tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post103485164195764391..comments2024-03-25T04:46:46.000-04:00Comments on Casting Pearls Before Swine: Socialized MedicineMarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-9439517449374111912007-09-01T12:55:00.000-04:002007-09-01T12:55:00.000-04:00First, I apologize to Mark. I should keep my comm...First, I apologize to Mark. I should keep my comments to the topic at hand. I shouldn't be wasting his blog space pointing out Dan's inadequacies.<BR/><BR/>I see that I'm not the only one noticing Dan's convenient back peddling to quibble over discretionary/mandatory spending. It's just semantics: at one point in time, the "mandatory" spending was discretionary, and can be so again. If the legislature voted it in, they can just as well vote it out.<BR/><BR/>That excuse is as feeble as my local city council spending millions on "public art" projects (that only 42% of citizens find important or somewhat important) while neglecting to hire new fire or police personnel for 15 years (then wanting to increase taxes, making the citizens cover their mismanagement or public funds), all the while claiming that the 2% of City capital improvement project moneys they funnel into these projects is mandatory. Since they voted to approve the "mandatory" spending in 1991, they can also vote to shift that spending into more important things, such as fire and police services. <BR/><BR/>I was actually impressed that Dan used government stats to argue his point, but then following it up with propaganda from the War Resister's League, negated any credibility he'd built up.<BR/><BR/>For someone to emphatically claim they've studied where government spending goes, then point to Social Security as mandatory spending of taxation revenues is laughable. Social Security is a wholly separate system. The money is collected and disbursed completely outside the income tax system. FICA anyone? <BR/><BR/>That's as pathetic as Dan Quayle telling a 2nd grader how to spell potato.<BR/><BR/>Yeah yeah Dan, I know I'm not at mature as you... blah, blah, blah.... We're all a bunch of ill mannered 11 year olds... yada, yada, yada.... Sure sure, you have a life, and by implication we don't.<BR/><BR/>"Progressive" humiligen accusations have lost their impact. Thanks for playing, Dan. <BR/><BR/>As fun as it is, as Mr. KIA puts it, making Dan look stupid (which isn't much trouble), I will refrain in the future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-9348563099729803302007-09-01T09:20:00.000-04:002007-09-01T09:20:00.000-04:00I don't know enough about it to speak to the issue...I don't know enough about it to speak to the issue. Which is why I've never said that I was in support of Nationalized Health Care. I do know we have problems with the current system.<BR/><BR/>I have already indicated one reason to support it, if it is reality, and I don't know that it is:<BR/><BR/>IF we, as a nation, could save money by handling things differently, then that might be one reason.<BR/><BR/>IF we could provide better healthcare and thereby improve the common lot (thereby helping everyone), that might be one reason.<BR/><BR/>I suspect a case could be made for these two points, but don't know the details.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-17856203929658929252007-09-01T05:21:00.000-04:002007-09-01T05:21:00.000-04:00And as far as my behavior thus far...Your's has be...And as far as my behavior thus far...<BR/><BR/>Your's has been absolutely no better, and that has been my point all along.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-68568270023779877232007-09-01T05:18:00.000-04:002007-09-01T05:18:00.000-04:00Dan, was the Constitution written in order to EMPO...Dan, was the Constitution written in order to EMPOWER Government, or to LIMIT Government?<BR/><BR/><I>The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. </I> <BR/>(James Madison, Federalist Paper 45)<BR/><BR/>It is not up to Conservatives to find how the Constitution prohibits anything.<BR/><BR/>The Constitution prohibits EVERYTHING except what it spells out specifically.<BR/><BR/>This is neither a straw man, nor a demonization of anything or anyone.<BR/><BR/>This is your problem, Dan. You see each and every point anyone makes against your argument as invalid in some way. It's a "straw man", or a "demonization" or we "aren't discussing the issue on it's merits", or some other such nonsense.<BR/><BR/>So, okay...<BR/><BR/>Let's discuss the issue on it's merits Dan.<BR/><BR/>What, in your opinion, Dan, are the merits of a Nationalized Health Care Plan?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-86524659817218938832007-08-31T10:48:00.000-04:002007-08-31T10:48:00.000-04:00KIA said:"Point out one example of where I have ca...KIA said:<BR/><I>"Point out one example of where I have called you names, of twisted your words, or of even one single straw man!"</I><BR/><BR/><B>Calling names:</B><BR/><BR/><I>I know what Dan's problem is... Either he has no reading comprehension skills, or someone is reading everything for him, and then telling him what it said.