 
Unfortunately, raising the Federal minimum wage hurts more people than it helps...especially in these tough economic times.  Jobs that pay minimum wage do so because the jobs are low-skill and just about anybody could do them.  Those jobs are easy to fill because there is a high supply of people with qualified skills for the job.  As the requisite level of expertise, qualifications, and responsibilities for a job increase, so does the pay because the pool of people who are qualified to perform the job is getting smaller and smaller up the chain.  If you raise the minimum wage, then simple economics dictates that you must also provide incremental increases to each person up the chain.  Allow me to illustrate:   
  • John is a dishwasher making minimum wage of $6.55/hour
  • Alan (John's supervisor) is an assistant line cook who makes $7.25/hour
  • Mark (Alan's supervisor) is a line cook making $8/hour
  • ...etc.
Congress then decides minimum wage needs to be raised to $7.25/hour...so John is now making the same wage as his supervisor - Alan.  Is it fair for John to be making the same wage as Alan?  (Remember, Alan has more responsibilities and spent additional time & money obtaining the qualifications for his job.)  Alan is going to demand $8/hour, which pays him the same as his supervisor - Mark.  The chain continues upward.  If all these employees are part of a union, then it is really party time!  Everyone will get an un-merited raise faster than I can say GM!      
 
If you are the restaurant owner, you are already trying to do everything you can to weather the storm in these tough economic times, but (thanks to the government) you now have to give out a bunch of raises whether the raises are merited or not.  Your budget (which has already been tightening down due to lower revenues during the economic downturn) is already as tight as it can get, so you can't cover the salary increases with cost-cuts somewhere else. What are your choices? 
 
The easiest, most feasible, and most common option is to keep your total salary costs at present levels by eliminating John's position (although asking for a government bailout is probably the next most popular choice.)  You draft up a memo to redefine job responsibilities.  John gets laid off...his supervisor (who one year earlier worked his way up from washing dishes for minimum wage) is back to washing dishes for a slightly higher minimum wage, and the restaurant goes on operating leaner and meaner with heavier workloads .  You continue operations with less employees so that your overall salary cost has taken as little impact as possible.     
 
Instead of John's wages getting bumped up, John is now unemployed and congress has hurt the very person they were trying to help.  John and his fellow dishwashers had better hurry and find another job fast because the restaurant (along with every other employer) will eventually raise their prices to cover the wage increases.  The cost of living notches upward and a short while later, even the increased hourly minimum wage will once again barely buy him lunch at Taco Bell. 
 
Some employers will find a way to keep people like John on board; but unfortunately, experience has shown that more "John's" will lose their job than not.  It is also noteworthy to point out that the majority of people working for minimum wage are young (many times high school age) individuals who aren't depending on their wages to put food on the table or a roof over their heads. 
 
Raising the minimum wage is not a solution to anything - it only compounds the problems we are experiencing in the economy.  If you thought you were safe from the next round of layoffs, you'd better watch out after July 2009 because there's another curve ball coming at your employer when minimum wage goes up.           
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Should same-sex marriage be legalized?

Posted by Ryan Hawkins on Saturday, November 15, 2008 12:35:38 AM
It already was and already is...you just have to call it something other than marriage.  Why is that such a problem if you have to call it a domestic partnership or union?  Take Proposition 8 in California for example.  (As one who deals with tax laws for a living, I understand a little about constitutions, federal & state legislation, and marriage rights.)
 
If you look at California Family Code Section 297-297.5 (both before and after the passage of Proposition 8) it states:  
 
(a) “Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.”  (Emphasis added)
 

Further summary of Family Code:

  • (b–d) CA Family Code further gives the same rights to former domestic partners, surviving domestic partners, and domestic partners with respect to children.
  • (e) Registered domestic partners shall be treated by California law as if federal law recognized a domestic partnership in the same manner as California law.
  • (f) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights regarding nondiscrimination as those provided to spouses.
  • (g) No public agency in this state may discriminate against any person or couple on the ground that the person is a registered domestic partner rather than a spouse.
Feel free to verify this if you want but Prop 8 did not take away any rights from gay & lesbian couples.  All Prop 8 did was dictate that California will not term the union of gay/lesbian couples as a "marriage."  Regardless of whether you call it a marriage or a domestic partnership - all those rights are intact (both before and after the election) and from the state's legal perspective, there is absolutely no difference between a heterosexual marriage and a gay/lesbian domestic partnership.  None.
 
