RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
WHY Is Mitt Romney Trying to Kill Me? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=21753"><span class="small">Clancy Sigal, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Monday, 15 October 2012 08:33

Intro: "Under the influence of the painkiller Dilaudid, and dog-tired after another day of fighting for my life with my private health insurance company, I glimpsed Mitt Romney and his running-mate, Paul Ryan, entering my Los Angeles hospital room dressed in surgical gowns with scalpels in their hands ready to fatally operate on me."

Mitt Romney has pledged to repeal Obamacare; Paul Ryan wants to replace Medicare with a voucher system. (photo: Shannon Stapleton/Reuters)
Mitt Romney has pledged to repeal Obamacare; Paul Ryan wants to replace Medicare with a voucher system. (photo: Shannon Stapleton/Reuters)


WHY Is Mitt Romney Trying to Kill Me?

By Clancy Sigal, Reader Supported News

15 October 12

 

I'm critical of Obama's presidency, but my medical emergency convinced me that for Obamacare alone we must re-elect him

nder the influence of the painkiller Dilaudid, and dog-tired after another day of fighting for my life with my private health insurance company, I glimpsed Mitt Romney and his running-mate, Paul Ryan, entering my Los Angeles hospital room dressed in surgical gowns with scalpels in their hands ready to fatally operate on me.

It was a drug-induced hallucination, of course. But the mirage made me sit bolt upright in bed and, fully awake, start to rethink my previous, bitterly dissenting view of Barack Obama.

For the past year, I've been in a death spiral without knowing it. The occasional fainting spell, sprawls on the street and a dramatic weight loss were shrugged off as merely a cost of doing a writer's business. Denial is a most powerful analgesic. Even when paramedics first rushed me to the hospital, I angrily argued with the doctors.

But when a lightning-bolt sciatica pain, triggered by a car accident, brought me down like a bull under the matador's sword, more or less paralyzing the left side of my body, the health gods decided it was time to shut down my hubris. Like something out of the TV's "House" or "General Hospital", suddenly there were midnight ambulances, emergency room traumas, drip feeds, oxygen tubes up my nose, renal failure, suspected meningitis, pneumonia and a minor heart attack.

Thankfully, working as a team at my local Cedars-Sinai hospital, whole platoons of neurosurgeons, cardiologists, nurses, infectious disease experts, radiologists, physical therapists, pulmonologists and hospitalists (whatever they are) dragged me back from the edge. Emergency surgery in a special spinal unit was successful, and today I'm back on my feet - I'm a product of American medicine at its best.

Ah, if only the doctors were free to do their jobs!

My private insurance company, a subsidiary of Wellpoint Inc - America's largest "managed healthcare", for-profit company - interfered at almost every stage of my treatment. They were aggressive and shameless. At my most vulnerable, with tubes sticking out of me, they phoned my hospital room - kicking my anxiety level sky-high - to let me know that Wellpoint's profit-seeking radar had targeted me. The anonymous voice warned, with a kind of smiling threat, that they were on my case: meaning, some bureaucrat - was he or she even medically competent, or just an IT geek - in a far-off, distant corporate office believed that my treatment was violating a mysterious insurance algorithm.

Here in California, Wellpoint and its member plans are notorious, as Reuters reported, for "using a computer algorithm that automatically targeted [women] and every other policyholder recently diagnosed with breast cancer ... the insurer then [allegedly] canceled their policies based on either erroneous or flimsy information."

The practice is called rescission. To put it bluntly, the company collects your money when you're healthy, but cancels if you get sick. In the case of another insurance company, Health Net Inc, employees were actually paid bonuses based on how many cancellations were carried out; at other insurers, like Wellpoint, staff were praised in performance reviews. Wellpoint's California subsidiary, Anthem Blue Cross, has raised premiums capriciously by as much as 39%. Politically, Wellpoint is, in effect, a rightwing "political action group" that lobbies hard against healthcare reform - even calling upon employees to do their share. In other words, it's the ogre in the medicine cabinet.

