Healthcare Hysteria? Daschle Blasts Media Coverage

[ThaATrain10]

Let's stay on subject, folks..

[Stingray3440]

Talk for 5 mins and said NOTHING. Yet another professional poly. Go home Mr D and stay there. The adults will take if from here.

[EsotericThrone]

Wrong, that's only ONE of my alternatives. Communitarian mutual aid is another, if leftists would actually live what they preach. Further, if the state isn't granting insurance companies privileges, you're damn right the companies would be serving their customers as if they loved them. Where markets aren't competitive, look for the state interference making it that way. Regardless, a government "option" is inherently worse because the government, unlike insurance companies, can use COERCION.

[EsotericThrone]

The point was that I DON'T want healthcare from these people because they are corrupt and violent. If we ask for healthcare, they'll give us less autonomy as individuals.

[EsotericThrone]

You're every bit the patsy that they are, unfortunately. If you think our corrupt state is going to benevolently interfere in healthcare or run a public option, you're divorced from reality. Why would they be such warmongering, indifferent bastards in every instance, and then do healthcare right?

[angryislander56]

The amount of coverage afforded the reabaggers(smirks) is a TOTAL disgrace.

And the existence of the teabaggers(still smirking)

is down to faux news and the LITERAL rabble

rousing of the toxic trio of Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity

[rainin]

so with all the misinformation and corruption that goes on in the media,what would be a valid solution?

[2xtream]

we should elect a member from the community to oversee the programming. The problem is simple to fix. FREE SPEECH! All views must be represented without bias. Only then will the media be trust worthy again.

[Aaberg123]

Exactly how do you propose this to be implemented.

And how do you propose to avoid bias and conditioning in and of the elected community member?

[freesk8]

I'd say journalists are almost as corrupt and untrustworthy as members of Congress.

[easymike]

Aint dat da trut freesk8!

They're all in the same corporatist pocket.

Moreover, when did this bogus "fair and balanced" become the so called standard? Back in the day the ethic was to seek truth and report it. That required collecting and disseminating facts. Facts are rarely fare or balanced but they are sure useful to the citizenry when it come time to vote.

Facts don't always help corporations create consumers though.

[freesk8]

Nor do they help politicians get votes or corporate campaign contributions.

Journalism swallowed a bad philosophy in the 70's, I think. It went from seeking to be as close as possible to reporting the objective truth, to assuming that there is no objective truth to be discovered. That all perspectives are equally valid, and that there are no lies. Instead, there is only a struggle for power, and lying is ok.

Most journalists no longer believe there is a truth out there to be found.

[easymike]

Hence they developed the "fair and balanced " bullshit meaning stupidity is just as valid as intelligent discourse. Except stupidity sells better and opinion is easier to produce so they get more air time and ink .

There are still a few journalistic dinosaurs left to breed in the universe. I'm one, maybe there's a chance.

You're the first person I've met on youtube to grok this fully freesk8.

[freesk8]

Agreed. Send me a private message with info or a link on how I can read your journalism and you will gain a new reader.

I love your use of the verb "grok." To know in fullness. I love Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land." "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is a good one as well.  Very libertarian! :)

[Aaberg123]

To be honest, what Fox News has done lately, with the protesters, is borderline Gonzo journalism.

[freesk8]

I was one of those protesters. I am also a "tea bagger."

But I don't watch Fox News, so I really don't know what manner of abuse they subjected the truth to in this case.

I just know that Fox did not create the Tea Party movement, and they did not create the town-hall meeting backlash against the D's health care changes.

I'm sure their coverage was distorted, but I was at some of these events, and I know what went on.

What kinds of things did Fox report that you think is in error?

[m0nkeybl1tz]

So you guys think that because this guy disagrees with you, he's a Nazi, deserves to be fired and/or set on fire? And you're criticizing him because HE's biased?

I agree with truthadvocate that he's basically saying ignore the dissenters, and plow ahead regardless of public sentiment (which does seem to be Obama's plan) but at the same time, these people seem opposed to healthcare at all costs, so if you listen to them, nothing will ever get accomplished.

