What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
138 Comments
- Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -11/+28"How about the fact that 40 million Americans can't afford health insurance and are just one bit of random bad luck away from being buried in debt for the rest of their lives?"
Excellent example! This has actually been studied quite well, and the problem was created in the 19th century. Around that time, medical schools were introduced. Doctors tried to limit competition by limiting the number of students, but that didn't work. This led to increased competition and decreased prices for medical care, which made many doctors very sad.
Then they hit upon a brilliant idea: the petitioned the government to ban all competition, by forcing anyone who practices medicine to do so only with approval from the cartel's board, made up of course by doctors. In this way, competition could be limited by granting permission to a few doctors only; anyone attempting to practice without this permission would then be arrested.
Oh, one thing I forgot. The cartel didn't put the plan in QUITE those terms when they lobbied for this law. They said something about guaranteeing the quality of medical care and protecting patients from malpractice... that sort of thing.
Anyway, the result was quite successful! Thanks to the cartel, which we now know as the AMA, the number of doctors in the United States is 26% LOWER than it was in 1900, although the population has nearly tripled.
Reference:
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1547&id=71 - ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -9/+24Add to that the issues that arise with health insurance. In most (all?) states, in order to start an insurance business you need a license from the state (for the same reasons as noted above with medical licensing). This restriction of competition raises prices, as does government restrictions on how insurance companies determine their rates. The result is a less-risky individual is subsidizing the medical costs of more-risky individuals. Additionally, when the cost of a good or service is not borne by the consumer, prices tend to rise (e.g., healthcare, higher-education).
"Canada has a nationalized health care system"
Canada (like Cuba and North Korea) makes it *illegal* to purchase private healthcare for yourself or a loved one.
"...and not only do Canadians pay LESS on health care per capita"
Canada spends less on health care than the U.S. by arbitrarily limiting the number and availability of doctors, specialists, operating room hours, high-tech equipment, diagnostic tests, drugs and expensive treatments. In short, the government limits the *supply* of health care in order to hold costs down. The result: shortages, rationing, and long wait lists.
"...they have a higher life expectancy too."
A nation's average life expectancy is the result of a multitude of factors. For example, the average life expectancy of a black male in the U.S. is 68 years, while a man of asian descent has an average life expectancy of 81 years.
The best indicator of the quality of a health care system is not average life expectancy, but the health outcomes of those *who are already sick*. On that score, the U.S. does better than Canada. 25% of those diagnosed with breast cancer in the U.S. die from it - while the mortality ratio in Canada is 28%. Similarly, the U.S. prostate cancer mortality ratio is 19% while 25% of those diagnosed with prostate cancer in Canada die from it.
Canadians wait ... and wait ... and wait. ... And sometimes they die while waiting for *free* government health care. As the Canadian Supreme Court said, "access to a waiting list is not access to health care." - Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -10/+25"Rational" here has a slightly more technical meaning than "sensible." If a person does a rain dance, we'd say he isn't being very sensible, but he's acting in a perfectly rational fashion: namely, he knows he wants rain; he believes that dancing will bring it; therefore he dances.
Anyone who advocates government intervention is basically saying that the people are a bunch of rain-dancing ninnies, and that the thing to do is to stop their rain dances, using brute force if necessary. The answer, implied in the article, is that rain-dancing isn't some sort of random spasm; it was consciously chosen by the person for a reason, and he's happier dancing for rain than rotting in jail.
If you want to tell him that rain-dances don't work, that's fine. If you want to sell him your services seeding the clouds with silver iodide, that's fine too. Or you can just leave him alone. He'll stop dancing when he gets tired, or when he realizes it isn't working, or when it starts raining... - MyNameIsSIMPSON, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16"ExCornelius: I hear about the infamous "waiting list" all the time from Americans, but somehow, I never hear any complaints about the Canadian health care system coming from actual Canadians. Either they all died waiting, or it's not nearly as bad as the American right-wing propaganda machine makes it out to be."