Perversely, none of the bad stuff would have come down if my primary insurance had been traditional, government-paid Medicare, the closest America has to a single payer. But a quirk in my union benefits put me in the sweaty hands of Wellpoint. I wasn't threatened with recission, but almost daily, and sometimes several times daily, my doctors were interrogated about practically every measure they took to keep me alive. Again and again, I saw caregivers, even the most skilled and courageous, retreat with an embarrassed, impotent shrug of resignation that said, "what can I do; it's 'the system'?"

So I - and my courageous tiger wife - fought, wangled, yelled, protested until I ultimately squeezed past the algorithm. The surgeon of my choice skillfully removed the whatsit that was pressing on an inflamed nerve that had been beating up my spine, and I even won a little rehab time before the insurance computer forced my early discharge. Along the way, anguish over near-daily arguments with the faceless insurance hanging judges almost gave me another heart attack.

Need it be this way?

Obamacare - also known as the Affordable Health Care Act - isn't medical heaven, or single payer, or anything like the "socialized" NHS that kept me well for the 30 years I lived in the UK. The new law, an obvious compromise with the corporate sickness industry, still keeps us in the hands of private insurance companies. But when the law fully kicks in for the first time, all Americans - regardless of income and "preexisting medical conditions" - must have health coverage. Individuals up to the age of 26 are covered by their parents' plan. Low-income Americans will get subsidies to help them buy insurance, and doctors and hospitals will be paid for outcomes not "procedures". Starting in 2014, insurers are forbidden to deny coverage to anyone who has no workplace - the jobless and freelancers will be able to get a government-mandated, insurance plan; indeed, they must or pay a "fine". And under the new law, "federal parity" means mental healthcare will be more accessible to more people.

Granted, that all depends on this upcoming election day. If Romney and Ryan win - the latest polls tell us this is a real possibility - they, a vengeful Republican Congress and their insurance lobby allies have sworn to sabotage healthcare-for-all. As for repeal and replace, Mitt's prescription for uninsured folks is that emergency room care is a good enough substitute:

"We do provide care for people who don't have insurance ... If someone has a heart attack, they don't sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care."

Here and elsewhere, I have written bitterly attacking Obama's serial betrayals. He's no street-scrapper, our Barack. Prior to falling sick, I pined for a third-party candidate, and seriously thought about not voting. But a drug-induced vision of a Romney/Ryan medical hell changed my mind. On 6 November, I'm pulling the lever for Obama: my arrogant, self-sabotaging, drone-happy, compromise-addicted war president.

I never want to see Dr Romney in my hospital room again. Damn it, I want to live.



Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Will Ohio's H.I.G.-Owned E-Voting Machines Give Romney the White House? Print
Monday, 15 October 2012 08:27

Intro: "Electronic voting machines owned by Mitt Romney's business buddies and set to count the votes in Cincinnati could decide the 2012 election."

Electronic voting machines are vulnerable to security breaches. (photo: Alex Halderman/EQN)
Electronic voting machines are vulnerable to security breaches. (photo: Alex Halderman/EQN)


Will Ohio's H.I.G.-Owned E-Voting Machines Give Romney the White House?

By Bob Fitrakis, Harvey Wasserman, OpEdNews

15 October 12

 

lectronic voting machines owned by Mitt Romney's business buddies are set to count the votes in Cincinnati could decide the 2012 election.

The narrative is already being hyped by the corporate media. As Kelly O'Donnell reported for NBC's Today Show on Monday, October 8, Ohio's Hamilton County is "ground zero" for deciding who holds the White House come January, 2013.

O'Donnell pointed out that no candidate has won the White House without carrying Ohio since John Kennedy did it in 1960. No Republican has EVER won the White House without Ohio's electoral votes.

As we document in the e-book WILL THE GOP STEAL AMERICA'S 2012 ELECTION (www.freepress.org) George W. Bush got a second term in 2004 thanks to the manipulation of the electronic vote count by Ohio's then-Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell. Blackwell served as the co-chair of the state's committee to re-elect Bush/Cheney while simultaneously administering the election.

