100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: OBama extends healthcare for LGBT | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Honestly! there are bigger problems to face rather than everyone being led around their noses by finer details and minor political issues. First and foremost of all, if we just allow change for the sake of change without thinking things through you get massive overcompensation. We do not need a repeat of affirmative action ESPECIALLY when a quotas system of any kind is imposed in medicine or industry. This move is a diversion from the real problem we are facing. In all honesty Obama has yet to do ANYTHING of real consequence other than REALLY BAD THINGS. Have you even seen the statistics of Obama's little TARP give away? How many people actually got loan modifications? The highest number I heard was 21% but so far I have seen the number around 14% floating around a lot. How many BILLIONS were given to banks and lenders and what did the American taxpayer get out of it in return? Next to nothing. I have a friend living in the shadow of that mess. Does Obama even have a plan to get us out of Afghanistan? Negotiations with a group who will use a nuclear weapon on us given the chance? NO. Has he made move one towards financial responsibility or spend time poffering to Business trying to stimulate the economy? Lead us not into temptation. What, suddenly we are just going to Vote our national and personal debts away? It doesn't work that way. globally the system has been conforming to the equality rights of Homosexuals but they keep reaching for more and more and eventually we will have a repeat of Affirmative Action in a new disguise. It is the minority of hospitals with their dated policies that need to be addressed. this whole "Obama has come to the aid of homosexual couples," rah rah is nothing but B.S. and glorifying a failing president who has done nothing but cater to big business and political ends. Groovy, same sex couples can visit each other in hospitals. So what about the bigger picture? How about the sudden increase in insurance premiums thanks to Obama? How about the malaise that is now sweeping the medical community? Yeah they are getting more money taken from them but who is profiting from this? Lawyers and insurance companies. Not the doctors. Look, I am all for total equality. I am WHOLLY against Affirmative Action and legitimized discrimination and reverse racism. I got gay friends. I really could care less what they do behind closed doors. But in all honesty this is like a small skirmish in some piss hole nowhere town verses Stalingrad burning and the Germans are at the gate! It also is like Nero when he fiddled while Rome burned. This is not what I would call earth shattering news. Earth Shattering would be Obama finally pulling his mulatto head out of his aZZ and coming clean with America about the whole mess we are in. Earth Shattering would be him demanding financial responsibility from congress. Gay rights... Sheet, that is being beaten into the ground. Sorry if I seem a little bit of a mood but America is being destroyed from within and this is an example of issues we are so concerned with while Congress just screws up more and more? 
Honestly, I dont see why people belittle others when it comes to personal priorities. I suspect to someone who is not a minority or a homsexual, the REAL issues they deal with would seem insignificant. This is about more than being permitted to 'visit' it is about the path to being given the rights to make medical decisions without need of ATTORNEYS and lawyers fees. Should people not care about ANY issue besides healthcare,, should NO other type of progress be attempted? What kind of shallow box would that leave this country in? Because an issue is not top on my list doesnt mean it isnt or shouldnt be given significant attention for those who DO have it at the top of their list. AFfirmative Action policies are a good thing, misuse of policies is not. Painting it all with the same brush is intellectually dishonest. Its not belittlement. My issue is that smaller "problems" are taking president over far greater and more impacting issues over what we need to face. The equality laws are in place. the problem is no one wants to adhere to them or their principles. Again it is the whole fear mentality and victimization complex. the biggest problems need to be addressed instead of minimalism or prioritized in a way that fits personal sensitivities. Picture this if you will. You live in a town that sits below a huge damn and the lake behind ti is full. The damn needs repair. it has a crack and has been leaking for a year (Nice dilemma scenario, no?) A hand full of people who know insist the damn be fixed. They warn