</I><BR/><BR/><I>The term is "pooled" resources, not "pulled", genius.</I><BR/><BR/><I>Could you POSSIBLY be that short-sighted and dense?</I><BR/><BR/><B>Twisting words:</B><BR/><BR/>KIA said - <I>"I want you to tell me why your Healthcare is anyone's responsibility besides your own.<BR/><BR/>What else do you believe the world owes you?"</I><BR/><BR/>When in fact, I had not said that I believe Healthcare is anyone's responsibility but their own, nor that the world owes me anything. In fact, I have stated repeatedly that I had no strong opinion on nationalized healthcare thus far. I was protesting the strawman argument of saying "it's communism!" and dismissing it based upon that.<BR/><BR/><B>Strawman:</B><BR/><BR/>Speaking of strawman arguments, denouncing nationalized healthcare as socialism and then arguing against socialism is a strawman argument. <BR/><BR/>Here's another example:<BR/><BR/><I>Liberals read into the Constitution what it can be MADE to say.</I><BR/><BR/>You're making the argument that Conservatives believe the constitution and liberals try to twist it to support their beliefs. In fact, Both groups believe in the constitution and interpret the way that makes sense to them.<BR/><BR/>The very fact that you have insisted repeatedly that the constitution forbids a nationalized health plan shows that you're reading into it something that isn't there.<BR/><BR/>Your argument is a strawman argument, based upon a demonization of Liberals. Discuss the issues at hand, if you wish, but do so based on the arguments. <BR/><BR/>But, based upon your behavior thus far, I don't think you're really interested in conversation or in anything but demonization of the Other. Good luck with that.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-70536035905097771532007-08-30T18:04:00.000-04:002007-08-30T18:04:00.000-04:00As good as you give, Brother.As good as you give, Brother.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-88487859129103825652007-08-30T18:03:00.000-04:002007-08-30T18:03:00.000-04:00LOL!!Dan, you are SOOOO Full of yourself!Point out...LOL!!<BR/><BR/>Dan, you are SOOOO Full of yourself!<BR/><BR/>Point out one example of where I have called you names, of twisted your words, or of even one single straw man!<BR/><BR/>You don't like it when your own tactics are turned on you, and the really funny thing about it is that YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THAT THIS IS WHAT I AM DOING!!<BR/><BR/>You want an example of twisted words?<BR/><BR/>Here you go.<BR/><BR/><I>And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45)<BR/><BR/>That being the case, can we argue in favor of calling this healthcare plan Christian Medical Plan? ("You mean you're opposed to a Christian Health Care plan!!?? Shame on you!")</I><BR/><BR/>(That actually is a pretty good example of a straw man as well...)<BR/><BR/>So put your fingers back into your ears... <BR/><BR/>There's no need to pay attention to the snotty, ill behaved 11 year old who has no life...<BR/><BR/>LOL!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-45629862797138007122007-08-29T15:32:00.000-04:002007-08-29T15:32:00.000-04:00"I will meet idiocy with ridicule, condescension w...<I>"I will meet idiocy with ridicule, condescension with snottiness, and self righteousness with examples of your own hypocrisy wherever we meet."</I><BR/><BR/>No, I don't think you will. Rather, based on what you've done here, I suspect that you will twist my words, build up and then knock down strawmen and call me and others you disagree with names. Good luck with that.<BR/><BR/>But anytime that you think you have an actual argument or a point on which I'm actually hypocritical, I will nonetheless, invite you to point it out to me as a favor. But, if you prefer to continue behaving as an ill-mannered 11-year-old, you'll be talking to yourself.<BR/><BR/>Peace.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-24148013901094503532007-08-29T08:40:00.000-04:002007-08-29T08:40:00.000-04:00"I will meet idiocy with ridicule, condescension w..."I will meet idiocy with ridicule, condescension with snottiness, and self righteousness with examples of your own hypocrisy wherever we meet.<BR/><BR/>MR Know-it-all<BR/><BR/>Yes, Yes, Yes! He gets it!<BR/><BR/>A full-time job with Dan, KIA!Al-Ozarkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03034820391347139672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-25240109975728651502007-08-29T08:37:00.000-04:002007-08-29T08:37:00.000-04:00"And for you, too, Henry, if you wish to have an a..."And for you, too, Henry, if you wish to have an adult conversation, just make your point and ask your questions. No need to talk down to your fellow citizens."<BR/><BR/>Pot...Kettle, Danielsan.Al-Ozarkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03034820391347139672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-18474940225091993142007-08-29T05:56:00.000-04:002007-08-29T05:56:00.000-04:00War Resister's League?Are you kidding??Thata may b...