The widespread use of electronic voting machines from ES&S, and of Diebold software maintained by Triad, allowed Blackwell to electronically flip a 4% Kerry lead to a 2% Bush victory in the dead of election night. ES&S, Diebold and Triad were all owned or operated by Republican partisans. The shift of more than 300,000 votes after 12:20 am election night was a virtual statistical impossibility. It was engineered by Michael Connell, an IT specialist long affiliated with the Bush Family. Blackwell gave Connell's Ohio-based GovTech the contract to count Ohio's votes, which was done on servers housed in the Old Pioneer Bank Building in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Thus the Ohio vote tally was done on servers that also carried the e-mail for Karl Rove and the national Republican Party. Connell died in a mysterious plane crash in December, 2008, after being subpoenaed in the King-Lincoln-Bronzeville federal lawsuit focused on how the 2004 election was decided (disclosure: we were attorney and plaintiff in that suit).

Diebold's founder, Walden O'Dell, had vowed to deliver Ohio's electoral votes-and thus the presidency-to his friend George W. Bush. That it was done in part on electronic voting machines and software O'Dell happened to own (Diebold has since changed hands twice) remains a cautionary red flag for those who believe merely winning the popular vote will give Barack Obama a second term.

This November, much of the Ohio electorate will cast its ballots on machines again owned by close cronies of the Republican presidential candidate. In Cincinnati and elsewhere around the state, the e-voting apparati are owned by Hart Intercivic. Hart's machines are infamous for mechanical failures, "glitches," counting errors and other timely problems now thoroughly identified with the way Republicans steal elections. As in 2004, Ohio's governor is now a Republican. This time it's the very right-wing John Kasich, himself a multi-millionaire courtesy of a stint at Lehman Brothers selling state bonds, and the largesse of Rupert Murdoch, on whose Fox Network Kasich served as a late night bloviator. Murdoch wrote Kasich a game-changing $1 million check just prior to his winning the statehouse, an electoral victory shrouded in electronic intrigue. The exit polls in that election indicated that his opponent, incumbent Democrat Ted Strickland, had actually won the popular vote.

Ohio's very Republican Secretary of State is John Husted, currently suing in the US Supreme Court to prevent the public from voting on the weekend prior to election day. As did Blackwell and Governor Robert Taft in 2004, Husted and Kasich will control Ohio's electronic vote count on election night free of meaningful public checks or balances

Hart Intercivic, on whose machines the key votes will be cast in Hamilton County, which includes Cincinnati, was taken over last year by H.I.G. Capital. Prominent partners and directors on the H.I.G. board hail from Bain Company or Bain Capital, both connected to Mitt Romney. H.I.G. employees have contributed at least $338,000 to Romney's campaign. H.I.G. Directors John P. Bolduk and Douglas Berman are major Romney fundraisers, as is former Bain and H.I.G. manager Brian Shortsleeve.

US courts have consistently ruled that the software in electronic voting machines is proprietary to the manufacturer, even though individual election boards may own the actual machines. Thus there will be no vote count transparency on election night in Ohio. The tally will be conducted by Hart Intercivic and controlled by Husted and Kasich, with no public recourse or accountability. As federal testimony from the deceased Michael Connell made clear in 2008, electronically flipping an election is relatively cheap and easy to do, especially if you or your compatriots programmed the machines.

So as the corporate media swarm through Ohio, reporting breathlessly from "ground zero" in Cincinnati, don't hold your own breath waiting for them to also clarify that the voting machines in what may once again be America's decisive swing state are owned, programmed and tabulated by some of the Romney campaign's closest associates.



Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman are co-authors of WILL THE GOP STEAL AMERICA'S 2012 ELECTION? an e-book at http://freepress.org/store.php#a2012.

Harvey Wasserman edits nukefree.org and co-writes KILLING OUR OWN: THE DISASTER OF AMERICA'S EXPERIENCE WITH ATOMIC RADIATION. His SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH is at www.solartopia.org. He is senior editor of www.freepress.org. Listen to "Solartopia! Green-Power Hour" at www.talktainmentradio.com every Wednesday from 8-9 p.m.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Bachmann Family Values Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=7261"><span class="small">Frank Bruni, The New York Times</span></a>   
Sunday, 14 October 2012 15:40

Bruni writes: "There are many people who are hurt by Michele Bachmann's divisive brand of politics, but perhaps none in quite the way that Helen LaFave is."