everyone their damn is about to burst and who's idea was it anyway to put a town RIGHT under a damn. Now the city council has to vote on everything including appropriating budget for repairs. Some little old lady comes along and complains the roads are in terrible disrepair citing the pothole near the intersection of the one place in town that has a street light. The lines painted on the street are in need of touch up and her cat mittens got stuck in a tree and the fire department didn't have a ladder long enough to rescue mittens. Now the kicker. She thinks the damn is fine even if it is leaking because it has been there for years. it doesn't need to be fixed right now. "If it ain't broke why fix it?" Then the reverend of the town gets all uppity because the pot hole is right in front of his church. Then the local police officer complains his patrol car is old and he needs a new one. Then someone argues the town drunk can't get a job and needs welfare. Then they suddenly need another street light and suddenly after voting the leaking damn is forgotten except for the smart few who complained and complained about the danger but everyone else was so worried about the little things the big thing looming over them went ignored. The smart people leave and after a while the leak in the damn gets worst but everyone gets their pot hole fixed, their new street light, their new patrol car, a new ladder for the fire department so they can rescue mittens the next time. Everyone is happy. Their justification for not fixing the damn? They ran out of money fixing up the town (Sound like New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina????)!!!! Then came the day the damn indeed broke. Miles downstream the survivors wanted to know where all that water came from. This is what has my panties in a twist. All this feels good crap is not going to save anyone when the real problems this nation is facing come to bear on us. When the economy damn breaks there is no where to run. A flood will sweep this nation and it will not go down well. Equality will go to hell fast as people fight it out for dwindling resources when everything comes to a grinding halt. Do you know how GNP is calculated? It is not the raw flow of goods between nations. It is money flow between nations. The banks have been manipulating the economy for years. They likewise control the flow of (????????People). Since GNP is based on money flow and not the flow of goods back and forth across our border that means if you tabulate the lost trade and trade deficit, lost industry and lost jobs we are smack dab in the leading edge of a bad depression. Worst is the media is lying through their teeth about a recovery. How many new businesses are starting up these days? How many new jobs are out there. And we argue over gay rights when they have them already! The problem is enforcement. Not laws! Sorry if I am coming off strong but equality and gay rights burns me badly right now because everyone is so hot to cater to minorities when the reality of it is that our laws were supposed to be written globally. We already have too many laws and Obama stomping around "demanding answers" is just a ploy to divert our attentions to make his weak administration and completely insane financial policies not be kept under a microscope. I agree change is needed in may ways BUT change for the sake of change is suicide! No one evaluated things right. No one listened to people who had good ideas. We are too busy arguing over everything else than look right at the damn that is about to burst and go "HEY! WE GOTTA GOD DAMN FIX THIS LEAKING ECONOMIC DAMN! SCREW THE POTHOLES IN THE ROAD TO EQUALITY RIGHT NOW!" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The issue I have with your scenario is an assumption that issues can only be completely fixed one at a time and in succession...when in fact, the truth is they exist concurrently and can also be addressed concurrently. There would be NO reason why a road crew couldnt FIX the pothole WHILE the engineers figured out the best thing to do about the damn. IN a country this size, there are no issues that have to be IGNORED just to appease some sense of priority. OBama had a chance to do something about enforcing laws NOW, rather quickly and simply and the economic issues are not something that can be fixed nearly as quickly or simply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But does common sense not mean to use the tools you have and make things better rather than haphazardly stumble around smaller issues? Like I said we have laws in place already. The problem is enforcement. Obama makes demands and suddenly everybody has to jump? The answer lies in better policing of our policy we have and better localized enforcement.