I'm from Canada and I'm complaining. Waitng times are attrocious. If you need hip surgery etc. expect to suffer in pain for more than a year before you can have it taken care of. Even if you would like to have it done now and are willing to pay to have it fixed at a private clinic , its not an option. This Isn't the case in America.
In America if you want to get an mri done just to make sure everything is ok you can book an appointment at a private clinic and have one done. In Canada you have the same option, book an appointment in an American private clinic since the government, for the most part, is refusing to allow private clinics to open. The belief amoung the intelligentsia is, if the poor can't afford it, those who are better off should'nt have it either. Supposedly this has something to do with justice but it does'nt make much sense to me. - pcking1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14lol, the fed had inflated throughout the 1920's (theres a reason they were roaring, makes one wish for the 90's!). And when the market corrected our fearless leaders in Mordor decided that raising prices was the answer. If you want the whole story...
"America's Great Depression" Murray Rothbard
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf - poipoipoi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10It is clear that at least half of you HAVE NO CLUE what rational means in this context.
- edraven, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12The Fed intervened when the stock market crashed, and they therefore turned a recession into the great depression.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/2002/20021108/default.htm - ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17"You seem to have forgotten the rampant quackery that existed prior to government regulation."
Fraud is a crime, so regulation is moot. Barring that, caveat emptor. - ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Care to cite an example?
- chickentonight, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10This is the best (and most rational :-P) discussion on digg for weeks!
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16Still waiting on that example of market failure...
- tehgooch, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12"ExCornelius: I hear about the infamous "waiting list" all the time from Americans, but somehow, I never hear any complaints about the Canadian health care system coming from actual Canadians. Either they all died waiting, or it's not nearly as bad as the American right-wing propaganda machine makes it out to be."
My grandfather waited over two years for a hip replacement. They waited for it to get so bad that he had to be sedated to stop the pain. The BC health ministry claims "If you need surgery or treatment that is not an emergency, you will be placed on a wait list. An individual who needs emergency surgery does not go on a waitlist; they receive treatment without delay." and they mean it. More information here: http://www.hlth.gov.bc.ca/waitlist/
-edit-
"If posed with a choice, I'd rather die on a list waiting for health care that I might be able to receive than die without even a chance of receiving it because I can't afford it."
But would you rather die on a wait list than recieve treatment? - hobophobe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Yet Mises would say they are completely rational for commenting based on their belief that they do. He'd also say that using CAPS to emphasize part of a sentence is rational since you believe it's effective. And also that it's rational for you to say such a thing without bother to explain what rational does mean in this context.
In this context rational simply means what it does in any context. Given some initial condition, the procession of thought follows the rules of logic.
*Belief of person A: "The sky is pink and anyone who says otherwise deserves to be punched in the face."
*Statement of person B: "The sky is not pink."
*Person A punches person B in the face.
This action is rational given the belief of person A. The belief of person A is only irrational in this context if they cannot see the factual reasons discounting their belief when they are presented. If they look at the sky and see pink, it's rational for them to continue to hold the belief that it is pink; if they see another situation, such as C & D, where C thinks to punch people if they deny that fire is cold, and D says fire is not cold, gets punched. A knows fire is hot and realizes it is not right for C to punch simply over this mistaken belief. If A is rational they will discontinue punching people who say the sky is not pink. - Aggaman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Market failures tend to be the result of collective action problems. Like the old "Prisoner's Dilemma" example rational action on the part of each individual will lead to a suboptimal outcome.
For example, it is currently impossible for individuals to charge companies who pollute and adversely affect their health. There's no way I could know which company was doing what damage to my health. The air is a "commons" and this leads to a collective action problem. Every company has an incentive to pollute to gain a competitive advantage because they aren't paying anyone for the environmental damage they cause. This means that they will produce too much of their goods (since part of the cost is "externalized") and everyone will end up with fouled air.