Michele Bachmann announces the end of her presidential campaign, 01/04/12. (photo: Reuters)
Michele Bachmann announces the end of her presidential campaign, 01/04/12. (photo: Reuters)



Bachmann Family Values

By Frank Bruni, The New York Times

14 October 12

 

here are many people who are hurt by Michele Bachmann's divisive brand of politics, but perhaps none in quite the way that Helen LaFave is.

The two women once shared confidences. They're family. Some 40 years ago, Michele's mother married Helen's father, and when Michele was in college, the house she returned to in the summer was the one where Helen, then finishing high school, lived. Helen craved that time together.

"I remember laughing with her a lot," she told me in an interview on Thursday in her home here. She remembers Michele's charisma and confidence, too. "I looked up to Michele."

As the years passed they saw much less of each other, but when their paths crossed, at large family gatherings, there were always hugs. Helen was at Michele's wedding to Marcus Bachmann and got to know him. And Michele got to know Nia, the woman who has been Helen's partner for almost 25 years.

Helen never had a conversation about her sexual orientation with Michele and knew that Michele's evangelical Christianity was deeply felt. Still she couldn't believe it when, about a decade ago, Michele began to use her position as a state senator in Minnesota to call out gays and lesbians as sick and evil and to push for an amendment to the Minnesota constitution that would prohibit same-sex marriage: precisely the kind of amendment that Minnesotans will vote on in a referendum on Election Day.

"It felt so divorced from having known me, from having known somebody who's gay," said Helen, a soft-spoken woman with a gentle air. "I was just stunned."

And while she never doubted that Michele was being true to her private convictions, she couldn't comprehend Michele's need to make those convictions so public, to put them in the foreground of her political career, and to drive a wedge into their family.

She told Michele as much, in a letter dated Nov. 23, 2003. She sent copies to her four siblings, her father and one of Michele's brothers, and kept one herself. In the letter she described her "hurt and disappointment that my stepsister is leading this charge."

"You've taken aim at me," Helen wrote to Michele. Referring to Nia, she added: "You've taken aim at my family."

Michele, she said, never acknowledged the letter in any way.

Helen has spoken with journalists only a few times in the past and never at length. During the Republican presidential primaries this year, she got caller ID to screen all the entreaties from reporters looking for nasty quotes about Michele. She didn't want to play that game or upset her family, which has been divided on same-sex marriage.

But the imminent referendum, which she described as Michele's "very, very sad legacy," compelled her "to speak out for fairness for those of us who are being judged and told our lives and relationships are somehow less," she said.

I'm encountering her kind of newfound boldness more frequently than I expected and writing about same-sex marriage more than I anticipated, as surprising voices weigh in, like the professional football players who took up the cause last month.

Helen lives a quieter life than Michele. She's 52 and works as a communications manager for a Minneapolis suburb. Nia, 55, is a physical therapist.

They never hid their relationship from their families, Nia said, though they also didn't force long-winded discussions about homosexuality. Their philosophy, she said, was simply to "put it out there, show 'em who we are and love 'em where they're at, and everything will fall into place." Their goal was one of "killing them with kindness."

They thought that was happening. At get-togethers, Nia received hugs from Michele, who traded an "I love you" with Helen, as the two always had.

But in between Michele's election to the State Senate in 2000 and her upgrade to the United States House of Representatives in 2006, she nabbed attention and amassed a fan base among religious extremists with her homophobic pronouncements.

She publicly described homosexuality as "personal enslavement," referred to the heartache of having "a member of our family" who was gay and suggested that gays and lesbians wanted to recruit impressionable youngsters, saying: "It is our children that is the prize for this community."

In her letter Helen appealed to Michele to rethink what she was doing, explaining that she and Nia were motivated only by mutual caring and respect and that marriage, if legal, would grant couples like them the rights, responsibilities and financial protections that foster stability.

"Some people, you included, feel like you know the truth about my relationship," she wrote, adding: "I think you also believe you know what God thinks of it."

"Neither you nor I know," she went on to say. "I suspect that we're both certain in our minds, but we don't know."

