• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

yet another fine example

Right after one more post first. ;)
If Ricky (or Micheal) wanted to keep it on topic, then he would have just answered the question(s) posed many pages back since he should have been simple questions. Instead, misdirection was the key hoping we'd forget that you can't seem to answer the question you accused others of being uninformed about. That is NOT keeping posts relevant to the topic IMO.
Let's start this way, refer to me as Michael, and Ricky as Ricky, and separate responses and opinions.
My fist post!
Does anyone even know what the health plan is well enough to suggest it's bad?
You're response to it!
I've read enough excerpts. How can you even hint at defending it if you haven't, Rickeal?
I'm trying to read where I personally defended the healthcare plan, or debated whether you were right or wrong. I had seen on the news that no one has read the plan yet, so I was posing the question in this thread, how people here were so dead set against it. You keep treating it like I'm dodging a question, when my first post stated that I had no answer or understanding what the plan entailed.
Then it got retaliated with a Rickael, which I saw as relatively baiting, but chose to ignore, and when I came back this thread was a full blown milking the system accusation, in which I felt the need to respond to.






Not called me an inflammatory name? See post #63. Sure, I referred to both of you as a nym that combines your name and Michael, but I didn't do it for the main purpose of "baiting you." I did it because even you two can't even keep track of which one of you said what when or which one is answering something directed towards the other. I promise all that I won't personally do it again.
Well it sure seemed like baiting to me, but I'll take your word for it.
"I did it because even you two can't even keep track of which one of you said what when or which one is answering something directed towards the other.", how so? I remember exactly what I posted, and can speak for myself, as well as Ricky can. And it doesn't make sense as an explanation either, seeing you quoted me, and I responded.

Assuming y'all don't just accidentally post under each other's names, then you yourselves can't seem to keep straight who is who.
I keep who is who perfectly straight, it is some of you who cannot. I left this thread after a one sentence post, and when I came back to see what the conversation was, it was directed towards me having Obama give me a free ride like a rich uncle. Maybe if you read my posts individually, you would notice the unfair way in which I became a topic.

Obviously, those of us reading can sometimes have trouble telling one apart from the other - especially since the posts tend to be so closely identical in thought and format. I mostly meant the term is as shorthand to refer to both of you at once. I'm not saying there wasn't some rancor in my thoughts behind the use of the name (implying y'all are the same person in real life and nothing else), but I can hold a grudge for a long time after being called nasty names in the past.
Maybe close in thought and format, definitely not identical. But when a topic like this comes up, in which we are accused of milking the system simply because I like to make a little extra money when I can, we will surely both take offense similarly.
From my perspective, this debate was solely fueled by the said accusation, and nothing to do with the health care plan, as I've stated before.
From the accusation of having internet and pets as luxuries, to the round about way of implying we somehow are pretending to be disabled for the Gov't SSI because I have worked low hours to have extra pay. Should I sit on a couch all day to make people feel better about my SSI, I may be disabled and receive SSI but I feel no obligation to limit my physical activity because of it.
I only started getting paid SSI at 18, hardly worth the 18yr ploy of faking using walkers and foot braces until I was 7, or the public criticism of being skinny and sickly, missing out on just about every activity healthy children have like sports, vacations, or just not being ridiculed, having your own friends treat you of less importance. So when someone makes some claim like this is fun for me, and it's a free ride, I want to blow up. This isn't fun, but I make due, I have to live this life and wouldn't want another. That's not because it's all peaches n cream, that's because I came from nothing, and have built a life of my own, and can finally after 21yrs say that life is good. If that's milking the system, I'm sorry.
$20,000 in credit card debt spent on clothes and nights on the town is fine if you work full time, but you make due with $674mo and you somehow are living the life of luxury.
It's all good though, we differ in opinion, this thread got heated, but I'll still accept responsibility where you felt offended. You probably do know much more about the Health Plan than I, and maybe about Obama's administration in general. But my concern was Obama vs McCain Palin, and to me I am still very happy that Obama won.