I'm sorry I can't see this issue as anything more than a smokescreen for what America is really facing. The real villain is congress. Obama is no hero. Its pretty clear who's side he is on and it isn't ours. When he does something right I will praise him. This is not all that 'right.' It is just 'feels good' news. Also this is micromanaging and is the same thing Cheney and Rhumsfeld did during the Iraq invasion. Obama and his magic wand... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
insurance equality? out of pocket everything... clarify your remarks if you don't mind.. I don't want to make assumptions...lol Im trans and were on the ever shrinking list of countries that thinks its cosmetic and not a repairing defect. So what could be $10 meds is full price $100+ every months. the companies with a large copay then coverage usually covers us, but ugh im poor enough haha! good times! ^_^ trans? transdimentional? I didn't know they had medicine for that... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WASHINGTON – In a move hailed as a step toward fairness for same-sex couples, President Barack Obama is ordering that nearly all hospitals allow patients to say who has visitation rights and who can help make medical decisions, including gay and lesbian partners. The White House on Thursday released a statement by Obama instructing his Health and Human Services secretary to draft rules requiring hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid payments to grant all patients the right to designate people who can visit and consult with them at crucial moments. The designated visitors should have the same rights that immediate family members now enjoy, Obama's instructions said. It said Medicare-Medicaid hospitals, which include most of the nation's facilities, may not deny visitation and consultation privileges on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. The move was called a major step toward fairness for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. read more athttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100416/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_hospital_patients THIS is the beginning of the CIVIL actions that I have always thought to be logical,, rather than re arranging the institution of marriage. Good for people who love people!(regardless of sexual labels).  
Now if he would fix it so anyone could marry anyone. I've never understood why anyone would be against that. Homosexuals should have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us. marriage is an institution built on and promoted for the foundation of society. The male female union is the union upon which life is founded and maintained. There is NO reason to expand upon its definitions. yeah. like fairness or equality or anything like that.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OBama has no magic wand,, of course it seems as if people think he should. They scream communism about his 'power' and 'authority' but yet they expect him to fix (in no more than fifteen months even) all or any issues that are important to them.
I can give credit where credit is due, I choose not to discredit 'good' news just because bad news exists. and bad news has ALWAYS existed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WASHINGTON – In a move hailed as a step toward fairness for same-sex couples, President Barack Obama is ordering that nearly all hospitals allow patients to say who has visitation rights and who can help make medical decisions, including gay and lesbian partners. The White House on Thursday released a statement by Obama instructing his Health and Human Services secretary to draft rules requiring hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid payments to grant all patients the right to designate people who can visit and consult with them at crucial moments. The designated visitors should have the same rights that immediate family members now enjoy, Obama's instructions said. It said Medicare-Medicaid hospitals, which include most of the nation's facilities, may not deny visitation and consultation privileges on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. The move was called a major step toward fairness for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. read more athttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100416/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_hospital_patients THIS is the beginning of the CIVIL actions that I have always thought to be logical,, rather than re arranging the institution of marriage. Good for people who love people!(regardless of sexual labels).
Now if he would fix it so anyone could marry anyone. I've never understood why anyone would be against that. Homosexuals should have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us. marriage is an institution built on and promoted for the foundation of society. The male female union is the union upon which life is founded and maintained. There is NO reason to expand upon its definitions. yeah. like fairness or equality or anything like that.. there is no equal to creating life,,, thats the truth of it just like there is no equal to a woman carrying a child,, although it doesnt make men less significant there is no EQUAL to a male female union although other unions still remain significant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WASHINGTON – In a move hailed as a step toward fairness for same-sex couples, President Barack Obama is ordering that nearly all hospitals allow patients to say who has visitation rights and who can help make medical decisions, including gay and lesbian partners. The White House on Thursday released a statement by Obama instructing his Health and Human Services secretary to draft rules requiring hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid payments to grant all patients the right to designate people who can visit and consult with them at crucial moments. The designated visitors should have the same rights that immediate family members now enjoy, Obama's instructions said. It said Medicare-Medicaid hospitals, which include most of the nation's facilities, may not deny visitation and consultation privileges on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. The move was called a major step toward fairness for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. read more athttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100416/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_hospital_patients THIS is the beginning of the CIVIL actions that I have always thought to be logical,, rather than re arranging the institution of marriage. Good for people who love people!(regardless of sexual labels).