[Darkhorse21x]

ChUnKyBuTt, WhAt Is ThIs CaPs LoCk BuTtOn YoU SpEaK oF?

iM nOt VeRy CuMpOoTuR LiTrAtE LiKe YoOaWrE

[Darkhorse21x]

Tom believes that the White House and Congress must QUASH ANY DISSENT (those who would distort and destroy the debate) from the OUTSIDERS. The REALITY is that the MEDIA are the ones who are destroying the debate with their distortive spin. If this JackAss isn't TOSSED OUT on his ASS in the next election then I guess you do deserve to be stomped on by the jack booted NAZI'S

[chunkybutt420]

i think your caps lock is broken

[Hopeful71]

" I guess you do deserve to be stomped on by the jack booted NAZI'S"

There is that calm rational debate we were all hoping we could have...

[St00sh13]

Obama was voted in by one of the largest majorities ever in American history.

He is mandated to push through his reforms by the majority that elected him on the promise of those reforms.

Bush only just had a majority and still pushed through his war-mongering nonsense!

[Darkhorse21x]

Let me sum up Tom, Civil Rights movement was Confrontational, Misinformed, Crazy. I guess if you were RICH, PRIVILEDGED and WHITE, I could see where you might get that impression.

Tom says that protest over Vietnam and Iraq is; Emotional, full of Mistruths and Allegations. This plays to his constituents but is almost ambiguous enough to be taken as supportive of dissent against the wars of America. But we know where Tom stands.

[Darkhorse21x]

Did these IDIOTS actually say (2:50) that there is a PROBLEM with REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. Could you be any more out of touch with REALITY than that? If that is the modicum of rational discussion that is taking place INSIDE the auditorium.... then BURN THAT SUKKA DOWN.

[truthadvocate]

This guy is saying how the debate & discussions are important, and in the same sentence is basically saying that Democrats should ignore the objections and move forward. Does anyone else see this?

[Hopeful71]

"saying that Democrats should ignore the objections and move forward."

So when a minority loudly vocalizes their objection to a governmental decision the proper action is to give them what they want?....Whew, thank god the protesters of the Iraq War stopped that thing before it started. We would be stuck in a real quagmire otherwise.

[truthadvocate]

That's a great example. We should not have gone into Iraq. The problem in Washington DC is that both sides listen to themselves & nobody else. As they say in the movie "white man can't jump," they listen, but they don't hear. You don't have to do what the minority tells you to do. But we would all benefit if people actually understood fully all sides of the debate. When they hear their own party member describe the opposing view, they think they understand the opposing view.

[St00sh13]

"... Democrats should ignore the objections and move forward ..."

Yeh, they should do what Bush did, because Bush listened to Democrats, studied their objections and took some changes on board.

Puh-lease!

[truthadvocate]

Did I say Bush listened to & fully understood opposing view points? No I did not. I don't think there's a single politician that does. All the more reason, we should not put our faith in government.

[truthadvocate]

Protesters outside don't have an hour and a half to discuss their concerns. That's why their words seem harsh. All they can show is their disapproval and show it strongly. "Being informed is important"? Then read some Austrian economics. Obama and the Democrats are as misinformed on economics as they can possibly be.

[Darkhorse21x]

Between the lines:

Tom thinks that if you don't agree with his point of view you are not knowlegeable and well informed as he wishes you were.

What the hell is "so hyperbolic"? Tom. Is this information we are getting under a curve?

Thanks Tom for defining protesters with placcards (OUTSIDERS) as CRAZY and the auditorium crowd (INSIDERS) as the sane rational ones because I had no idea!

[eirefrance]

I'll give it a shot; death panels (there aren't any), Obamacare (it isn't), healthcare=fascism (what? I don't even know where to start), a govt-run insurance company=govt-run health care (How do you explain something so basic to someone who won't listen?). So, yeah, you've got realistic objections to healthcare reform, lets hear them. Cause all I've ever heard is chicken little screaming his diapered little head off about boogiemen.

[freesk8]

When govt has a monopoly on health insurance (which is the ultimate goal of "reform" these days) then the govt will decide which medicines and treatments are covered, and hence which will be available. These amount to "death panels" even if they are not targeted at individuals. Govt health care is an element of socialism, and fascism is one brand of socialism.

When govt runs health care, it will be like the VA hospitals or the DMV. I wouldn't send a dog to one of those.