What about the side that pays for those benefits only to hear over and over that "it isn't enough" and "but I don't want to work at THAT job." I am referencing the ones that abuse the system - not the ones that need it and get off of it as soon as they are physically able to do so.
I think there is a misunderstanding in this statement, for us there is no getting off when we're physically able to do so. This might be where people get so lost, they see it as a substitute while out of work, hear that I have done small jobs and freak. Our disability is APTD, Aid to the Permanently and Totally Disabled. The only time we will not have the disability is when we die, unless there is some scientific miracle in my lifetime. If it sounds as though we would just rather not work, than you are not understanding it properly. I would LOVE a job, and consider myself to be anti-lazy. There are also extenuating circumstances right now that won't allow me any type of job, my mother lost her license 2ys ago, and I must drive her to and from work, store, etc.. Being the only license holder, I must do all of the driving, which doesn't lend me any time to drive far for work. This is why I do jobs with my mother, and it is so great to have her there because we can get alot done as we are both very work and detail oriented. I would have to find a job in town, none of which are office jobs, or non labor intensive.
We are afforded the luxury of the internet, pets, owning our own home, etc... Because we work together as a family, and split everything three ways. Not because Obama makes it rain money over our heads. Not too many people would be willing to do so either, it isn't the easiest thing to be responsible for every trip to the store, work, laundry, errands, and everything in between. It's also not easy sharing everything you have with everyone else, including all of your time.
An example of our "luxuries" would be this. If you see 3 people all living in separate houses, driving separate cars, separate internet, phone TV's etc.. But they were all mediocre, a small TV, dial up internet, an old car, etc.. You wouldn't think it was so nice. But the three of us share so we can afford to have our pets, high speed internet, and own our own property. Yeah it looks nicer, because splitting things three ways provides more quality, but it doesn't mean it's a more luxurious lifestyle. Our mortgage is split, $550 a month, internet split $20 a month, direct TV, $30 a month, etc... All of these things sound nicer, but are also cheaper that individually having $30 dial up, $40 cable, and $800+ a month rent. We are afforded the small joys we have through hard work, and sharing. It's not for everyone, and hardly the luxuries of a free ride.

I'll ask you: can't you respect the perception of THOSE people enough to even say what parts of ObamaCare you like, why, and what makes it something others are responsible to pay for? Coming from people who pay into the current system, don't ask for respect of your "perception" if you can't give the same level of respect to ours.
I never disrespected your take on the plan, and would love to know from someone like you how it might affect someone like me. I think it was a misunderstanding, I don't follow the ins and outs of policies like I should, and can certainly do a better job respecting your opinion from now on.


Please - what do you think about the part where employers would have to pay for benefits for you for those few hours a week you (or was it Michael? I'm sorry, but I don't remember which is which) work? Think they could afford to keep you? Think that is a good thing? Think that will help Amerika to have so many people making a little money on the side getting fired? I don't think it'll help at all, and we will all be the losers. Of course, this only refers to people paid "on the books" legally. There are a lot of people in this scenario - citizens and illegal residents - all over America right now, and I don't see how those people can complain about not getting enough BACK from the .gov. Anyone cheating taxes by being paid under the table to avoid paying into the system deserve nothing from the system in return.

What about the VA comparison? Think we'll get better under ObamaCare? How and/or why?
If that's what it will mean for me I'm with you. It bothers the hell out of me that my mother is just under full time, so can't receive benefits. That should be illegal, she pays taxes, and works almost every day, shouldn't she have proper health care?
 
I have felt terrible left out this morning so I have been reading this thread. I think it is part of my masochistic tendency. As I read along I think of comments I would like to make but they are too late and the conversation has moved on. I guess I need to keep up if I what to play. I have found a recurring theme here that seems to run through all of these debates. Lets see if I can write a syllabus for the next topic.

Someone makes a comment, on any topic, doesn’t matter.

Ricky and Michael find it offensive.

KJ defends his constitutional rights. Asks Ricky and Michael question.

Ricky and Michael ignore question.

Robbie asks Ricky and Michael to answer KJ’s question.

Ricky and Michael defend Obama’s plan.

Robbie wants a job and needs money.

Ricky and Michael say he doesn’t understand what it means to need money like a black man.

Eric defends gay rights.

Ricky and Michael feel his pain as only a white black man could.

We debate weather Ricky and Michael are really one person. (I think they are an ingeniously designed tag team)

Ricky and Michael defend their right to be two people.

KJ defends his constitutional rights.

Cornsnake 124 makes grandiose statement.

Forkedtung demands documentation.