Now if he would fix it so anyone could marry anyone. I've never understood why anyone would be against that. Homosexuals should have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us. marriage is an institution built on and promoted for the foundation of society. The male female union is the union upon which life is founded and maintained. There is NO reason to expand upon its definitions. yeah. like fairness or equality or anything like that.. there is no equal to creating life,,, thats the truth of it just like there is no equal to a woman carrying a child,, although it doesnt make men less significant there is no EQUAL to a male female union although other unions still remain significant Actually, there are procedures where a man can carry a child. And it...oh nevermind...... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WASHINGTON – In a move hailed as a step toward fairness for same-sex couples, President Barack Obama is ordering that nearly all hospitals allow patients to say who has visitation rights and who can help make medical decisions, including gay and lesbian partners. The White House on Thursday released a statement by Obama instructing his Health and Human Services secretary to draft rules requiring hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid payments to grant all patients the right to designate people who can visit and consult with them at crucial moments. The designated visitors should have the same rights that immediate family members now enjoy, Obama's instructions said. It said Medicare-Medicaid hospitals, which include most of the nation's facilities, may not deny visitation and consultation privileges on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. The move was called a major step toward fairness for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. read more athttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100416/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_hospital_patients THIS is the beginning of the CIVIL actions that I have always thought to be logical,, rather than re arranging the institution of marriage. Good for people who love people!(regardless of sexual labels).
Now if he would fix it so anyone could marry anyone. I've never understood why anyone would be against that. Homosexuals should have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us. marriage is an institution built on and promoted for the foundation of society. The male female union is the union upon which life is founded and maintained. There is NO reason to expand upon its definitions. yeah. like fairness or equality or anything like that.. there is no equal to creating life,,, thats the truth of it just like there is no equal to a woman carrying a child,, although it doesnt make men less significant there is no EQUAL to a male female union although other unions still remain significant Actually, there are procedures where a man can carry a child. And it...oh nevermind...... That is just downright FRANKENSTEIN! Now we have a right to play God and Abridge nature! That is just sick! Men are not intended or designed to bear offspring. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
willing2
on
Sat 04/17/10 01:26 PM
|
|
In the natural course of nature, there is no way two women can unite without artificial means. It's like pushing a car with another car. Bumper to bumper but, no penetration.
Two men uniting is an unnatural act. Uniting is mainly for procreation. In nature, the reason animals go same-sex is because there are too many of the species. Could be, gays are acting on natural instinct to do what is needed to not add to the population. As for Hussein okaying it, he's desperate for votes of confidence. A strategic political move. Fortunately, most Americans are now savvy to his BS. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the natural course of nature, there is no way two women can unite without artificial means. It's like pushing a car with another car. Bumper to bumper but, no penetration. Two men uniting is an unnatural act. Uniting is mainly for procreation. In nature, the reason animals go same-sex is because there are too many of the species. Could be, gays are acting on natural instinct to do what is needed to not add to the population. As for Hussein okaying it, he's desperate for votes of confidence. A strategic political move. Fortunately, most Americans are now savvy to his BS. what did Barack ok? except loved ones having the right to visit their loved ones? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WASHINGTON – In a move hailed as a step toward fairness for same-sex couples, President Barack Obama is ordering that nearly all hospitals allow patients to say who has visitation rights and who can help make medical decisions, including gay and lesbian partners. The White House on Thursday released a statement by Obama instructing his Health and Human Services secretary to draft rules requiring hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid payments to grant all patients the right to designate people who can visit and consult with them at crucial moments. The designated visitors should have the same rights that immediate family members now enjoy, Obama's instructions said. It said Medicare-Medicaid hospitals, which include most of the nation's facilities, may not deny visitation and consultation privileges on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. The move was called a major step toward fairness for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. read more athttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100416/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_hospital_patients THIS is the beginning of the CIVIL actions that I have always thought to be logical,, rather than re arranging the institution of marriage. Good for people who love people!(regardless of sexual labels). Too bad he is still so ignorant by his religion that he cannot be fair to all as he should be. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WASHINGTON – In a move hailed as a step toward fairness for same-sex couples, President Barack Obama is ordering that nearly all hospitals allow patients to say who has visitation rights and who can help make medical decisions, including gay and lesbian partners. The White House on Thursday released a statement by Obama instructing his Health and Human Services secretary to draft rules requiring hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid payments to grant all patients the right to designate people who can visit and consult with them at crucial moments. The designated visitors should have the same rights that immediate family members now enjoy, Obama's instructions said. It said Medicare-Medicaid hospitals, which include most of the nation's facilities, may not deny visitation and consultation privileges on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. The move was called a major step toward fairness for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. read more athttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100416/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_hospital_patients THIS is the beginning of the CIVIL actions that I have always thought to be logical,, rather than re arranging the institution of marriage. Good for people who love people!(regardless of sexual labels).