[GeminiPrimeX]

You do realize just how offensive your comments are for those of us who have free healthcare. The laws of European countries say that the funds must be spent on the best care available. That´s the point of the system, you pay taxes so that everyone can have the best healthcare possible. And the to compare us to fascists or communists. You do realize that most europeans have lived in fear of those two systems for a very long time. To compare us to them is ignorant, arrogant and just plain nasty.

[freesk8]

I had no intention of offending, but I also stand by what I said. I will not limit my discussion because it might be "offensive." I think your claiming to be offended is an attempt to silence me without answering my arguments. Well, I do not feel guilty for pointing out the truth that nationalized health care is an element of socialism and that fascism is one form of socialism. These are both true.

To compare them is merely to use one's rational mind. Is that what you mean to shut down?

[GeminiPrimeX]

You miss the point. But if you want arguments, I shall be as simple as possible. The healthcare in Euope, Japan, Australia and New Zeeland is, according to research, superior to that of The US. Not only is the healthcare superior, it´s also available for everyone, regardless of income and such. This system was chosen through a democratic process. That is my other point. We are democracies, not socialists or fascists. And the US want the same system since they elected Obama for president

[freesk8]

I don't miss the point.  You are trying to use guilt to get me to shut up. It didn't work.

Health care in all these nations has longer waiting lines, worse outcomes (most of the time) more empty beds, less access to diagnostic equip, less choice and higher costs for equivalent care than a free market would have. Access for the poor is just as bad if not worse. Frasier Inst. has a good report proving this.

Democracy is the tyranny of the majority. I defend individual rights, as in a republic.

[GeminiPrimeX]

You do realize that the US places very poorly in statistics regarding quality of healthcare. And that includes waiting lines, outcomes, empty beds, access and so on. I have had some dealings with your Frasier Inst. Any organization that refuses independent peer- reviews are often full of BS, and they know it, hence their refusal to be peer- reviewed in the first place. But I dont care what health- system the US has. But I will not be called a fascist by someone who wont even check their facts.

[freesk8]

Cato Inst. also has good stats on international health care.

Why did the Prez of France come to the US for his cancer surgery? Why do thousands of Canadians come to the US each year for care?

It's really absurd to say that the govt can provide almost any product or service better than the private sector can.

I never called you a fascist. All I said was that a fascist would tend to advocate national health care.

So would other socialists.

Perhaps you are a "democratic socialist?"

[GeminiPrimeX]

Since I do advocate national healthcare for my country, I would be a fascist in your eyes. Despite the fact that I also support democracy, something a fascist opposes. And the government doesn't have to supply health care. Where I live we have many private practices, but they are financed through taxes and must care for anyone. The Cato inst. is somewhat biased in a sense that they try to prove a pre- existing notion rather then examining the actual data with objectivity. Oh, I am a liberal.

[freesk8]

I think I would call you a democratic socialist. A fascist is a racist socialist. I do not think you are racist.

I am a classical liberal, or a libertarian. I am socially tolerant, against foreign military entanglements and fiscally conservative. I favor minimal govt.

Democracy is a two-edged sword.

I fear that private health care will be outlawed in the US, as it is in Canada. I believe we have a right to a free market in health care. Our rights to Liberty + Property = Free Market.

[GeminiPrimeX]

No, I am a proper liberal. One who has read The Wealth of nations on several occasions. And since I am a liberal and has full understandings of a free market, I also know that the marketplace shouldn't care one bit about capital or companies. The free market deals only with consumers, and the power they hold. My defense for healthcare is that it works. Some things should be available for all humans, regardless of economy. Like education, healthcare, law enforcement, just no name a few.

[freesk8]

I agree that education, health care, police, etc. should be more available to the poor, but the question is, how best to make it more available to the poor? One option is to tax the rich and have the govt provide it. But I think the poor will be better served by having the govt place less of a drag on the economy. This would create more jobs and more wealth, than if wealth is redistributed and it's growth stunted. Educational choice makes ed better for the poor. Same with health care.

[GeminiPrimeX]

Well, where I live we dont have any actual poverty as such. But a society is never static, taxation is the preferred method to assemble funds to meet the changes in a society. During the current recession many people wouldn't be able to see doctor, go to school and so on, if it always had to be paid by the individual. Taxation can also boost economy by building infra- structure, offering additional education when needed and paying for the sick so companies wont have to. It´s give and take.

[freesk8]

I do not believe that you live in a nation with no poverty. None of those exist.