Robbie asks Ricky and Michael to answer KJ’s question.

Deano reminds us to play nice

Everyone ignores him.

Deano locks thread.
 
Okay Wade, at first glance I thought you were totally misinformed, but you were probably wise not to read the thread. You have some of the argument correct in a relatively humorous way, but failed to see the topic, and seem to unfairly accusing us of taking offense to everything and instigating fights. So I ask you to read some of this thread, and then see how it relates to your post.
I'm not starting a right or wrong debate here, simply defending unrelated accusations that came up for reasons unknown.
But I gotcha this time Wade, and can actually appreciate the fine tuned level of humor your post has, rather than being offended. Sure it was over simplified, somewhat misinformed (but with good reason, as you most like chose to be wise and not read the entire thread), but it was pretty damn funny, I'll give you that!
 
I have felt terrible left out this morning so I have been reading this thread. I think it is part of my masochistic tendency. As I read along I think of comments I would like to make but they are too late and the conversation has moved on. I guess I need to keep up if I what to play. I have found a recurring theme here that seems to run through all of these debates. Lets see if I can write a syllabus for the next topic.

Someone makes a comment, on any topic, doesn’t matter.

Ricky and Michael find it offensive.

KJ defends his constitutional rights. Asks Ricky and Michael question.

Ricky and Michael ignore question.

Robbie asks Ricky and Michael to answer KJ’s question.

Ricky and Michael defend Obama’s plan.

Robbie wants a job and needs money.

Ricky and Michael say he doesn’t understand what it means to need money like a black man.

Eric defends gay rights.

Ricky and Michael feel his pain as only a white black man could.

We debate weather Ricky and Michael are really one person. (I think they are an ingeniously designed tag team)

Ricky and Michael defend their right to be two people.

KJ defends his constitutional rights.

Cornsnake 124 makes grandiose statement.

Forkedtung demands documentation.

Robbie asks Ricky and Michael to answer KJ’s question.

Deano reminds us to play nice

Everyone ignores him.

Deano locks thread.

OMG!!! WADE!!!!!!!!!
I'm sitting here in the middle of the day, laughing like a freakin' LOON!!
:)
 
I read the thread sweetheart. If you had read my post and the thread that would have been painfully obvious.
 
I am more than someone "willing to take a few punches" here. I am genuinely curious how you or ANYONE with an ounce of sense can be behind this thing. Even members of Obama's own party are coming out against it!

So, please...try to convince me WHY this health care legislation is a GOOD thing. Please tell me specific points that you like about it. Please try to convince me. That's all I'm asking.

My suspicion is that the ONLY reasons you are for this legislation are that you think it will "help" people, although you don't know the details....and because your man Obama says it's what's best,,,and you will go along with ANYTHING Obama says.....
Please prove me wrong....
Thank you Starsevol, I'll do my best!. For starters, I love Obama the idealist, not the image. If he declared war on Iran right now I would absolutely object. I just appreciate his calmness and patience as a leader!. Back to health-care; Obviously no-one knows exactly what's included in President Obama's health-care legislation, but I think through things we've heard, plus studies on other countries that have similar policies, we can devise as much to say that it is a bill that would allow government to run public health-care. What we don't know is to what extent they control, and how we're going to pay for it. People then get worried, because they don't want to be stuck with the bill.

The way I see it, though, is that the system is flawed and health-care should be someones legal right. We're all going to have to pay for it some how, and at least this way our country would be liable treat people in need instead of turning people away. Yes, you look at countries like Canada and say "I don't want that", but from what I'm getting it won't even be like that. End all said all, you'll still be able to keep your private insurer with the Obama plan, but their will now just be an option for those who can't afford health-care. Will that mean an increase in taxes?; probably. But poor people need to live, too, and if we refuse health-care to everyone unable to afford it, because we fear the "leaches" than we're basically throwing the baby out with the bath water. The truth is that we could feasibly afford these ambitions if we weren't paying the bills on two separate wars. That's where I feel peoples real anger should be placed. Not in some reform that is just trying to get sick people proper treatment. Nothing at this point is written in stone, and I for one am glad to see someone attempting to create change in our system!
 
Wade, you left out, "Eric and KJ agree that they just want to be left the heck alone." Pay better attention next time. Otherwise, perfect synopsis....lol.
 