So if this isn't about rights, why is it such a heated battle?  I can't answer that because I don't know.  (Brace yourself because here is where I am going to articulate my speculative reasoning.  I think there is a bigger agenda hiding behind the supposed gay/lesbian rights banner...but I'll get to that later.  Marriage came about because of religious/spiritual reasons long before there was any legally recognized institution of marriage (or rights.)  The term marriage was originally coined and defined by the churches as a religious union between a man and a woman...with vows made to eachother and to God.  (The legal angle came into play much later as disputes among family members surfaced over rights to property, child custody, survivorship, and the estate.) 
 
I believe the gay & lesbian community is smart group of people...smart enough to know that (from a California state perspective) a registered domestic partnership already has the same rights as a married couple; therefore I refuse to accept that they believe their efforts are all about equal rights (and not part of a larger agenda hiding itself behind a civil rights banner so that it garners more support.)  So - what is the agenda if it isn't about rights?  
 
Could the agenda be for the leaders in the gay/lesbian community to shove this issue in the face of religion by having the courts force the churches to redefine their own terminology?  Many churches do not believe that gay/lesbian unions are in accordance with God's commandments, so most churches refuse to perform marriage ceremonies to gay/lesbian couples.  If the term "marriage" were redefined to include gay/lesbian couples, then churches will lose part of their freedom to worship because they will face discrimination law suits if/when they continue refusing to perform "marriage" ceremonies for gay/lesbian couples.  After all, it isn't discrimination for a church to say "our religious beliefs only allow for us to perform religious unions called marriages, not gay/lesbian unions."  However, if the term marriage included gay/lesbian couples -- then it is discriminatory for a church to say we perform marriages, but only for heterosexual couples - not gay/lesbian couples.  The latter has a discrimination law suit written all over it because it is no different than saying "we will perform marriages, but only for whites - not blacks, hispanics, or asians.  See the difference?            
 
To the gay/lesbian community I can honestly tell you that I have absolutely no problem with allowing gay & lesbian couples the same rights that my spouse & I have as a married couple; however, for reasons outlined above -- I have a big problem using the term "marriage" to describe gay & lesbian unions.  What would I change in California?  Not a thing.  Stick with the "domestic partnership" term or pick something else if you prefer, but you have to leave marriage alone.  Leave the churches alone.  Marriage was and is a religous union performed by the churches.  Do not force your religious beliefs upon the churches by forcing them to redefine or change their terminology.  As demonstrated in the California statutes above, you already have all the same rights as a married couple.  There is still a Federal battle to be fought so that you can file with the IRS a joint tax return with your domestic partner.  There are still other state battles to provide equal rights to domestic partners as California has done.  I am all for equal rights, and I will fight those battles along side you...but I will not join the fight to re-define the religous term - marriage.  On that issue, I will fight against you with every ounce of strength I have.         

Please refrain from deceiving Americans by telling them Prop 8 was all about rights because (as you can see in California statutes) nothing could be further from the truth. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why McCain Can't Win...

Posted by Ryan Hawkins on Friday, October 31, 2008 1:42:12 PM
Allow me to begin by pointing out I have clearly been a Mitt Romney supporter for the past two plus years...I have never been excited about the McCain campaign.  McCain's presidential campaign reminds me a little too much of Fred Thompson's primary campaign.  I have never liked McCain's positions nor his chances for this election.  I believe his campaign was doomed for failure ever since he won the nomination.  I held up a glimmer or hope when he selected Palin as his running mate, but not even Palin could bring the McCain campiagn the life it needs to win this election.  Allow me also to point out that I can't stand Obama and it is killing me to see so many gullible Americans falling for the Obama-Biden rhetoric. 
 
Now, for the facts.  I have said for over a year now that this election will be decided by 7-8 states and that few other states would change colors from the 2004 election.  Both the GOP and the Dem's will maintain most of the states each party held in 2004 with the following potential exceptions.  The GOP would try to steal MI, MN, and WI and the Dem's would try to steal OH, VA, FL, and CO.  Based on CNN's polls, it appears the Dem's may not only succeed in holding MI, MN, and WI but also that they could very well succeed in stealing all four of those GOP states plus a few more. 
 