Taxation is a necessary evil for the essential functions of govt, like police, courts and military. But for almost all other things, the private sector does it better and cheaper. Even roads are better as toll roads. Then people who drive less don't subsidize those who drive more.

Individuals should pay for education and health care, and pvt charities should help the poor.

Taxation is a net drag on the economy.

[GeminiPrimeX]

well, according to international studies, my country has no poverty. Even if I personally can disagree with that. And yes, taxation can be a necessary evil, the emphasis being placed on necessary. But you lessen the evil if the people have a strong say in what the taxes are spent on. Would you say to a industrial company that they have to pay for transport? And how would the company raise money to pay for the toll? Charities are nice, but they weaken during recessions.

[freesk8]

I place the emphasis on the evil of taxation. Many see it as a blessing, as long as it comes from others.

Is there anything that it is moral for a majority to do that is immoral for an individual to do? If so, how does being in a majority make it OK?

An industrial co should pay all of the costs of transport, including a share of roads ocean ports and air facilities to the extent that they use them. Tolls are passed on to consumers in product costs.

Recessions are shorter with less govt.

[GeminiPrimeX]

So ordinary people should pay double tolls? It is moral to set aside yourself for the greater good. I dont mind paying taxes provided it comes to good use. I dont even have to benefit from it myself as long as someone else does. We are social primates, and that means that we must be able to cooperate. A society is a group of individuals who take a common responsibility for the things they have in common. If taxation provides the means to better achieve that then I wont evade my duties.

[freesk8]

People should pay tolls when they travel, and if they buy products that come from afar, they should pay a share of the tolls the trucks pay. And they will, via the price of the goods they purchase.

I don't mind people contributing to the "greater good" voluntarily, but you want to force OTHERS to pay as well. I love voluntary cooperation, but forced "cooperation" is an oxymoron.

The ends don't justify the means. Forced charity is another contradiction in terms.

We can achieve more peacefully.

[GeminiPrimeX]

But if the preferred method of cooperation is through taxation, it leaves you with three choices. you either change the system, if that fails you can accept it or you can move away. When you are living in a society you have to be able to compromise with the people you share that society with. To demand special treatment is a bit selfish, it makes you sound like a spoiled brat (not that I think you are that). Most societies want to pay taxes. As long as it goes to things they seem as worthwhile.

[freesk8]

If my preferred method of cooperation is through theft, is that OK? Is that just a "choice?"

Taxation is not a choice. It is forced on people.

Taxation may be necessary, but you can not call it cooperation, and it's not a choice. We have no right to force others to cooperate with us, even for good cause.

To live in society, you have to respect the rights of others, but that is no compromise because you have no right to violate their rights.

To insist on one's rights is not special treatment.

[GeminiPrimeX]

Taxation is a choice. You vote for a certain politician, and if said politician intends to carry out his or hers politics through taxation, you give them your support by voting for them. If you prefer a leader who wishes to remove taxation, then it´s your choice to support him or her instead. But in the end, majority rules. If you dont like that, you dont have to live where you do. But you can not force your view of society when society freely chooses something else. And they have chosen taxes.

[freesk8]

You seem to place a high value on democracy. But what if a majority of say, mostly white people, vote to steal all the assets of or kill the black minority? That is still democratic, but it yields a totally unethical outcome. My point? That democracy is only a means to an end of justice. The real goal is the defense of individual rights, especially minority rights, and the ultimate minority is the individual. Democracy is only good when it defends those rights. Else it is only mob rule.

[GeminiPrimeX]

I do value democracy and cooperation highly. But all humans and societies must obey on principal. And that is that every human being has the right to do whatever he or she pleases, providing she doesn't harm anyone else. it´s only a democracy if everyone benefits from it. As I said earlier, a society is a group of individuals who take a common responsibility for the things they have in common. Democracy is merely the tool used to better take on that responsibility.

[freesk8]

I love your definition of Liberty, above, and it seems we agree. Democracy is only good if it is limited: the majority must never be able to violate the rights of any minority. Democracy is a limited tool, for use in selecting representatives, or directing the state in it's legit function of protecting rights of individuals.

But it is too broad to say that govt may do whatever the majority deems to be in the common interest. That is giving too much power to the majority.