That demeanor isn't "calm leader" - it is conman.


If he declared war on Iran right now I would absolutely object.

What about his way of getting us out of, "Bush's War" by sending in more troops. Hmmm, Bush got bashed for wanting to do that, and the biggest complainers back then don't say a word when Obama does it. Soooo, how do you feel about Obama breaking THAT promise, too? Notice that the people who supported Bush's actions then still aren't attacking Obama for doing it now because, I assume, they still feel it is the correct action no matter who is in charge.
 
I have felt terrible left out this morning so I have been reading this thread. I think it is part of my masochistic tendency. As I read along I think of comments I would like to make but they are too late and the conversation has moved on. I guess I need to keep up if I what to play. I have found a recurring theme here that seems to run through all of these debates. Lets see if I can write a syllabus for the next topic.

Someone makes a comment, on any topic, doesn’t matter...

:roflmao:

I need to sticky this. Then I can start locking all political threads on page one, and just re-direct everyone to this post...
 
:roflmao:

I need to sticky this. Then I can start locking all political threads on page one, and just re-direct everyone to this post...

Well, you stopped the name calling, so I assume your post worked just as it was meant to work. Well, we still call the president names, but that issue was brought up in reference to other political entities on one of Rich's other boards. The instruction was that we couldn't call members names, soooooooo...I guess we can call political entities whatever we want until they register here. :)
 
Thank you Starsevol, I'll do my best!. For starters, I love Obama the idealist, not the image. If he declared war on Iran right now I would absolutely object. I just appreciate his calmness and patience as a leader!. Back to health-care; Obviously no-one knows exactly what's included in President Obama's health-care legislation, but I think through things we've heard, plus studies on other countries that have similar policies, we can devise as much to say that it is a bill that would allow government to run public health-care. What we don't know is to what extent they control, and how we're going to pay for it. People then get worried, because they don't want to be stuck with the bill.

The way I see it, though, is that the system is flawed and health-care should be someones legal right. We're all going to have to pay for it some how, and at least this way our country would be liable treat people in need instead of turning people away. Yes, you look at countries like Canada and say "I don't want that", but from what I'm getting it won't even be like that. End all said all, you'll still be able to keep your private insurer with the Obama plan, but their will now just be an option for those who can't afford health-care. Will that mean an increase in taxes?; probably. But poor people need to live, too, and if we refuse health-care to everyone unable to afford it, because we fear the "leaches" than we're basically throwing the baby out with the bath water. The truth is that we could feasibly afford these ambitions if we weren't paying the bills on two separate wars. That's where I feel peoples real anger should be placed. Not in some reform that is just trying to get sick people proper treatment. Nothing at this point is written in stone, and I for one am glad to see someone attempting to create change in our system!


Yes, Obama is an idealist, but that does not mean that he knows what's best in this case. Many children are idealists too, and I wouldn't trust them on healthcare reform either. I also don't think Obama is patient, since he is in such a hurry to do this. You say that no one knows what's in Obama's healthcare legislation...but certainly Obama does. Could THAT be why he's in such a hurry? Maybe he wants to make it law BEFORE YOU and I know what's in it!

I admit, I have not read the plan. But I do know that a "right to health care" is not under the constitution. So I firmly believe that government has no business going there. As it is right now, hospitals must treat anyone who needs it, regardless of whether or not they get paid. We don't refuse health care to poor people. We don't turn ANYONE away as it is now....so how can you say we do?
What I CAN see happening is just what KJUN said. Businesses who hire people will eliminate jobs and fire workers if they are forced to pay for health care they cannot afford to pay. I own a business, and I know that it takes capitol to run a business. And if government forces you to pay more than you can afford, you cut back. And that means firing people. Just like you on your fixed income, you can't pay what you don't have, and businesses can't make money appear out of thin air to pay these bills.
I can also see rationing going on. There is a part of this bill I heard about (granted I didn't read it for myself) about refusing health care and treatment to people over a certain age, to save money. Basically, just letting old people die instead of treating their illnesses. I know it happens in other countries, is that something you want?

Years ago, I played in online Monopoly tournaments. There was a kid who played with us, she was a 12 year old girl from Yorkshire. Her dad was 45 and had to have a heart bypass. He was in the hospital for weeks (I can't remember if it was 5 or 6 weeks), and came home. He came home and was home for about a week, but ended up dying within the month from complications of the surgery.

I sure don't want that for this country.....
 
Place your orders, I'm buying ( you just have to find your way to the White House) :wavey:

So far:
1 Barrelhead Root Beer ( for me)
1 Red Bull ( that OK Michael ?)
 
Yes, Obama is an idealist, but that does not mean that he knows what's best in this case. Many children are idealists too, and I wouldn't trust them on healthcare reform either.
There's nothing wrong with idealism. That's a quality all leaders should possess. Otherwise how can they lead?.

I also don't think Obama is patient, since he is in such a hurry to do this. You say that no one knows what's in Obama's healthcare legislation...but certainly Obama does. Could THAT be why he's in such a hurry? Maybe he wants to make it law BEFORE YOU and I know what's in it!
I like what David Gergen said on CNN, which was basically that Obama was rushing Health-care legislation while people were still enthusiastic. Translation; It's like pulling the band-aid quickly. It's something he finds to be vital to the progression of American society, and the more time we sit on it, the more begrudging people will become.

I admit, I have not read the plan. But I do know that a "right to health care" is not under the constitution. So I firmly believe that government has no business going there. As it is right now, hospitals must treat anyone who needs it, regardless of whether or not they get paid. We don't refuse health care to poor people. We don't turn ANYONE away as it is now....so how can you say we do?
Turned away, no!. Ill advised treatment, absolutely!. It's especially divided among cultural lines. Not sparking a new debate, but it is a factor!.

What I CAN see happening is just what KJUN said. Businesses who hire people will eliminate jobs and fire workers if they are forced to pay for health care they cannot afford to pay. I own a business, and I know that it takes capitol to run a business. And if government forces you to pay more than you can afford, you cut back. And that means firing people. Just like you on your fixed income, you can't pay what you don't have, and businesses can't make money appear out of thin air to pay these bills.
I don't think so. What businesses can and can't afford depends on revenue, and I doubt his legislation would turn all small-business owners bankrupt. On the contrary, I think it's a service they should provide, and I'm sure their will be tax cuts and programs so they can afford it more easily than they could in the past. Not to mention it will lead to a healthier work force, which in turn will increase productivity!.

I can also see rationing going on. There is a part of this bill I heard about (granted I didn't read it for myself) about refusing health care and treatment to people over a certain age, to save money. Basically, just letting old people die instead of treating their illnesses. I know it happens in other countries, is that something you want?
Not at all, though we should always look at quality of life versus sustainability. I think old people should get treatment regardless, but giving someone blood transfusions everyday while their in a comatose state is kind of blurry. I still say you leave the family to decide, but even then I don't think particular issues like these will be any more prevalent in a government-run health-care system. These are more ethical issues, and that's left for the court system to handle!.
 
you would notice the unfair way in which I became a topic.

If you and Ricky are different people, I do owe you an apology for that because, well, my responses treat y'all as one. Benefit of the doubt here, so I will say, "I'm sorry that I replied to you and Ricky as if your were one person. That means my responses towards you, Micheal, were almost definitely unwarranted."


because I like to make a little extra money when I can, we will surely both take offense similarly.

For the record, I'm not against that. I support people working to the best of their ability....to the point that they are standing on their own in the economic workplace. If the above comment was directed to me, it was misplaced. I am not taking it as being directed to me specifically, though.

I think there is a misunderstanding in this statement, for us there is no getting off when we're physically able to do so. This might be where people get so lost, they see it as a substitute while out of work, hear that I have done small jobs and freak.

I understand that your disability is for life. That's why I said (because of people in your situation) that I am a firm supporter of aide until you can be trained for a job you can do. To me, that's the best help you can give anyone - to help them reach the potential of what they can perform with the deck of cards they were dealt.