When Michele spoke at a State Senate hearing in 2006 about her desire for a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, Helen showed up, along with several relatives who supported her.

"I wasn't looking to make a public statement," she told me. "I just thought: I'm going to go there and sit there so she has to look at me. So she has to look at Nia. I wanted her to see: this is who you're doing this to. It's not some anonymous group of people. It's not scary people. It's me. It's Nia." She paused, because she'd begun to sob.

"I just wanted her to see me," she said, "because it just feels, through the whole thing, like she hasn't."

Michele, now waging an unexpectedly tight re-election campaign for her House seat, didn't respond to a request for an interview for this column.

She and Helen have seen each other at family events twice in the last year or so, Helen said, but Helen hasn't insisted on a talk, because it seems pointless to her. On one of those occasions, she recalled, Michele said "I love you," and Helen said it back. But Helen's more confused by that than ever.

As a congresswoman, Michele got tickets to President Obama's inauguration and gave a pair to Helen and Nia, knowing they're Democrats and had rooted for him. Helen thought that was kind, if not necessarily encouraging.

She hopes to marry Nia in Minnesota someday. I asked if she would invite Michele to the ceremony.

She fell silent a few seconds, then shook her head. "I don't think it would be a very good fit," she said.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Ringside at the Undercard: VP Debate Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=18199"><span class="small">Will Durst, Humor Times</span></a>   
Sunday, 14 October 2012 10:43

Durst writes: "No knockdowns were recorded in this no-holds-barred event, but the majority of ringside judges gave the decision to Biden on points."

Political satirist Will Durst. (photo: WillDurst.com)
Political satirist Will Durst. (photo: WillDurst.com)



Ringside at the Undercard: VP Debate

By Will Durst, Humor Times

14 October 12

 

eeded three towels to wipe down my living room after the vice presidential wrestling match, er, debate the other day. The sweat flung off both the bottom names of the campaign bumper stickers was so thick on the Centre College stage, it shot right through television screens onto viewers at home.

In this highly anticipated undercard bout, Joe Biden and Paul Ryan took off the gloves, put on their red, white and blue Lucha Libre masks and went at each other hammer and tongs for 90 minutes with straight policy jabs and sweeping rhetorical hooks. Most of which whiffed, but it's the thought that counts.

No knockdowns were recorded in this no-holds-barred event, but the majority of ringside judges gave the decision to Biden on points, mainly for stopping his base's bleeding and blocking his opponent's momentum. And doing it all without suffering a stroke on national TV. Although, it was close.

Kudos were also tossed Martha Raddatz's way, who refereed the event with a command and aplomb that had veteran observers refer to her as the anti-Jim Lehrer. She actually seemed to listen to the responses at this debate and called candidates out when they tried to weasel away. A recurring theme.

Paul Ryan's intensive training regimen paid off, and he punched and counter punched all evening while smiling so hard you could almost hear the enamel cracking inside his mouth. The duplicitous platform he was forced to defend seemed to suck all the moisture out of his body as he kept downing glass after glass of water, which fortunately was replenished regularly, or the GOP budget guru might have spontaneously combusted. And who wants to die in Kentucky?

Meanwhile Joe Biden showed great restraint in checking his normal penchant for dismantling the shared debate desk and chewing it into pieces. Like an aging Chihuahua let outside after a long weekend locked in the basement, he yapped and barked and laughed maniacally, frequently exposing expensive dental work to all and frightening many children in the audience.

Seemed like the former senator from Delaware had downed a couple quart containers of caffeinated Ensure. Then again after viewing the results, the White House might want to insure a case of Ensure is ready for President Obama next Tuesday at the debate at Hofstra University in New York.

Both Catholic combatants, the 69-year-old vice president and the 42 year old Wisconsin Congressman, waltzed delicately around the ring of malarkey when the question of abortion was raised, and a no-smirking zone was briefly established on both sides.

And finally, not a single word about Big Bird. Obviously these two pugilists don't have their finger on the pulse of the American people.