Now if he would fix it so anyone could marry anyone. I've never understood why anyone would be against that. Homosexuals should have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us. marriage is an institution built on and promoted for the foundation of society. The male female union is the union upon which life is founded and maintained. There is NO reason to expand upon its definitions. yeah. like fairness or equality or anything like that.. there is no equal to creating life,,, thats the truth of it just like there is no equal to a woman carrying a child,, although it doesnt make men less significant there is no EQUAL to a male female union although other unions still remain significant Actually, there are procedures where a man can carry a child. And it...oh nevermind...... That is just downright FRANKENSTEIN! Now we have a right to play God and Abridge nature! That is just sick! Men are not intended or designed to bear offspring. Seriously? C'mon, of all the things man has done to nature, you pick THAT to go off on?? There are far worse things... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the natural course of nature, there is no way two women can unite without artificial means. It's like pushing a car with another car. Bumper to bumper but, no penetration. Two men uniting is an unnatural act. Uniting is mainly for procreation. And if you ask your run-of-the-mill religious fundamentalist for the straight scoop, they'll tell you that the oral sex so many crave is technically sodomy, too. Isn't it funny the way the biggest blowhards about 'unnatural sex' turn a blind eye to the heterosexual version of oral sex. But then again, to hear Newt Gingrich tell it, oral sex between two consenting adults who happen to be married but not to each other isn't adultery because it isn't 'real' sex, so who can figure out conservative reasoning when it comes to sex? (BTW, Gingrich said it before Clinton, so don't think that _that_ invalidates the argument.) -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the natural course of nature, there is no way two women can unite without artificial means. It's like pushing a car with another car. Bumper to bumper but, no penetration. Two men uniting is an unnatural act. Uniting is mainly for procreation. And if you ask your run-of-the-mill religious fundamentalist for the straight scoop, they'll tell you that the oral sex so many crave is technically sodomy, too. Isn't it funny the way the biggest blowhards about 'unnatural sex' turn a blind eye to the heterosexual version of oral sex. But then again, to hear Newt Gingrich tell it, oral sex between two consenting adults who happen to be married but not to each other isn't adultery because it isn't 'real' sex, so who can figure out conservative reasoning when it comes to sex? (BTW, Gingrich said it before Clinton, so don't think that _that_ invalidates the argument.) -Kerry O. well, actually, sex between two married adults(married to each other) is blessed , whatever details are involved in the sex,,,, I dont consider oral sex real sex either, but I do consider it intimate enough to be an infidelity in regards to marriage. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the natural course of nature, there is no way two women can unite without artificial means. It's like pushing a car with another car. Bumper to bumper but, no penetration. Two men uniting is an unnatural act. Uniting is mainly for procreation. And if you ask your run-of-the-mill religious fundamentalist for the straight scoop, they'll tell you that the oral sex so many crave is technically sodomy, too. Isn't it funny the way the biggest blowhards about 'unnatural sex' turn a blind eye to the heterosexual version of oral sex. But then again, to hear Newt Gingrich tell it, oral sex between two consenting adults who happen to be married but not to each other isn't adultery because it isn't 'real' sex, so who can figure out conservative reasoning when it comes to sex? (BTW, Gingrich said it before Clinton, so don't think that _that_ invalidates the argument.) -Kerry O. indeed. "eatin ain't cheatin" 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