But, stop and think about what you've said from my side. I understand that you can't do "any" job because of your health issue, and I understand it is a good thing that you can help your mom out right not. However, not getting a job you CAN do so that you can help your mom out is a choice. I would love to be able to be there every moment for my grandparents (my parents still get around perfectly fine) and help them, but I have to work. I'm not attacking - I'm just pointing out that you seem to realize that there are SOME jobs you can't do, but you choose to help out your mom instead. I understand she may need it, and I respect you for caring about your mother's welfare so much. However, lots of people who aren't disabled have to go to work instead of helping their parents who also need help. Again, I'm not trying to bait or attack, but don't you see that your choice of "work a job I can do or help my parent" is the same choice lots of people who aren't disabled make every day...and they HAVE to go to work instead. I'm not saying you wouldn't trade off your disability in exchange for someone else driving your mom, but you are choosing that option (over some job you could do) voluntarily.


If that's what it will mean for me I'm with you. It bothers the hell out of me that my mother is just under full time, so can't receive benefits. That should be illegal, she pays taxes, and works almost every day, shouldn't she have proper health care?

Well, would you prefer that her employer had to fire her because he would HAVE to pay benefits that he couldn't afford under ObamaCare? If the employer can't afford it and it is mandatory, then he'll have to let her go...or someone else's parent or child. If employers have to pay benefits on ALL employees, I bet we'll see the end of part-time jobs in the US...and have them replaced with just a couple full time ones in their place. That means higher unemployment, fewer workers paying taxes, higher taxes (meaning fewer jobs), and diminishing monies for health care.

The idea that employers SHOULD have to play benefits is (1) a constitutional myth even if I agree with you morally and ethically and (2) impractical since employers don't have a printing press for money unless they are the .gov that doesn't seem to care about run away inflation. The concept that you can't force employers to pay for something the can't afford just can't be ignored. I'd rather have a job and no health care than no job at all. :(

Maybe if they came out with smaller bills so only the good ones could get through (pipe dream, eh?) after people got to actually read them and think about them, this wouldn't be such a big scare. For example (and I'm thinking of your Mom's case), I wonder if a law saying employers had to pay health care benefits in proportion to the hours the employee is paid in an average week. Think about this (and I don't know if it is practical or feasible since it's something I just thought of - but it is no less unconstitutional that what we already have....lol): if the employee works 40 hours, they get "free" health care via work. If they work 30 hours, they have to pony up 75% or get 75% of the equivalent benefits. Maybe employes could just reduce hours so they are putting out an equal amount of money instead of firing people. In other words, if they work someone 30 hours with no benefits, they could then work them 25 with partial benefits. Less pay and not full benefits, but at least the employer might be able to keep people ON a payroll that way. Shrug?

Plus, people that get health care via work aren't getting it free. It is part of their salary. The idea that they get it free (not that you personally have ever said this) ticks me off. Trust me - you get paid less per hour because they have to pay for health benefits for you. It's like the carbon tax on farmers. They don't eat all that tax money - you pay it when the price of food goes up to cover a portion of that tax!
KJ
 
Place your orders, I'm buying ( you just have to find your way to the White House) :wavey:

So far:
1 Barrelhead Root Beer ( for me)
1 Red Bull ( that OK Michael ?)
While since your buying, I'll take some Crystal and Chocolate Milk. Thanks!!!:cheers:
 
I'm not going to find the post, but the idea that someone stated about HealthCare is affordable if this "war that is bankrupting this country" can only be considered ANYTHING but ludicrous if you ignore the fact that Obama spent more in 100 days than Bush did on the war and Katrina combined in EIGHT YEARS. Take all that money that Bush spent and put it in a pile...and it still wouldn't cover Obama's run away inflation tactics.

I don't think so. What businesses can and can't afford depends on revenue, and I doubt his legislation would turn all small-business owners bankrupt. On the contrary, I think it's a service they should provide, and I'm sure their will be tax cuts and programs so they can afford it more easily than they could in the past.

Who's gonna pay for the monies to be available so THOSE businesses to get tax cuts? It has to come from somewhere since we certainly aren't making any real cuts in spending on anything else. Again, it is the idea that money can just be made. Oh, wait. Now that we don't care about the effects of inflation, I guess they can just run the presses full time.


Place your orders, I'm buying ( you just have to find your way to the White House) :wavey:

Diet Dr. Pepper for me. Room temp with no ice. Some cherry in it would be nice it it isn't too much of a bother.
 
Diet Dr. Pepper for me. Room temp with no ice. Some cherry in it would be nice it it isn't too much of a bother.
Done as well! a cherry or cherry syrup? (you people drink some strange stuff...) I figured a Texan would put a lime in it.
 
Back
Top