On the style-versus-substance front, the GOP accused the vice president of being loud, overbearing and rude. The very same qualities they called bold and commanding when Romney wore them at last week's debate. Hey, you guys: make up your mind. Pot-kettle-black much?

The Democratic ticket needs a visa to get out of Goldilocks Land: one half too cold - the other, too hot. But this reeking heap of steaming veep meet between pseudo-friends was entertaining, if not informative, and we could easily sell a rematch on pay-per-view, but only if the two fighters promise not to wear spandex. Maybe in 2016?



Five-time Emmy nominee Will Durst has just released a new e-book on the 2012 campaign: “Elect to Laugh!” published by Hyperink. Available at Redroom.com or Amazon.  Also, his hit one-man show, “Elect to Laugh!” is every Tuesday at the Marsh. San Francisco. 8pm. Only 4, Four, 4 shows left. Themarsh.org.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The 'Moderate Mitt' Myth Print
Sunday, 14 October 2012 09:55

Excerpt: "The best way to judge candidates is not by the popular way they describe their plans near the end of a campaign."

Mitt Romney speaks during a rally in Tempe, Arizona, 04/20/12. (photo: Reuters)
Mitt Romney speaks during a rally in Tempe, Arizona, 04/20/12. (photo: Reuters)



The 'Moderate Mitt' Myth

By The New York Times | Editorial

14 October 12

 

he way a presidential candidate campaigns for office matters to the country. A campaign should demonstrate seriousness of purpose and a set of core beliefs, and it should signal to voters whether a candidate shows trustworthiness and judgment. Those things don't seem to matter to Mitt Romney.

From the beginning of his run for the Republican nomination, Mr. Romney has offered to transfigure himself into any shape desired by an audience in order to achieve power. In front of massed crowds or on television, he can sound sunny and inclusive, radiating a feel-good centrism. His "severely conservative" policies and disdain for much of the country are reserved for partisans, donors and the harsh ideologues who clutter his party's base. This polarity is often described as "flip-flopping," but the word is too mild to describe opposing positions that are simultaneously held.

The best way to judge candidates is not by the popular way they describe their plans near the end of a campaign; it is by the most divisive presentations of themselves earlier on. A candidate's political calculations when fewer people are watching is likely to say far more about character than poll-tested pleasantries in the spotlight.

That's what is disingenuous about the "Moderate Mitt" in recent speeches and the first presidential debate. He hasn't abandoned or flip-flopped from the severe positions that won him the Republican nomination; they remain at the core of his campaign, on his Web site and in his position papers, and they occasionally slip out in unguarded moments. All he's doing is slapping whitewash on his platform. The immoderation of his policies, used to win favor with a hard-right party, cannot be disguised.

This week, for example, in the swing state of Iowa, Mr. Romney tried to cover up his strident anti-abortion agenda. "There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda," he told The Des Moines Register's editorial board. But that carefully worded statement was designed to mislead, because the threat to women's rights doesn't necessarily come from legislation. He would cut financing for Planned Parenthood, and he has said he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and would appoint justices who would do so.

And, though he has conveniently forgotten, he does support anti-abortion legislation - what he called in a 2011 essay the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to ban abortion when a fetus can feel pain. In 2007, he said he'd sign a bill prohibiting all abortions. He has also tried to paper over his positions on his $5 trillion tax cut, pretending it would be cost-free, and he now says he wants to cover pre-existing health conditions, though his plan does so only for those who have insurance coverage.

At last week's debate, Mr. Romney presented himself as a bipartisan leader able to work with Democrats. But that's not how Massachusetts Democrats remember his tenure as governor, as Michael Wines of The Times reported last week. He ignored or insulted Democrats and failed to achieve most of his big-ticket proposals, like reform of the Civil Service and pension systems. His decision to support a universal health care system in 2006, long advocated by Democrats, was seen at the time as a purely political calculation, at least until Republicans rejected the idea in 2009 when President Obama proposed it.

There isn't really a Moderate Mitt; what is on display now is better described as Convenient Mitt. Anyone willing to advocate extremism to raise money and win primaries is likely to do the same to stay in office.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 3231 3232 3233 3234 3235 3236 3237 3238 3239 3240 Next > End >>

Page 3238 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN