Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
USA: Have You Actually Read The Bill?  
User currently offlineMoltenRock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (4 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2071 times:

As the title asks, have you actually read the healthcare bill of either/both House & Senate? How about stimulus bill that was signed into law early last year? Have you read the energy bill passed out of the House last year? The financial reform bill that's out of the House?

Repeatedly, I see Americans argue using tired rhetoric on both sides about a bill, yet I have yet to see any of them dive into any specifics. Why can't people list what pieces / parts they are opposed to or are in favor of? Or is it as I suspect that people just don't read the bills, and get a 30 second recap of what's "in it" from their respective partisan news outlets be they FOX, MSNBC, Drudge, Daily Kos, New York Times, New York Post, or their buddy Bobby Rae?

Specifically, what do you like or dislike on the healthcare bill? Energy bill? Financial reform bill?

36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlybaurLAX From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2048 times:

No I haven't, but I really want to. I don't argue for either side, just because I don't know what the bill is. I do know that we do need an overhaul, but the specifics I cannot tell you. If you know where I could find a copy of it, please let me know. Thanks

And now, I haven't read any of the other bills.



Boilerup! Go Purdue!
User currently offlineTexan From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 4278 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (4 years 8 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2024 times:



Quoting MoltenRock (Thread starter):
How about stimulus bill that was signed into law early last year? Have you read the energy bill passed out of the House last year?

Yes and yes. Part of my job was helping municipalities and other entities figure out how to receive stimulus spending. And for other clients I helped interpret the energy bill.

Quoting MoltenRock (Thread starter):
As the title asks, have you actually read the healthcare bill of either/both House & Senate?

Skimmed the entire bill, read parts of it (the parts that stuck out to me while skimming), and read an in depth summary prepared by a law firm about potential affects of the bill. Still working my way through the entire bill.

Texan



"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
User currently offlineMoltenRock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (4 years 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1999 times:



Quoting FlybaurLAX (Reply 1):
No I haven't, but I really want to. I don't argue for either side, just because I don't know what the bill is. I do know that we do need an overhaul, but the specifics I cannot tell you. If you know where I could find a copy of it, please let me know. Thanks

And now, I haven't read any of the other bills.

HR 3962 is 2,000+ pages but can be read and skimmed where need be pretty quickly:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text


The Senate version is almost 2,500 pages.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.3590:


All of this stuff is on the internet, at a library, or available from your own Senator's office or House member's office, as well as other places. There are a lot of great resources online to get you what you need. Both opencongress.org and thomas.gov are invaluable for doing research. If Americans would take a little time to read a bill, rather than listening to predictable pundits touting/trashing a bill, they'd know for themselves if it was a bill they agreed or disagreed with and why. Who added which amendments, and those who voted against or for something.


User currently offlineGatorFan From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 331 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (4 years 8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1946 times:

You could read all 2,000 page of the House bill and all 2,500 page of Senate Health care bill and not understand 50% of what it affects or what it does. This is because so much of the bill is written in language that references other already enacted legislation.

When the bill says, "The first sentence of Paragraph 3 of Section 4 of P.L. 100-45 is amended by replacing "and" with "or" and deleting all words following 'employers'" it's impossible to understand what the bill does without referencing that piece of legislation in an on-line ANNOTATED legislative database. Sometimes you'll then find that this referenced section itself references another piece of legislation. It could literally take years to work through the entire bill so that you understand every provision that was enacted.

Add to the fact that the House version of the bill wasn't fully typed up before it was voted upon. The version of the bill voted upon had handwritten edits and was published 15 minutes before the vote was taken.

The chairman of both the leading House and Senate committees have all said they haven't read the bill nor fully understand it. I don't care how you feel about healthcare. Passing legislation like this is dangerous because nobody knows what's in the bill.


User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3305 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (4 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1902 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Texan (Reply 2):
Yes and yes. Part of my job was helping municipalities and other entities figure out how to receive stimulus spending. And for other clients I helped interpret the energy bill.

Which is why in the other thread, you always know what you're talking about. And I commend you for that. Welcome to my Resp Users list, Texan.

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineContinental From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5517 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (4 years 8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1891 times:

Sorry, you can't expect everyone to read and understand what is the equivalent to 22 novels. Obviously few Americans have actually read the bill.

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (4 years 8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1882 times:



Quoting MoltenRock (Thread starter):
As the title asks, have you actually read the healthcare bill of either/both House & Senate? How about stimulus bill that was signed into law early last year? Have you read the energy bill passed out of the House last year? The financial reform bill that's out of the House?