<I>War Resister's League?</I><BR/><BR/>Are you <I>kidding??</I><BR/><BR/>Thata may be the funniest thing you've done yet, Dan!<BR/><BR/>LOL!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-44022600818773978852007-08-29T00:41:00.000-04:002007-08-29T00:41:00.000-04:00And I have a snotty attitude...I am not surprized ...And <I>I</I> have a snotty attitude...<BR/><BR/>I am not surprized that you would seek out a "Bible" Scholar who would say that the Bible didn't <I>really</I> say what it sounded like it said...<BR/><BR/>I guess that was just a blooper.<BR/><BR/>You asked if we should label a communist system "Christian" based on the second chapter of Acts.<BR/><BR/>I reversed the question based on the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew.<BR/><BR/>Seems like dialog to me...<BR/><BR/>(Unless your definition of "dialog" means that everyone agrees with you, and doesn't ask you to explain your kooky ideas in very much detail.)<BR/><BR/>The truth is, Dan, that I have become used to you now to the point that I have no interest in debating you on anything, because you are misguided, and gleefully and proudly so.<BR/><BR/>So now, it's more fun to just help you look stupid. (which isn't much trouble.)<BR/><BR/>And as far as any statistics that you post from now on (such as your Apples/Oranges attempt at misdirection of the discussion by comparing "Tax Money" with "Disgressionary Spending)... I will consider them, but with a grain of salt.<BR/><BR/>You only see whatever it may be that you, personally, are looking for. (Which is why you see the Bible and Christianity advocating Communism based on the book of Acts.)<BR/><BR/>You may have studied where our money goes, but you did so with the intent of supporting your own point, rather than finding the truth.<BR/><BR/>By the way, Dan...<BR/><BR/><I>Feel free to correct your wrong points... </I><BR/><BR/><I>Show me the specific wording that prohibits it, first...<BR/><BR/>Thanks for playing, though...</I><BR/><BR/>And then this...<BR/><BR/><I>And for you, too, Henry, if you wish to have an adult conversation, just make your point and ask your questions. No need to talk down to your fellow citizens.</I><BR/><BR/>Dan, I promise you that I will give you back as good as you yourself give, wherever I see you on the Blogosphere. <BR/><BR/>I will meet idiocy with ridicule, condescension with snottiness, and self righteousness with examples of your own hypocrisy wherever we meet. (I saw that load of beef by-product over at your site about how, try as you might, you could not find a rude, snotty Liberal Blogger... I'm showing you one right now.)<BR/><BR/>Look forward to seeing you!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-33706268264277326702007-08-28T23:41:00.000-04:002007-08-28T23:41:00.000-04:00Mark, I was not "playing semantics." It was a brai...Mark, I was not "playing semantics." It was a brain fart. National health care. ExSCUSE ME. I've never in my luife had a single medical procedure done that wasn't tangled up in insurance. Health care and health insurance are melded together in my mind because their melded together in my life. SorRY.<BR/><BR/>You just couldn't give me the benefit of the doubt.Erudite Redneckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04830721195868387265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-7211105533194257682007-08-28T23:06:00.000-04:002007-08-28T23:06:00.000-04:00And thank you, KIA, for helping me out with what H...And thank you, KIA, for helping me out with what Henry was speaking of.<BR/><BR/>Henry asserted:<BR/><BR/><I>For the past four fiscal years, spending on Health and Human Services has exceeded DOD spending by 10-15 percent. And neither one of them makes up 1/2 of the tax dollars collected by the IRS.</I><BR/><BR/>I was speaking of our discretionary spending. The US budget is made up of discretionary spending - money that Congress and the President have some say on how to spend - and other funds such as Social Security and debt repayment (some of the debt coming from military overspending) which are separate from moneys available for general gov't operating funds.<BR/><BR/>You can see on a chart <A HREF="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/tables.html" REL="nofollow"> here</A> [source: Whitehouse Budget office], that our proposed discretionary spending in 2006 was:<BR/><BR/>$419 Billion - DoD<BR/> 32 Billion - Homeland security<BR/> 391 Billion - everything else<BR/><BR/>(We ended up spending a good bit more on our military last year).<BR/><BR/>More explanation can be found <A HREF="http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm" REL="nofollow"> here</A>.<BR/><BR/>And for you, too, Henry, if you wish to have an adult conversation, just make your point and ask your questions. No need to talk down to your fellow citizens.<BR/><BR/>I <I>have</I> studied where our money goes. Have you?Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-59298032987981192622007-08-28T22:55:00.000-04:002007-08-28T22:55:00.000-04:00Ya know, kia, your snotty attitude doesn't lend it...Ya know, kia, your snotty attitude doesn't lend itself to dialog. We've had many statements made here, and I have managed not to hang on every single word, as I have a life.<BR/><BR/>I am interested in honest dialog, if anyone else is, but simple questions and answers would be a more adult way to have that conversation.<BR/><BR/>You asked about this statement of yours:<BR/><BR/><I>based on the verses from the Bible that I just qouted to you, would you say that a "take from the poor, and give to the rich" policy could be called "The Christian Welfare System"?</I><BR/><BR/>In reference to Jesus' parable of the talents. There are many possible ways of taking that. The traditional one has been that God is represented by the rich landowner who "reaps where he has not sown," and that this God would take from he who has little and give it to he who has much.<BR/><BR/>I prefer Ched Myers' take on it, which flips the traditional teaching on its head, saying that God in the Bible is NOT described as likely to take from he who has little and give it to he who has much. That would be inconsistent with the message from the Bible as a whole.<BR/><BR/>That would be one possible explanation of that passage. And no, I don't think your interpretation (that God would have us take from he who has little and who did not invest the money at high interest rates - a practice which God has forbidden in the Bible) as a good parallel for assistance for the poor.<BR/><BR/>Does that answer your question?Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-72341436974339663032007-08-28T21:50:00.000-04:002007-08-28T21:50:00.000-04:00Well then, Dan...Let me remind you of what he spea...Well then, Dan...<BR/><BR/>Let me remind you of what he speaks.<BR/><BR/>Dan:"<I>I'm opposed to Congress taking 1/2 my tax money and spending it on the military. They are taking it from me against my will and against my religion. Does that mean they are stealing my money?</I><BR/><BR/>And then the subsequent response from Henry:<I>"I'm opposed to Congress taking 1/2 my tax money and spending it on the military."<BR/><BR/>LOL<BR/><BR/>Maybe you should do some studying on where our tax money actually goes.<BR/><BR/>For the past four fiscal years, spending on Health and Human Services has exceeded DOD spending by 10-15 percent. And neither one of them makes up 1/2 of the tax dollars collected by the IRS. </I><BR/><BR/>That's what Henry was talking about.<BR/><BR/>You also ignored my question about the "Christian Welfare System".<BR/><BR/>(Not that anyone expected you to answer any of that. We all know that when you are backed into a corner, you simply redirect the discussion. Which you did.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-60470906723406841982007-08-28T16:27:00.000-04:002007-08-28T16:27:00.000-04:00I know not of which you speak, Henry.Are you askin...I know not of which you speak, Henry.<BR/><BR/>Are you asking why I didn't respond to KIA's allegation that "socialized health plans are unconstitutional"?<BR/><BR/>Where in the Constitution would you like me to point to to show you that a ban on a national health plan is not there? (ie, how exactly would you like me to prove a negative?)<BR/><BR/>There is no constitutional ban on the people deciding to have a national health plan. I can't show you what isn't there. You'd have to show me where the ban is. No one has done so.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for playing, though.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-20840997713461443272007-08-28T10:28:00.000-04:002007-08-28T10:28:00.000-04:00How did I know Dan would have no response when cal...How did I know Dan would have no response when called on his BS claims about where tax monies are spent?<BR/><BR/>Typical "progressive"....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-60489634452305816672007-08-27T22:36:00.000-04:002007-08-27T22:36:00.000-04:00I still think we are attacking the issue of afford...I still think we are attacking the issue of affordable health care from the wrong perspective. <BR/><BR/>The best way to make health care affordable is to somehow lower all the costs of health care dramatically, not giving health care to everyone for free.<BR/><BR/>What if an office visit only costs ten bucks without a co-pay? What if the pharmaceutical manufacturers sold their product at only 2 1/2 percent markup instead of whatever they charge now to make that obscene profit?What if a medical procedure was priced at costs plus 10?<BR/><BR/>I know there has to be a more equitable solution to affordable healthcare then allowing the government to get involved.