The same goes with the police. Private markets will underfund policing since the presence of police produces positive externalities that those who pay for the police cannot charge those who have not (i.e. the presence of a cop in your neighbourhood exercises some deterrent effect on criminals whether or not you've paid for the cop).
Anything in which there are significant externalities will have this effect. If there's a mosquito plague that can only be stopped by spraying the whole town, then good luck in getting people to pay for it through a private market. Once again, the rational thing to do is not to pay and hope that everyone else does.
Those are market failures.
It's the result of the necessary incompleteness in the scheme of property rights. There's no point howling that a complete system of property rights would solve this problem, because such a system is at present a practical impossibility.
It's a wonder that people still argue about this plain fact. The only people who do are the Libertarian fanatics because they know it refutes their political system. The cranks at the Mises institute need to be put away with the astrologers and the UFO conspiracy nuts once and for all. - hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It would seriously help if Digg had bold or italics or both.
- edraven, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11He doesn't assume that at all, did you read the article? "By neither science, nor by their postulates, nor ethically do statists or statist economists have a privileged status that justifies the use of power over others. If they have such a good scientific case for masses of human beings consistently and persistently shooting themselves in their feet, let them make it through education. Let them persuade the great unwashed to change their ways. If they see the light that the masses don't, let them spread the light peacefully. Let us see this intellectual elite make a great deal of money exploiting the so-called irrationalities in markets. Let them become speculators, not salaried employees of the taxpayer. Let them capitalize on their knowledge via education, not coercion."
- azermuffin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If you are looking for the freeest economy in the world it isn't Somalia. It is Hong Kong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom - Ryland, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9"Can you give an example of "market failure"? You'll have to think pretty hard, to find one that doesn't turn out to be government's fault in the first place."
Give me a hard one next time. How about the dot-com boom? That market failed because of stupid venture capitalists dumping tons of money on people with worthless ideas. The government had nothing to do with it. Put down your copy of Atlas Shrugged and pick up a newspaper. - hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Except for in order to have courts of law, you have to have law, which is government intervention.
- autodogmatic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The market cannot act independently or differently than the individuals in the market. There is no market brain or market will. There are no collective market decisions apart from the actions of the individuals in said market.
- joel3000, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Markets are made up of people. It is well known that most people are not rational in the sense that classical economics has defined it. For example, people are irrational judges of risk. They fear dying in a commercial jet crash, but not the much more likely possibility of dying in a car crash. They think they're going to be the ones who make money at a casino, completely ignoring the readily available information that shows the contrary (guess who paid for that flashy casino - sucker!).
There is an old saying: "bad money drives out good." If a producer in a mature market finds a way to cheat, for example dumping toxic waste directly into a river instead of paying to properly treat it, he can drive his competitor out of business and then raise his prices. But you can't protect against that without a trusted regulator.
The agency best suited to play the role of trusted regulator is the government. If you personally don't like the job the government is doing perhaps its time for you to get off your ass and get involved, citizen. It's still a free country, you can make a difference. - edraven, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Unfortunately, I doubt that even 10% of those on digg have heard of Adam Smith
- nathanfl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5In most areas business are forbidden to compete with government enterprises! Talk about serving the customer, first the government robs them, then it delivers whatever it wants to them with doulbe heaping scoopfuls of bad service. And yes, road socialism, this one always gets brought up. But what isn't brought up is how for mosdt of civilisation, roads have been privately built. Only in modern times has the government monopolized the creation of thoroughfares in most jurisidictions. And the Somalia answer, businesses have been moving there, and it is experience an increase in the standard of living many times that of which it had under government rule. Plus, it has been the target of governments all over Africa, as well as campaigns sponsored by the UN, for creating a government. Not to mention the fact that America attacked the place. Why do people constantly want to turn to violence to solve all of their problems with peaceful exchange will work?
- wm2010russ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I live in Richmond, and highway 895 is a private highway- and it works. Its owned by an Australian company.
- cbenko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"Some markets do not function because structural reasons make it impossible for enough players to enter to make it a working market. Do you see working free markets for roads, electricity, water, nuclear waste disposal, or even airplane flights? No. They don't exist anywhere."
With all due respect, I recommend you do a little more research before you make such claims:
http://www.autostradeint.com/
That is a link to the operators of the Dulles Greenway, a privately owned toll road that connects Leesburg, Virginia to a state run toll road. It is over ten years old and had some financial trouble before 2000 but now it is booming. I use it every weekday to drive from my house in Brambleton, Va to Washington D.C. It is succeeding even though the "public" roads offer many alternatives. Ironically, those roads are improving significantly as well because private developers have been paying for the expansions so that they may increase traffic to their shopping centers and businesses.
This is an example of the "market" providing goods that the state has been unable to adequately supply. - ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"Warren Buffett said that if he were born anywhere else but the United States, he would not be nearly as successful. Why? Government insurance and other protections for banks, market regulation, tax-funded investment in infrastructure, and other "immoral" and "unjustified" interventions by the government."
So, if a guy knows how to leverage the power of the state for his own benefit, he can become fantastically wealthy. This is your argument for... what exactly? - Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14"You seem to have forgotten the rampant quackery that existed prior to government regulation."
You seem to be pretending that there isn't rampant quackery TODAY. Who are you trying to fool, exactly? The solution to quackery isn't cartelization. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The free market system is like a massively parrallel computer where each node is making decisions based on its own self interest. Trying to predict this behavior and controlling it through regulation tends to produce many unintended consequences, usually resulting in inefficiencies.
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5When it comes to random ***** happening, the evidence is pretty clear than individuals and private organizations respond much quicker and more effectively than government bureaucracies. The FEMA debacle in New Orleans should be enough to make even the most die-hard socialist question their beliefs. Of course, you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
- Goplat, on 10/12/2007, -14/+18How about the fact that 40 million Americans can't afford health insurance and are just one bit of random bad luck away from being buried in debt for the rest of their lives? Canada has a nationalized health care system, and not only do Canadians pay LESS on health care per capita, they have a higher life expectancy too. (So much for that myth that government is always more inefficient than the private sector.)
- Goplat, on 10/12/2007, -11/+15Smoove: You seem to have forgotten the rampant quackery that existed prior to government regulation. Do you know where the phrase "snake oil" came from? It was actually one of tons of phony "medicines" peddled in the 19th century.
- Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"The air is a commons."
You are mistaken. Well, it's fair to say that the world's oxygen supply is a "commons," but that doesn't impair the ability of the market to deal with pollution. Pollution doesn't instantly disperse throughout the globe. Within a half-mile of my home is a coal-fired electric plant, and I can tell you that the majority of its output lands right in my town, making our houses and laundry dingy, and smelling of sulfur when the weather is bad.
If our property rights were upheld properly by the government, we would be able to sue for the damage to our property, which would force them to take some sort of action--not because of the effects of acid rain in Mishawaka, but because of the immediate effects on the neighbors. - nathanfl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4ne0shell, something i noticed in your comment is that you state the author is trying to redefine rationality as a spectrum that he sits on is amusing. The whole point of the article is that man acts, and because he acts, he is rational. The fact that man makes an action means that to him, the action is rational. To prove that it is irrational means you have to apply your own subjective standards of rationality to the man. the author of the article may have been able to explain the point by comparing it to the theory of subjective value, which states that a given resources is valued differently by different people.
- pcking1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Murder violates your right to life, which is the exact same thing government intervention does. If you own your life they are the same thing, but to a different degree.
- dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Externalities such as air pollution are not solved by free markets where every member is rational and self serving. Unless, perhaps, you have buy the rights to pollute from some sort of organization representing the people affected by the pollution (such as the government). But that might be seen as government intervention. I didn't read every word of the article, but I found no mention of externalities, the very reason why the government must intervene.