I read fully the original 1800 page House draft. I have skimmed the others that have become available. But you are skipping over the main point. These laws are so long intentionally to obscure what is in them.

There is no possible reason why a law needs to be 2000 pages. If you went to work for someone, and they give you a contract to sign that is 2000 pages long, would you sign it?

As I've said before, I want a Constitutional amendment that says that no law, resolution or act of Congress can be longer than 7,500 words (the length of the Constitution). If you can't define the law you want to pass in 7,500 words, by default, we don't want it.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 8, posted (4 years 8 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1860 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
These laws are so long intentionally to obscure what is in them.

This is something both parties have found to their advantage over the years. Make the law actually passed very difficult to pin down to specifics.

Quoting MoltenRock (Thread starter):
I see Americans argue using tired rhetoric on both sides about a bill, yet I have yet to see any of them dive into any specifics.

With very few exceptions, laws passed in the United States do not setup many specifics. After the law is passed and signed by the President, it will be turned over the the executive department for enactment and enforcement.

The law could say that "insurance companies may not deny coverage for pre-existing conditions".

Those nine words get turned into about 20 pages of regulations by the HHS lawyers and administrators. Then it gets published in the Federal Register. Then enforcement begins and that may be close to what Congress understood would occur, or very far from the public understanding. There might be many exceptions, appeals processes, etc written into the regulations.

The big fear of the Republicans is that the bill is so non-specific that the administration could expand the enforcement and application greatly.

The big fear of the Democrats is that the bill could restrict the power of the administration to implement additional changes.

Both parties realize that even though the President/ administration have great power to expand or decrease the actual enforcement of a bill passed by Congress - that once something is implemented, making broad changes is very difficult.


User currently offlineMoltenRock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (4 years 8 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1839 times:



Quoting GatorFan (Reply 4):
You could read all 2,000 page of the House bill and all 2,500 page of Senate Health care bill and not understand 50% of what it affects or what it does. This is because so much of the bill is written in language that references other already enacted legislation.

I absolutely agree! And yet as we've seen the folly posted by the right wing declaring a bill needs to be read aloud, everything needs to be on CSpan, or the full text needs to be distributed to the pubic/mailed and received for 3 full days before any votes take place.

Nothing would ever get done in the US regardless which party was in power.

Quoting GatorFan (Reply 4):
The chairman of both the leading House and Senate committees have all said they haven't read the bill nor fully understand it. I don't care how you feel about healthcare. Passing legislation like this is dangerous because nobody knows what's in the bill.

Actually lots of people know what's in the bill. Maybe not the Senator or House member, but most assuredly those who actually wrote the bill (Congressional staffers). The vast majority of the legislation passed by either party has been sitting on the shelves for years and even decades, of previously passed but ultimately defeated bills or amendments.

The real people who do the heavy lifting are the people that stay in Washington. When Senator Ego, loses they go to work for Senator Vanity. They've wrote and researched the bill, and are on the front lines in making and cutting deals and then telling their twit bosses, "Mr. Libertard, if you call Ms. Bitchypants you might be able to cut a deal if you give up _________, to get ________". This is why I laugh when I see so many on forums say they like candidate __________, because he/she's a Washington outsider, and is going to change the way Washington does bidness. LOL! As if.

Quoting Continental (Reply 6):
Sorry, you can't expect everyone to read and understand what is the equivalent to 22 novels. Obviously few Americans have actually read the bill.

Laws are written by lawyers, for lawyers, and interpreted by lawyers and judges (whom are also lawyers).

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7):
As I've said before, I want a Constitutional amendment that says that no law, resolution or act of Congress can be longer than 7,500 words (the length of the Constitution). If you can't define the law you want to pass in 7,500 words, by default, we don't want it.