If CNN's polls are close, then clearly the GOP's problem is that even if McCain wins all 84 electoral votes from the swing states (which already looks unlikely at this point...but let's be as optimistic as possible) McCain's total electoral votes will reach 247 and Obama 291.  In other words, under the most McCain-optimistic scenario I can conceive, Obama still wins by 44 electoral votes.  McCain enjoys making fun of Obama's "cockiness" and pointing out that Obama is already measuring the drapes in the whitehouse.  Under the circumstances, if I were Obama - I do more than measure drapes...I'd either take the weekend off or maybe see if I can go steal Arizona.
 
McCain
RIP.   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I think I figured out why Huck hasn't dropped out...

Posted by Ryan Hawkins on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 11:59:58 AM
In a single, simple answer to the question as to why Huck hasn't dropped out of the race:  Huck's presidential campaign is good for business. 
 
Let's face it - Huck is in the speech-giving business.  Mike Huckabee hides no secrets about making his living through speaking engagements in the church circuit.  It is no secret that he has a regular fee of $25,000 per speaking engagement...and while he may not necessarily stick to that fee for every speech he gives on the church circuit - his presidential campaign continues to help Huckabee tour the country and fill up his calendar with  paid speech after paid speech...(most recently in Colorado Springs.)
 
Honestly, I can't say I blame him.  After all - the presidential campaign trail is hard work...and if a candidate has figured out a lucrative way to be paid during the course of his campaign, who can blame him for "priming the pump."  As long as John McCain does not have 1,191 delegates he needs to secure the nomination, Huckabee can continue to line his pockets as he preaches for filthy lucre...and if I were him, I'd milk every last dime I could - because the calendar (and the speaking engagements) might dry up after McCain wins the nod.
 
Could this be why Mitt Romney foresaw the prudence of endorsing John McCain for the good of the party?  Was Romney actually foreseeing Mike Huckabee's continued mockery of campaign finance laws and use of the "presidential publicity" to further Huckabee's  personal fortune...at the expense of the GOP and its voters?  Hmmmm... 
 
I confess - I have under-estimated Huck's business sense.  He is a better businessman than I thought.   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why GOP Candidates don't want endorsements from the Boston Globe...

Posted by Ryan Hawkins on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:41:35 PM
On December 16, 2007 the McCain campaign thought they had crippled the Romney campaign when McCain won the endorsement of the Boston Globe.  (After all, this was right from Romney's back yard - if Romney was such a good governor, why wouldn't a prominent Massachusetts Newspaper endorse Mitt?) 
 
Unfortunately, the Boston Globe is a liberal newspaper with a liberal agenda.  As Mitt was arguably the most conservative candidate in the race, it was obvious he wouldn't be winning any endorsements from a liberal paper like the Globe. 
 
That begs the question:  Why endorse McCain? 
 
Answer:  To put myself in their shoes - if I really want Hillary or Barack to win the whitehouse, then why not use my influence to help the GOP nominate a weaker candidate?   That being my strategy, I can then start up the attacks on how much of a weakling McCain really is once he has the GOP nomination wrapped up...maybe even sooner.  Sounds ridiculous to accuse the Boston Globe of such deceitful, manipulative behavior - right?  Wrong!  
 
Now that McCain is the clear front runner and likely nominee, the Globe has flip-flopped, and is now in "Attack McCain" mode.   It has barely been two months since that very paper endorsed McCain, now they are unloading on him.  Unbelievable!!   When the Boston Globe endorsed John McCain, this should have been a red flag to republicans.  The GOP has been duped into nominating McCain.  I hate to say the GOP has lost this election, but we all know McCain doesn't have a chance in November...especially against the young, charismatic, energetic, enthusiastic, well-funded Obama.  Don't get me wrong - McCain still has my vote, but McCain's odds of winning in November are about the same as Ron Paul's odds of winning the GOP nomination (in my humble opinion.)          
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conservative Christians Mull 3rd Party Candidate Idea - Again

Posted by Ryan Hawkins on Friday, February 15, 2008 11:09:03 AM
(Speaking to those conservative christians who failed to back Mitt Romney.) 
 