[GeminiPrimeX]

No one has the right to violate the rights of anyone. Where I live it would even violate our constitution. We have gay marriages, in church, because if the church says no, they would violate our constitution. If a politician violates the constitution, or in any way interferes with matters he or she is not allowed to do( like the private sector), they could go to prison. I never met anyone here who doesnt want to pay taxes. We talk about how high taxes should be, or what they should be spent on

[freesk8]

What about the right to freedom of association? I'm an atheist, and against racism, and for gay marriage, but a church is a private association. It's members are free to exclude gays or even blacks if they choose. I'd picket and boycott such a church, but it violates the members' rights to freedom of assoc. for the govt to prohibit their racism.

It's fine if people want to pay taxes, but I'll bet even in your country there are those who do not. Do you force them? Yes. That's violence.

[GeminiPrimeX]

As I said earlier everyone has the right to do whatever they want as long as they dont hurt anyone. Discrimination hurts people and thus is illegal. I suppose there are people who dont want to pay taxes, but are as you say, forced to do so. But how many people would suffer if there where no taxes? Not many people can pay the 15 000 dollars per term and child for school. Or some 70 000 dollars for surgery. A society without taxes would be like Monaco, where only millionaires can afford to live.

[freesk8]

When you choose a spouse, did you discriminate against those of your same sex? Did you choose someone of your same race as most do? Did this hurt those not chosen? These are all personal choices. They have to do with freedom of association. This freedom of assoc. extends to all private groups. You and I may not like exclusion based on race, sex, etc., but pvt assoc is a right. Govt must treat us equally, but pvt asocs have the right.

Lower taxes means better employment for the poor.

[GeminiPrimeX]

I can hardly choose a spouse of the same sex since I am heterosexual, that was a weak metaphor. Your sexuality is innate in you and falls under the category of things physically impossible to change. No, I will not allow discrimination in any form. If I must choose between the rights of those those discriminated or private associations, the associations loose. I have no problems with high or low taxes. My point was that you must be very rich in order to live in a society with no taxes at all.

[freesk8]

My point is that you get to choose based on whatever criteria you like. You can choose based on sex (as you did if you are a married heterosexual) or race or age or whatever. It is sexism or racism to do so, and it is totally your business and the govt should never tell you whom you can or can't marry. This is why I support gay marriage.

But all private associations must be allowed by govt to discriminate. Good people like you and I should boycott, but we must not resort to the law.

[freesk8]

My other point is that society would be better for the poor with low taxes than for the rich. The lifestyle of the rich is not significantly affected by high taxes. They can still afford their yachts and Porsches. But under a regime of high taxes, less economic activity occurs because marginal projects are rendered unprofitable by the taxation. This means jobs are harder to come by for the poor. Zero taxes are not feasible, but 20% of GDP is better than 40% for the poor.

[freesk8]

When taxes are high, govt also has more power. When govt has more power, and there are more regulations, the rich have the ability to influence legislation in their favor. This helps the rich stay rich with less risk and effort and reduces the ability of the poor to start competitive businesses and get richer. There is greater income group "churn" in countries with more limited govt than in more socialistic ones.

If you want to help the poor, you want less govt overall, not more.

[GeminiPrimeX]

I have no arguments against your latest exchange. But low taxes wont be enough. You must also have a strong educational system that is equally available to all. So that everyone has roughly the same starting point in life, regardless of their families income. But overall I agree with your latest exchange to me.

[freesk8]

I'm a math teacher. I agree that educ. is the key. But how best to educate the poor? Private schools are better and, on average CHEAPER! My solution is to privatize all schools and allow them to compete to improve their quality. Then give a taxpayer-funded scholarship only to the poor. Maybe the bottom 25%. Run the schools as single-location, private non-profits, with local, parental boards.

This would make them responsible to needs of parents, diverse, and locally focused.

[GeminiPrimeX]

Didn't know you where a teacher, nice to meet a colleague. Although I teach history, social science, cultural science, geography, english and swedish (I live in Sweden). We actually have a similar system. But every student is given a sum of money (financed through taxes) and then they can choose whatever school they like. The best schools get the most students, and makes the most money. The upside is that it´s available to everyone. Incidentally, our healthcare works in the same way.

[freesk8]

Always nice to meet an educator.

The element of choice and school competition your system has are wonderful and I would love to have them in the US. Our system is a semi monopoly controlled by state (and increasingly federal) govt. You are forced to attend school (truancy laws) and you may only attend the school in your district. Private school is available, but mostly religious. A few home-school, and this has the best outcomes in the US!