They author has a strong point if we forget about externalities and look only at situations where the government acts to protect people from their own stupidity. Vote libertarian. - Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"For example, it is currently impossible for individuals to charge companies who pollute and adversely affect their health."
That's another government failure, not a market failure. In the 19th century, property owners WERE suing factories for depositing soot on their property, laundry, etc., and were WINNING. Business responded by (1) adopting cleaner-burning coal, and (2) investing in environmental forensics (to prove whose soot was really responsible).
But when the industrial revolution took off in the US, government decided that "progress" trumped property rights, and the courts started deciding in favor of the polluters. All the environmental progress was lost thanks to the government. - yllabianbitpipe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The biggest problem I see with this article is that it doesn't take into account the random nature of life. ***** happens for no reason. Even if people are supposedly acting "rationally", people don't control everything. Even if you have consumers and producers all acting like Mr. Spock, seeking to fulfill their needs, the act of someone happening upon a commercial on TV for example, is largely an accident... flipping across the right channel at the right time.
- 3dge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Why not help them out then? Adam Smith popularized the idea of the free market. If you've ever heard anyone mention the "invisibile hand" of the market (essentially the idea that the market is self-correcting), they're talking about Adam Smith. While not an authoritative resource, Wikipedia has a decent introduction to the man and his work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_smith
- ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"People actually WANT to tax themselves?"
People supporting taxation aren't taxing *themselves*, they're taxing others. How do I know this? Because one don't need to establish a government tax to voluntarily give away their own money. - nathanfl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Your argument is interesting but first, I would like to challenge you to point out an actual monopoly that exists without the government creating and sustaining it. You point out Microsoft but there are literally hundreds of competitors. Most of their competitors give their products away for free. For every Microsoft product out there, there is a pretty good, and in some cases significantly better, non-Microsoft product that fills the same role and is usually free. The fact that most consumers choose to go with Microsoft should speak volumes.
Regarding natural resources, I would like to point out the differences between forests in the south and forests in the west. Most forests in the west are managed by the government, and year after year they have shrunk. Most forests in the south are managed by companies, especially lumber companies, and they have significantly grown in size. This literally occurs over and over again across different industries. Another case in point is the oil industry. Proven oil reserves have significantly outpaced demand in increases year after year. In 1994 there were 750 billion barrels of proven reserves. Today, there are over 1.4 trillion barrels of proven reserves.
The other ironic statement about the free market having a short term view, and suggesting, however transparently, that the government has a long term view is hysterical. Take one look at the budget of the government, year after year debt loads increase dramatically. Google the national debt clock and watch it for five minutes and try to make that argument again. Also, the government took over management of money in 1913 (it had been doing this off and on over the years, destroying its value along the way), and the result today is that the American dollar has lost 99.5% of it's value.
Lastly, your claim that the government produces value unrecognized by the market is laughable. First, the government does not produce anything, it consumes. Businesses produce everything. A business succeeds when it finds and fulfils a want or a need that hasn't been met. Government succeeds when it grows. In cases that you are subliminally referring to as government value, businesses have been forbidden to compete in these arenas, therefore price cannot be determined, which means demand, resource allocation, and costs cannot be determined. It is funny that you mention the organization that destroys the most wealth in the world (the state) as an institution of value creation. - Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"Yet Mises would say they are completely rational for commenting based on their belief that they do."
Absolutely! Although Mises would also point out that everyone concerned might lie about their reasons. For example, some people post because they like to argue. Some post because they want to persuade others. Some post purely to create controversy--they're what we call "trolls." But every single poster will basically claim the best of motives, whether it's true or whether they're trolls.
So people who post on this thread are indeed behaving rationally. They desire... something: to learn; to persuade; to fight; to start fights; to hear themselves talk. Posting achieves that desire, so they do it.