trans? transdimentional? I didn't know they had medicine for that... *nearly peed herself loling was so unexpected* Actually, there are procedures where a man can carry a child. And it...oh nevermind...... Just wanted to pop in and add thats not true, genital procedures have no advanced that far, trust me ugh ><. the famous "pregnant man" your probably referring to is a pre-op transman who got pregnant by his lover by a near physically impossible event due to male hormones. So figured id mention this >.> Onto the main current debate though, i think marriage needs to be based on the basic premise of love between two consenting adults, who cares if you can breed or not. so an infertile woman cant get married by this "based on reproduction" theory? Just curious cause it seems that way. Then to the sexual side of things, when most people are together and in love then get to that point its usually a pleasurable bonding moment between two. there is no need to twist oral or anything into a sinful way, its all about the pleasure given to the one you love. Oral is as much sex as the rest is by this standard but hey thats just me ^^ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
trans? transdimentional? I didn't know they had medicine for that... *nearly peed herself loling was so unexpected* Actually, there are procedures where a man can carry a child. And it...oh nevermind...... Just wanted to pop in and add thats not true, genital procedures have no advanced that far, trust me ugh ><. the famous "pregnant man" your probably referring to is a pre-op transman who got pregnant by his lover by a near physically impossible event due to male hormones. So figured id mention this >.> Onto the main current debate though, i think marriage needs to be based on the basic premise of love between two consenting adults, who cares if you can breed or not. so an infertile woman cant get married by this "based on reproduction" theory? Just curious cause it seems that way. Then to the sexual side of things, when most people are together and in love then get to that point its usually a pleasurable bonding moment between two. there is no need to twist oral or anything into a sinful way, its all about the pleasure given to the one you love. Oral is as much sex as the rest is by this standard but hey thats just me ^^ much respect. Its all perspective about what constitutes sex and none any more or less valid than the other. To me,, sex must involve the action which was created for procreation...or else a similar penetration of sexual orifices..but thats just me as to love being the basis of marriage, thats ideal and I hope that is true,, but as far as a legal assessment of 'love' its a much more difficult standard to define. Not every female can conceive but the union of male and female is held to the standard it is because it is the union that creates the lives upon which society exists.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Arcamedees
on
Tue 04/20/10 06:10 AM
|
|
trans? transdimentional? I didn't know they had medicine for that... *nearly peed herself loling was so unexpected* Actually, there are procedures where a man can carry a child. And it...oh nevermind...... Just wanted to pop in and add thats not true, genital procedures have no advanced that far, trust me ugh ><. the famous "pregnant man" your probably referring to is a pre-op transman who got pregnant by his lover by a near physically impossible event due to male hormones. So figured id mention this >.> Onto the main current debate though, i think marriage needs to be based on the basic premise of love between two consenting adults, who cares if you can breed or not. so an infertile woman cant get married by this "based on reproduction" theory? Just curious cause it seems that way. Then to the sexual side of things, when most people are together and in love then get to that point its usually a pleasurable bonding moment between two. there is no need to twist oral or anything into a sinful way, its all about the pleasure given to the one you love. Oral is as much sex as the rest is by this standard but hey thats just me ^^ actually, it is true. Australia has doctors that can perform this operation. A PBS show had something on it. Also saw it on the news once. Involves some sort of artificial womb. Don't know the details. It wasn't a subject I had much interest in. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
interesting, may check this out.. still not quite the natural were needing but interesting.. good to see theres some early stage research to help out these issues. ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