More choice in health care is better as well.

[GeminiPrimeX]

Thank you for your kind words. We used to have a similar system as the US, but gave it up long ago. My older colleagues said that our union was against it, since it would mean that schools that did bad would loose students, and thus business. It did happen, a good thing too. I must work hard to insure that my school draws in students Of course we also share in the profit if we succeed. But I think the students benefit the most. Had we stuck to your system, I fear things would turn for the worse.

[eirefrance]

C'mon, freesk8, I could just mock your idiocy, but you know how ridiculous that statement is. Govt fire departments are an element of socialism. Eating food is an element of socialism. Calling something "an element of socialism" is ridiculous. I want some serious criticism. Tell me why you're ACTUALLY against govt run healthcare. Give me something tangible, not this babytalk.

[freesk8]

Govt fire departments should be privatized. Eating food is individual. You can not eat for me. So eating is not socialism. Growing food on govt land by govt workers IS socialism, and we have seen that private farms are more productive and efficient and produce better food.

For similar reasons, govt health care would produce lower quality health care, longer waiting lines, higher costs for similar service, and impede innovation.

Duh.

[JennyFarlopez]

Police and justice should be privatized too! If you can't pay for it, you don't deserve it!

[freesk8]

Although I am tempted by anarchism, I don't go quite that far. I'm a minarchist, and support a govt funded police force and courts. But I do think that if a criminal can pay for his arrest, trail and incarceration, he should be forced to do so instead of the innocent taxpayer.

The only legit function of govt is the defense of our equal, individual rights to life, liberty and property. That right is equal despite poverty of individuals.

[eirefrance]

Frankly, when all you have to say is "Govt health care is an element of socialism, and fascism is one brand of socialism." it makes me think that nothing must be wrong with govt run healthcare. Otherwise, you would have a less ridiculous criticism.

[freesk8]

YOU brought up fascism first in your post above. I was merely responding to that.

You said "healthcare=fascism (what?..."

I'm explaining the connection between govt-run health care and fascism.

I have many other criticisms of govt-run health care.

You can't criticize me for the act of attempting to answer your own question.

[eirefrance]

I brought up fascism because I was pointing out the fallacies used by opponents of healthcare reform. When you defended that fallacy, I responded as the situation called for; a combination of mockery and disappointment. "Govt health care is an element of socialism, and fascism is one brand of socialism." has no meaning and is no argument.

[freesk8]

I proved it was not a fallacy.

Fascists advocate national health care.

So do the other brands of socialism, from state communism/socialism to democratic socialism.

National health care is socialistic.

This is why others have related it to fascism.

It is more accurate and less inflammatory to relate national health care to socialism, but saying that it is fascism is technically correct.

You may ignore my meaning. That is your choice.

[eirefrance]

Fascists advocate lots of things, including putting criminals in jail, having a standing army and nationalism. These are central tenets of fascism, yet lots of other govts also use these tools, yet are not fascists. What is important is what distiniguishes fascism from other govt systems. That is why I mentioned that fascists also eat. Just because someone does something, does not automatically associate that thing with that group. Unless you can show how national health care is actually

[eirefrance]

fascist without using simple association, than you have earned mockery. Yes, national health care is advocated by "socialism" of all kinds. Unfortunately, socialism is a word so broad in its meaning as to be useless in discussion. There is no non-socialist govt. Govt by its definition and existence is socialist.

[freesk8]

All fascists are socialists, but not all socialists are fascists. Fascism is merely one brand of socialism. You are right that advocating national health care is not limited to the fascist kind of socialist.

Not all govt is socialist. That part of govt that defends individual rights to life, liberty and property isn't socialistic, it is individualistic. A govt that's power is limited to doing just that isn't socialistic.

Our US Const. sets up a republic, not a democratic form of socialism.

[voyeurdug]

Would expect, in the next few weeks, to see doctors and nurses (& some actors posing as such) come out on one side or the other of healthcare reform... only because in comment streams like this, folks commenting have noted they aren't being heard from.

[Darkhorse21x]

These JACKASSES are displaying BOTTLED WATER... The Sourge of Planet Earth. Slap anyone who drinks bottled water if you can pry their head out of thier ass