Actually knowing what you're talking about is not necessarily required. Indeed, very few of the goals I mentioned involve actually knowing what you're talking about. So for many it would be irrational TO do one's homework, since it plays no role in achieving the desired end. - Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"Give me a hard one next time. How about the dot-com boom? That market failed because of stupid venture capitalists dumping tons of money..."
Actually, it was caused by the Fed's massive credit expansion in the 1990s. Austrian economists correctly diagnosed the boom, and predicted the bust, long before it peaked. But thanks for trying--feel free to try again. - wstrinz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"Neo-Liberal economics. nothing new here, not by a long shot."
Agreed
Whether or not everyone acts rationally, which is debatable, Its someone making a semantic arguement and calling it economic policy. It doesnt matter if someones actions are "rational", what matters if they are good for the economy. History shows, and almost all economists believe, that people will not act to help the economy. Everyone acts to maximize their utility; that is one of the basic tenents of economics. We can see where this is poor economic policy; take the classical "tradgedy of the commons" hypothetical as an example. - Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Economic growth is not the goal of economies. I'm not sure if you know this, but economists worry every day that economic growth will happen too quickly..."
If economics is a science, then its job is to be descriptive, not prescriptive. It should neither try to encourage nor limit growth.
As for making "stability" a goal, I'm afraid you just said that you're afraid I'll be too productive, and hence too prosperous, and you'd rather see measures put in place to hold me back for my own good. Thanks, but no thanks. - gpd209, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7It's interesting. If you read the article, you'll notice the author quotes Mizes like a theologian quotes the Book of John by chapter and verse. My guess is that they are not that different - ideologies to which many ascribe and then, after the fact, attempt to bolster their beliefs with the language of science, logic, and philosophy.
To drive home the comparison, I quote the Mizes website: "For Mises was able to demonstrate (a) that the expansion of free markets, the division of labor, and private capital investment is the only possible path to the prosperity and flourishing of the human race..." And then look at John 3:16 " For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life." - MyNameIsSIMPSON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"I like the FDIC, I like social security, and even though I am not on welfare, I like it and will cheerfully continue to help keep children from starving?"
The usual statist ***** that if you are a capatalist you must not give a damn about anyone else. If it were'nt for the state children would be begging on the streets, what a load of crap. I guess you have never heard of charity. If people were allowed to distribute their own incomes instead of the government they would be more apt to do it wisely giving to those who are truly needy rather than those looking for a free ride. Do you turn a blind eye to all the welfare abuse, is that acceptable losses.
If you like welfare and social security thats fine but I don't see why your likes are binding on me. I should be free to distribute my income in a manner as I see fit rather than the dictates of some philosopher king.
'Face it, you capitalist ***** need to be watched carefully. I haven't yet seen a one of you that lived in the real world."
Its you who lives in a fantasy world if you think that a bunch of elected politicians can just legislate all lifes problems away. They create far more than they solve.
They have been pouring more and more money into social programs for years but I don't see the problems going away meanwhile the free market continues to improve products while keeping the price down, in spite of the fact that taxes are sky high. - mousky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Give me a hard one next time. How about the dot-com boom? That market failed because of stupid venture capitalists dumping tons of money on people with worthless ideas. The government had nothing to do with it. Put down your copy of Atlas Shrugged and pick up a newspaper."
Actually, the market did not fail. It quickly corrected itself. That is the problem with your viewpoint: any time the market corrects itself, you view it as a 'failure'. In reality, market corrections are good things. The market sees a disconnect between the money invested and the probability of decent returns and promptly devalues all those investments. That is the market functioning properly. - nathanfl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Squidi, have you ever heard of the industrial revolution? Why has the West significantly outpaced the rest of the world in their economy? Precisely because of liberalisation of their economy. The booms in China and India are happening precisely because of liberalisation of the economy. Remember the Soviet Union?
- whackaxe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Neo-Liberal economics. nothing new here, not by a long shot.
- Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5OK, then: feel free to debunk to your heart's content! :popcorn:
-
Show 51 - 100 of 138 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is