Meh. That wouldn't change a thing. You just break a bill up into pieces / parts then. Sounds great as a campaign promise but won't work. In fact, the healthcare bill should have been broken up into smaller pieces, so each protection enacted would require the Republicans to vote "No" on each one. Breaking it up into 10 to 15 pieces would have been interesting to watch. One bill would be "preexisting conditions may not be denied coverage" another "insurance exchange market" another "employer responsibilities & reimbursements", and so on. My bet is that there is no way the Republican party could have just said no when done this way, nor could the US health insurance industry run against many of the proposals since many of the ideas in the House bill were and are Republican ideas from the 1990s.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (4 years 8 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1791 times:



Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 9):
Meh. That wouldn't change a thing. You just break a bill up into pieces / parts then. Sounds great as a campaign promise but won't work. In fact, the healthcare bill should have been broken up into smaller pieces, so each protection enacted would require the Republicans to vote "No" on each one. Breaking it up into 10 to 15 pieces would have been interesting to watch. One bill would be "preexisting conditions may not be denied coverage" another "insurance exchange market" another "employer responsibilities & reimbursements", and so on. My bet is that there is no way the Republican party could have just said no when done this way, nor could the US health insurance industry run against many of the proposals since many of the ideas in the House bill were and are Republican ideas from the 1990s.

That's exactly what I want. It's kinda like a line-item veto, but spread accross the legislature as well. There are good parts to the current Health bill. But there is a whole lot of expensive trash in there too. Our problems are largely due to congresscritters packaging their porkbarrel projects and other special interest boondogles, which would never pass if they had to stand alone, into bills headlined with something that most people want. It's like telling us that if we want to buy a $2,000 new computer, that you must also buy a 80286 computer, completely useless, and you will be charged $1,000 for it. I just want to buy the useful one.

The massive ripoff is that congress creates these monster bills and tell us, it's all or nothing.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineSCCutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5521 posts, RR: 28
Reply 11, posted (4 years 8 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1781 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 10):

The massive ripoff is that congress creates these monster bills and tell us, it's all or nothing.

What's even better is, in essentially every instance, Congress itself is exempted from the effects of the legislation they enact.

They truly regard themselves as royalty, above the fray.



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlineGatorFan From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 331 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (4 years 8 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1768 times:



Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 9):
Actually lots of people know what's in the bill. Maybe not the Senator or House member, but most assuredly those who actually wrote the bill (Congressional staffers). The vast majority of the legislation passed by either party has been sitting

I used to be a Congressional staffer in D.C. I assure you that NOBODY knows everything that is on the bill. These things are done piecemeal so everyone hangs an ornament on the tree individually.

Furthermore, even if in arguendo I accept your position that people exist who knew everything about the bill before it was voted on, my point is that it is dangerous when the only people who have that knowledge are unelected, anonymous and not accountable to anyone.


User currently offlineMoltenRock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (4 years 8 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1766 times:

But your "pork" is another's badly needed local project. Are some of the earmarks abuse of the system? Absolutely. However, just because it is an earmark doesn't make it automatically wasteful spending.

Additionally, as a realist I keep reality in mind when dealing with anything. For 2010 which is a huge improvement over the 2004 budget which had $52.7 billion on a $2.3 trillion spending budget at 2.3% of the budget, once audited will probably be around $16 to $18 billion, on a spending budget of $3.6 trillion which is not quite half of one percent at 00.47%.

So do you scrap the entire process for "principle"?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...ic/2006/01/27/GR2006012700168.html

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/...spending-bills/UPI-89521262798650/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget


User currently offlineGatorFan From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 331 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (4 years 8 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1752 times:



Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 13):
Additionally, as a realist I keep reality in mind when dealing with anything. For 2010 which is a huge improvement over the 2004 budget which had $52.7 billion on a $2.3 trillion spending budget at 2.3% of the budget, once audited will probably be around $16 to $18 billion, on a spending budget of $3.6 trillion which is not quite half of one percent at 00.47%.

You know what they say about statistics. The proper analysis isn't earmarks to total spending but actually earmarks to discretionary spending. As the budget entitlements have balloned, the total percentage of the budget that is comprised of discretionary items has shrunk. Therefore, it's only natural that the percentage of earmarks (themselves a discretionary item) have also shrunk.

It's also pretty sad when we're viewing $16 billion in spending as inconsequential. To put it in perspective, the entire cost of rebuilding Haiti is estimated to cost on the order of $5B.


User currently offlineMoltenRock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (4 years 8 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1740 times:



Quoting GatorFan (Reply 14):
You know what they say about statistics. The proper analysis isn't earmarks to total spending but actually earmarks to discretionary spending. As the budget entitlements have balloned, the total percentage of the budget that is comprised of discretionary items has shrunk. Therefore, it's only natural that the percentage of earmarks (themselves a discretionary item) have also shrunk.

It's also pretty sad when we're viewing $16 billion in spending as inconsequential. To put it in perspective, the entire cost of rebuilding Haiti is estimated to cost on the order of $5B.