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-22575819557335972532007-08-27T22:30:00.000-04:002007-08-27T22:30:00.000-04:00Brother ER is playing semantics again. The issue i...Brother ER is playing semantics again. <BR/><BR/>The issue is with national health care, not health insurance. National (or socialized) health care would be a health care nightmare where everyones health care is completely paid for by the government. I've already outlined the problems inherent with that idea. <BR/><BR/>National health insurance would be different. That title implies that every individual would be, at least in part, responsible for some of the health care bill. But if the government ever gets involved with that industry, the costs of health insurance would likely skyrocket to the point where it would most likely be more affordable to just pay your entire bill yourself. I mean, the politicians will have to get their cut, won't they?<BR/><BR/>Personally, after witnessing the efficiency of the governent's involvement in other industries, I doubt sincerely if the government can do anything but make things much worse. <BR/><BR/>I think Governemt should just stay out of the health care business altogether.<BR/><BR/>Government controlling Health insurance would create the biggest fubar situation since state governments started meddling with automobile insurance companies.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633208787250567256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-62805284587957658492007-08-27T20:38:00.000-04:002007-08-27T20:38:00.000-04:00Mark -- here in Los Angeles we had a hospital that...Mark -- here in Los Angeles we had a hospital that let people die in the hallways with cameras watching in a primarlity poor black neighborhood recently. They finally shut it down.<BR/><BR/>It has started talk about National Health Insurance again.<BR/><BR/>Here was an interesting article. I was wondering what you thought of it. <BR/><BR/>http://www.laobserved.com/boyarsky/<BR/><BR/>This issue is hard for me because I see medical care differently than welfare or any other tax funded venture.<BR/><BR/>But I do NOT think the government in any way would be able to efficiently run any type of health system. <BR/><BR/>If health insurance companies could be sued maybe we could get somewhere because right now they are the only blemish in our medical system.<BR/><BR/>Michael Moore makes only one redeeming good point...Insurance companies have a conflict of interest...they owe the shareholders by law that they have to act and make money in the shareholders best interest but that is the antithesis of what a patient needs which is for them to spend money on the patient with the doctor calling the shots.Tontohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16910035272961769212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-75154383020313108232007-08-27T18:44:00.000-04:002007-08-27T18:44:00.000-04:00Socialized Medicine?NO!!!I'm not waiting 6 months ...Socialized Medicine?<BR/><BR/>NO!!!<BR/><BR/>I'm not waiting 6 months for a check up.<BR/><BR/>I will stick with my own insurance thank you.Marie's Two Centshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12024589000490517815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-20739133852851902822007-08-26T23:44:00.000-04:002007-08-26T23:44:00.000-04:00Those Ammendmants have as much to do with the issu...Those Ammendmants have as much to do with the issue as Dan's misguided "promote the general welfare" argument.<BR/><BR/>Do you not think it is a bit of a jump to conclude from the phrase "The Congress shall have Power To ...regulate Commerce ... among the several States..." to "The Congress shall have the power to manage and operate the healthcare system, and shall fund it by direct taxation of the citizens"?<BR/><BR/>It is a safe assumption (if you care at all about the framer's intent) that the founding fathers of this country wished to give the Federal Government no more power than absolutely necessary.<BR/><BR/>I do however agree with you on your last point, ER.<BR/><BR/>"Is Not!"..."Is Too!" is getting tiresome.<BR/><BR/>Like I said before. Like arguing with a five year old.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-3505490916290917932007-08-26T21:21:00.001-04:002007-08-26T21:21:00.001-04:00Hey, Sheila!Hey, Sheila!Erudite Redneckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04830721195868387265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12507451.post-1804527228159196122007-08-26T21:21:00.000-04:002007-08-26T21:21:00.000-04:00WTH does the Fourth Amendment have to do with anyt...WTH does the Fourth Amendment have to do with anything?<BR/><BR/>The Tenth Amendment doesn't apply because power IS appointed the Congress explicitly by the Constitution:<BR/><BR/>Article 1, Section 8<BR/>The Congress shall have Power To ...regulate Commerce ... among the several States."<BR/><BR/><BR/>So, actually, state health insturance -- state, rather than national -- is fine and dandy. But national health insurance, being a damned business, i.e., commerce -- is absolutely explicitly regulatasble by the federal government -- a point that says nothing about whether it's as good idea or not.<BR/><BR/>But this whole "it's unconstitutional!" "it's COMMUNIST" argument BS needs some work. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>.Erudite Redneckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04830721195868387265noreply@blogger.com