All I can say to conservative christians (after I read how they now are considering a 3rd party candidate on this latest article on msnbc ) is: 
 
We told you so.
 
Now after you evangelicals face the consequences of disregarding the advice of countless conservatives (Paul Weyrich, Mark DeMoss, Bob Jones III, Robert R. Taylor, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, and Hugh Hewitt...not to mention the vast GOP endorsements for Romney - the magnitude of which which exceeded even McCain himself) that exhorted you to line up behind Mitt Romney for the good of conservatism, you evangelicals now have the audacity to consider third party options in the general election?????      Unbelievable!!!!!!! 
 
It is because of people like you that I am becoming a stronger and stronger advocate of a requirement for voters to pass some sort of intelligence test before their vote can be counted.  I am convinced that America could elect much better leaders (both in primaries and general elections) if we can slice off  the "stupidity vote" from the ballot box and eliminate the effect it has on elections.  I suspect that could have eliminated 50% of Huck's votes...and the remaining 50% would have realized more strongly that Huck is unelectable and voted the pre-Feb.5 McCain-Romney race based on the issues important to them:  1) Pro-life; and 2) Federal Marriage Amendment.  McCain was 1/2; Romney 2/2.       
 
I beat this issue to death in January that we were in a two-man race, and that conservative evangelicals needed to choose between McCain & Romney.  A vote for Huck was a vote for McCain.  To most of us, that was obvious before February 5, but I guess it wasn't obvious for the majority of evangelicals until February 6.  I hope you learned your lesson.  Huckabee made his appeal to a select group of voters while alienating everyone else...which limited his candidacy and made him unelectable both in the primaries and the general.  He failed to appeal to fiscal conservatives...he failed to appeal to economic conservatives...he failed to appeal to military and national security conservatives.  He was (and still is) unelectable both in the primary and in the general. 
 
I am now a reluctant, pessimistic McCain supporter...only because he is a slightly better alternative to Hillary or Obama. 
 
I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you evangelicals gave up your fight for the Federal Marriage Amendment when you chose Huckabee over Romney...I'm just as upset over that as you Evangelicals are, but I strongly suggest you line up behind McCain in November if you want to win any abortion battles over the next 4-8 years.  Your stupidity in supporting Huck over Romney has already cost us the battle over the federal marriage amendment, but let's learn from our mistakes!!!!   A third-party conservative candidate will hand the general election to the Democrats...causing us to lose yet another battle - on abortion!!!!   Think!!!  Cut the stupidity vote...let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater!!!!   (Pun intended.)      
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Facts are stubborn things for a Huck Supporter

Posted by Ryan Hawkins on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 2:22:09 PM
Jeff Fuller (of www.mymanmitt.com) was in a discussion with a Huckabee supporter who was dissing Mitt as "Finished." 

The reponse was just beautiful: 

It looks like Mitt (after 1 month of primaries and caucuses) is going to have more total votes and total delegates than your man (Huck) will have after 2 months of primaries and caucuses. 


(CNN delegate count as of 2/13/2008)
Delegates
McCain 830
Romney 286
Huckabee 217



Vote Tally as of 2/13/2008

Total Votes Percent
McCain 5,468,444            38.77%
Romney 4,293,965         30.44%
Huckabee 2,800,425              19.85%



And your man is more "finished" now than than our man was when he bowed out for the good of the party.

The Huck supporter then said that Romney spent over a million dollars per delegate and was the worst political investment ever . . . the Fuller reply: I think Rudy's $50 million for 1 delegate is probably the "worst political investment ever".

And, like Huck, I'm no math major, but I do have at least two functioning brain cells.
Romney got 286 delegates . . . your "$1 plus mil per delegate" claim suggests that he must have spent $300 million or more on this campaign.  Either you're easily duped (typical Huck supporter BTW) or your completely dishonest (typical Huck mimicker).

When a guy drops out of a masters program to be the understudy of a Tele-Evangelist - that tells us all anyone (especially any religious person) needs to know about Huck's character and aspirations.

UPDATE:  Stats were updated 2/13/08 with data current as of 2/13/08.  The Math for Huck is getting worse daily.  It still appears that by 3/4/08, Huck might still not even catch up to Romney's 2/5 numbers, where Romney dropped out for the good of the party.    

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mormons for Obama???

Posted by Ryan Hawkins on Monday, February 11, 2008 1:50:24 PM
As a conservative republican, articles such as this scare the crud out of me. 

Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, and Colorado have large amounts of Mormons...and if Obama is able to capitalize off of Mormons who want to flip the bird at the Evangelical GOP base, then all five of these states are put in play for November. 

I'm a Mormon, I'm not excited about McCain's chances in November (and Huckabee's chances are even less than McCain's) but I will surely vote for McCain in November over any democrat.  (Although it is close.) 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Huckabee isn't to blame for the pickle conservatives are in...

Posted by Ryan Hawkins on Wednesday, February 06, 2008 11:19:45 PM
I simply blame those who fell for the illusion and voted for him.  It was obvious that Huck didn't have a prayer of winning the nomination...even before last night. Now its even more obvious.

For anyone who thinks otherwise - do the math. Calculate how many more delegates (of the remaining 1,008 left) Huck needs to win in order to reach 1,191. (According to CNN, he currently has 176.)  I'm sure he can tell a pretty good story about 5 loaves and 2 fishes, but if Huck can miraculously make 176 + 1,008 = 1,191, then he'll not only have my vote - he'll have my attention and my wallet. 

I'm not blaming the all Huckafans for the pickle we conservatives are in - I'm just blaming those Huckafans who would have picked Romney over McCain. (You know...the more conservative Huckafans...ones who want a federal marriage amendment, ones who want lower taxes and smaller government, ones who oppose stem cell research, ones who want something to be done about high gas prices, secure borders, and illegal immigration.)

McCain is to the left on a lot of issues...(global warming, taxes, ANWR, federal marriage amendment, immigration...to name a few) which is why he will have trouble getting the conservatives to vote for him in November.

I don't believe for a second that true conservatives want the McCain kind of record in a GOP presidential nominee...if that record bothers you, and if you voted for Huckabee on Super Tuesday...it is your fault that the conservatives lost to McCain. You threw your vote away on someone like Huckabee (who didn't have a prayer of winning before Feb 5...and who still doesn't have a prayer of winning - even after a glorious Feb 5 performance that blew away the expectations of all.)

Huckabee supporters didn't turn this into a three-man race - they turned it into a one-man race. Huck isn't the one to be blamed - its the voters who bought into the illusion that Huck could actually win.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Super Tuesday Surprise

Posted by Ryan Hawkins on Wednesday, February 06, 2008 3:48:12 PM
On Super Tuesday the Huckabee Supporters came out in droves and voted for McCain via Mike Huckabee.   That surprised many of us.  How about West Virginia?  Caucus participants in WV noticed after the first round that Romney was at 41% and climbing...so the McCain supporters during the second round decided to throw their support behind Huckabee (as evident in the ending numbers:  Huck - 52%, Mitt - 47%, and McCain - 1%) in a strategic move to help McCain by giving Huckabee a win in West Virginia that would have gone to Romney. 

What can I say to that?  I've got to hand it to the WV McCain caucus-goers for using Huckabee as a pawn in their strategy.  Yes, it was a cheap shot at Romney, and perhaps it gave Huck some momentum in a few later states without making him a serious threat to McCain...but unfortunately this is what happens in politics...You'd better believe November is going to be full of dirty little tricks like that.        

Mike Huckabee (despite his better than expected performance last night) still has no chance of winning...and even though Romney widened his lead over Huckabee last night, Mitt needed a much better Feb 5 performance to contend with McCain.  Right now results still show that McCain is barely over halfway to the 1,191 delegates he needs to secure the nomination...although numbers from Feb 5 aren't final yet.  McCain (as of right now) still needs 511 more delegates.   

CNN shows the total delegate count now as follows: 

McCain:          680
Romney:         270
Huckabee:      176

Expect those numbers to shift some more over the next day or two since unpledged delegates will still get factored in at some point.  
  