Even the total number of earmarks is down, from a high of 19,000+ in 2004 to 9,400, about 50% less. Hopefully this keeps shrinking. However, to be focused on earmarks as any credible deficit reduction plan is folly. In the big scheme of things 99.6% of spending is on other things. Around 25% of those earmarks already go to the bloated war machine of military spending in the US, which accounts for $750 billion +/- all in, each year but even the mere mention of reducing that ridiculous overspending is affront to conservatives everywhere.

Guess what? The USA doesn't have to do anything for now. Just let it ride. But when the dollar no longer is the currency of reserve America will have a currency run and credit crisis that will make this last one look like a walk in the park. In either case it will come down to US citizens determining their own fate, or the outside world subjecting them to it. The choice has been pretty clear since Reagan came into office, and only accelerated towards oblivion in the past 9 years.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (4 years 8 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1736 times:



Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 13):
Additionally, as a realist I keep reality in mind when dealing with anything. For 2010 which is a huge improvement over the 2004 budget which had $52.7 billion on a $2.3 trillion spending budget at 2.3% of the budget, once audited will probably be around $16 to $18 billion, on a spending budget of $3.6 trillion which is not quite half of one percent at 00.47%.

When you take into account a 2010 spending budget of $3.6 billion, and the fact that government revenues are expected to be only $2.38 trillion, how can you defend even $1 of spending that doesn't absolutely need to be spent?

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 13):
But your "pork" is another's badly needed local project.

As you said, "LOCAL" projects. WTF is the government doing funding a museum in Boofoo, California? Federal expenditures are supposed to be for the benefit of the entire country. If the population of Boofoo wants a museum, let them pass the collection cup among their friends and neighbors.

Granted, eliminating such waste won't eliminate the deficit. But it is ethically the easiest place in the budget to make drastic cuts and eliminations. If our congresscritters can't make such an easy choice, how do you expect them to make the really tough decisions regarding the cutting down to size of entitlement programs, defence procurement, and government bureaucracy?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineAvent From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (4 years 8 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1716 times:



Quoting GatorFan (Reply 4):
Passing legislation like this is dangerous because nobody knows what's in the bill.

I think it's safe to say the lobbiests know.


User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (4 years 8 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1689 times:



Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 9):
Breaking it up into 10 to 15 pieces would have been interesting to watch. One bill would be "preexisting conditions may not be denied coverage" another "insurance exchange market" another "employer responsibilities & reimbursements", and so on.

Trouble is, then you run the risk of not passing two parts of the bill that need to work in synergy. For instance, if you're going to require insurance companies not to discriminate based on preexisting conditions (which would add lots of high-risk clients to the pool), you've also got to institute an individual mandate (which would add lots of low-risk clients to the pool). Otherwise you drive the insurance companies bankrupt.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (4 years 8 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1688 times:



Quoting Avent (Reply 17):
I think it's safe to say the lobbiests know.

Which is why the public does not want this bill. Obama promised public negotiations and no lobbyists. This bill represents the exact opposite



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (4 years 8 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1687 times:



Quoting MoltenRock (Thread starter):
As the title asks, have you actually read the healthcare bill of either/both House & Senate?

Yes and I have linked to them in different threads repeatedly when specifics of both bills were misrepresnented.

Quoting MoltenRock (Thread starter):
How about stimulus bill that was signed into law early last year?

No, it was passed and signed by the time the bill was online.

Quoting MoltenRock (Thread starter):
Have you read the energy bill passed out of the House last year?

No because it stands no chance in the Senate.

Quoting MoltenRock (Thread starter):
The financial reform bill that's out of the House?

No because again it stands no chance in the Senate as it is written.


User currently offlineMoltenRock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (4 years 8 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1680 times:



Quoting Avent (Reply 17):
I think it's safe to say the lobbiests know.

Of course they do, which means anyone can as well.

The Supreme Court ruling today will only amplify the money, influence, and sway corporations have over lawmakers.

America has the government it deserves.


User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 16
Reply 22, posted (4 years 8 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1668 times:



Quoting MoltenRock (Thread starter):
As the title asks, have you actually read the healthcare bill of either/both House & Senate?

Why should we ? Our representatives were poised to vote on the bill 12 hours after any of them seen it. Go back to August and September 09 ... they were lining up to vote for a stack of paper that not one of them had read.

Now ... thank god for the huffington post... choke choke .... they posted HR3200 on the web. I read as much as I could stand ... it was mass confusion . But every-time you zeroed in on a certain issue , it was changed or said to be not included in the FC version . It was a bullshit.

This is a catastrophic fail for the democrats ...it was handled so poorly that its embarrassing . They thought that President Obama had such a power grip that no one would stand in his way... epic miscalculation. Same applies for cap and trade and stimulous ..they shoved the bill though so fast no one even understood any of it.



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineMoltenRock From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (4 years 8 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1664 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
Granted, eliminating such waste won't eliminate the deficit. But it is ethically the easiest place in the budget to make drastic cuts and eliminations. If our congresscritters can't make such an easy choice, how do you expect them to make the really tough decisions regarding the cutting down to size of entitlement programs, defence procurement, and government bureaucracy?

That's a bit like arguing that Congress should be running around rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic because at least that would be doing something, while admitting it won't do anything of import.

But look on the bright side, today's Supreme Court ruling should make the process of doing things a lot harder. Those poor, poor, corporations with no representation. *sniff, sniff*

I suppose the US government could raise quite a bit of money, by selling the naming rights of say, the Ovaltine Office™, Coca-Cola Congressional delegation, the FedEx State of the Union Address, Charles Schwab Federal Reserve Bank, or replace Lady Liberty's scroll-slate and have the new Apple iSlate Tablet as product placement.

Oh think of the possibilities!


User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (4 years 8 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1653 times:



Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 23):
I suppose the US government could raise quite a bit of money, by selling the naming rights

Don't laugh, a number of local governments do just that with their publicly owned stadiums.


25 MoltenRock : Product placement for the win! Maybe we can raise the $12 trillion needed to retire the debt.[Edited 2010-01-21 15:43:12]
26 Continental : That's great. But you cannot expect everyone in the US who has an opinion on this matter to have read the bill which is equivalent in length to 22 no
27 MoltenRock : Most Americans haven't a clue about how laws get enacted. Ask someone walking down the street what "cloture" means, or how or why a politician might
28 Dreadnought : And remember that the Constitution, our founding legal document, was not written in legalese, but in English so that any schoolchild can understand i
29 RFields5421 : Beg to differ. The US Constution was the second attempt to create a government - after the first one failed. It is written in the legal language of t
30 MoltenRock : Not only that but it's not "law" in of itself, but sets out what laws can be made in the first place. It's why it's referred to as a "framework", tha
31 AGM100 : We are asking too much from the same party who believes that home owners should be relieved of their mortgage agreements because they did not understa
32 Continental : But Americans can glean the important parts of the bill from various news sources and form their own opinion. They need not read what is the equivale
33 Texan : But they shouldn't be. Like legal briefs, motions, and papers, they should be written in a way that allows most people to understand the majority of
34 Dreadnought : Doesn't that bother you? There is a better way. Here is a link to Swiss Federal Laws, in English. Switzerland has been around a long time, and all th
35 Post contains links CALTECH : Oh do you mean like Obama's senior White House advisor ? http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...JmZjhhNzBiYzMxMzkzZTQyMTlhMTIzNmM= "Over the next fou
36 Texan : I don't necessarily agree with that, but I do think laws need to be written in plain English. Some arguments, borrowed from the great legal writer Br
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Do You Regularly Read The Obituaries? posted Thu Mar 29 2007 05:20:53 by 767Lover
Have You Ever Seen The "flip" Ship? posted Thu Mar 1 2007 03:49:37 by JFKTOWERFAN
F.S.T. --- Have You Ever Broken The Law? posted Fri Jul 29 2005 09:26:28 by FlyAUA
Have You Ever Consumed The Flesh Of........ posted Sat Apr 30 2005 07:36:42 by L-188
Have You Been To The Whitsunday Islands? posted Thu Jul 8 2004 09:29:33 by Qantasflyer
How Long Have You Been On The Internet posted Mon Jan 6 2003 20:53:10 by Marcus
Have You Registered To Get Into The USA? posted Fri Aug 1 2008 13:46:55 by OA260
Kashi Cereal? -have You Have The Same Problem? posted Mon Sep 21 2009 10:16:08 by Mirrodie
Have You Heard The Longest Piece Of Music In World posted Mon May 28 2007 11:03:43 by RootsAir
Have You Ever Appeared On The Newspaper? posted Sat May 26 2007 10:41:59 by RootsAir