Despite the statement from James Dobson on February 5 (which was a little late in my opinion) it appears McCain will ultimately get the nomination and probably lose in November due to his lack of support and enthusiasm from the GOP base.  I say that because there seems to be quite a conservative movement that feels the GOP will be better poised to make a return toward conservatism by electing a Democrat in November than it would by electing McCain.  Obviously that movement includes James Dobson and Ann Coulter.   The level of resistance toward a McCain nomination/presidency seems to be unprecented. 

Although I can relate to this conservative movement, my opinion is that much more conservative ground will be lost to the left if Hillary or Barack get elected...I could be wrong.     

My March 4 vote (in Texas) is still going to be for Romney (and I am still as ticked off as ever at McCain for the many times he has thumbed his nose at conservatives) but at least I can take some comfort in McCain's flip-flop, pandering pledge to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.  I don't believe him, but at least his empty promise is a better alternative than what Barack & Hillary want.  I'm not optimistic about McCain's chances in November (especially since McCain's measley fund-raising is dwarfed by the well-funded democrats...and even more especially if McCain runs against a young, very charismatic Barack Obama) but I will still pull the lever for McCain if I have to.

I'm still very surprised the Huck supporters came out in such droves last night and cast their votes for McCain via Mike Huckabee.  I thought is was pretty obvious that Huck couldn't possibly win.  What wasn't obvious last night is much more obvious now because even after Huck's glorious Feb 5 performance that blew away the expectations of all - Huck is still as unlikely to win the nod as he ever was...he still needs over 100% of the remaining delegates to win the nod.  Now it increasingly looks like Romney is almost as much of a long-shot as Huck. Nonetheless, all three have vowed to stay in the race.

McCain currently looks like he is 511 delegates away from securing the nod - which would imply he needs to take over 50% of the remaining 1,008 delegates to secure the nod. If the remaining 1,008 delegates continue to split 3 ways over the next several weeks, McCain may still not reach 1,191 delegates. 

There's no point for anyone to drop out, because a brokered convention (at this point) might be good for the party.  The GOP can force McCain (through the political horse trading) to take some more conservative positions in his candidacy to bring him more in favor with the base.        
           
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Dilemma of Huckabee Supporters

Posted by Ryan Hawkins on Tuesday, February 05, 2008 1:10:59 AM

McCain: 
1. Opposes federal marriage amendment; Romney/Huck favor it.
2. McCain-Kennedy
3. McCain-Feingold
4. McCain-Kennedy-Edwards
5. McCain-Lieberman (including a new $0.50/gallon gas tax to fight global warming????)
6. Opposes Guantanamo Bay...let's bring terrorists here and give them constitutional rights
7. Philosophy of bigger government & higher taxes

This is far from conservative. That's why conservatives don't like McCain.



Let's face it...Huck isn't seriously competing in even 1/4 of the states right now..and even those are all close races - AL, GA, MO, OK, & TN.  In just the winner-take-all states alone, McCain will likely have over 300 more delegates on 2/5.  McCain & Romney will split CA's 173 delegates.  McCain doesn't have a single state where he polls under 20%, so he will likely have a very strong day on 2/5 and end the day anywhere between 500 & 800 total delegates. 

Huckabee's absolute best-case scenario will be to bring his 29-delegate total to somewhere around 250 (realistically he probably hits 183.)  This means Huck's only shot at the nomination will be to win 100% of the votes in all post-February-5 states.  Probability = 0.  There is no way Huckabee can win. 


Romney polls well in most of the 2/5 states, and will likely win MT, CO, MA, ND, CA, UT, and possibly more.  Two of those are winner-take-all states.  Romney's worst-case 2/5 scenario puts him at about 320 total delegates, but for him to hit 400-500 total delegates on 2/5 is certainly not unreasonable by any means.  If neither Huckabee nor Romney break 400 total delegates on 2/5, it is highly unlikely either of them can win (because each must then win over 791 [nearly 80%] of the remaining 1008 delegates to secure the nomination.) 

Huckabee Supporters: Choose carefully.  If you like McCain, there is no harm in voting for Huck...but since most of you are true conservatives, you probably despise McCain almost as much as you despise Clinton or Obama.  If the latter applies, you need to think this through carefully, seriously examine Mitt Romney's stand on the issues ,  and see for yourself how conservative Mitt really is.  It will be easy to pull the lever for Mitt once you do that.     

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »