|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Aug 2, 2018 21:33:21 GMT
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the Disney of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the Marvel of the darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of GOTG children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy My brothers. And you will know I Gunn the Lord when I lay My vengeance upon you." Tough. It wasn’t for you.
|
|
|
Post by IceTruckDexter on Aug 2, 2018 22:01:59 GMT
Tough. It wasn’t for you. How about instead you just say it was bad and forget about your ego.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Aug 2, 2018 22:34:27 GMT
Tough. It wasn’t for you. How about instead you just say it was bad and forget about your ego. It *was* bad. That was the intention, I’m just screwing with fish. Not everything is a dick measuring contest.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Aug 2, 2018 22:51:06 GMT
How about instead you just say it was bad and forget about your ego. It *was* bad. That was the intention, I’m just screwing with fish. Not everything is a dick measuring contest. *Whips out Nano-Gauge* I can measure so fucking precise with this!
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Aug 2, 2018 22:58:49 GMT
It *was* bad. That was the intention, I’m just screwing with fish. Not everything is a dick measuring contest. *Whips out Nano-Gauge* I can measure so fucking precise with this! That has nothing to do with Disney OR Marvel.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Aug 3, 2018 1:19:34 GMT
*Whips out Nano-Gauge* I can measure so fucking precise with this! That has nothing to do with Disney OR Marvel. Uhhh nano bots were very much a thing in the latest Avengers. Iron Man's new suit was chock full of em!
|
|
dazed
Based
Posts: 2,624
Likes: 1,789
|
Post by dazed on Aug 3, 2018 2:27:32 GMT
Keep tossing them insults my way. I get a good laugh when people act tough over the internet during an argument. Let me get this right. America is spending waaay more on healthcare than other countries with universal healthcare at the moment. That's not debatable. So, you're saying that if America moved towards a universal healthcare system, like the other countries that have it implemented and are paying less, America would somehow end up paying more than they already are? I'm not getting your logic. Doctors are happy to work in the universal healthcare system, a universal healthcare system actually does include making prescription drugs free, if not much lower. This article goes through somewhat detailed reasoning why it's more cost effective: www.google.ca/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/07/07/upshot/why-single-payer-health-care-saves-money.amp.htmlMeanwhile countries like Norway, Denmark, Finland and Canada have stronger middle classes that are more well off than the likes of middle classes in America. So since you're in favor of a free market system, you're alright for people with pre existing conditions to get denied service by insurance companies. They'll reject anybody whose high risk so they can make more profit. Let's say if you weren't high risk, but you ended up getting cancer, you'd get fucked if you didn't have healthcare beforehand. Before Obamacare, you'd get a huge bill even if you were still covered and that'd still lead to bankruptcy. A free market system would be for profit. How do insurance companies make more profit? Deny coverage as much as possible. Leading to more illness and leading to more deaths. They're not articles. They're comprehensive studies by experts that have spent years dealing with these issues. Non partisan groups that have no dog in the fight. Those studies all lead to the same outcome too. Again, I'm not socialist. Man, I'd hate if your brother went to America. Imagine him seeing that girl who got her leg snapped on the subway station and scream out for no one to call an ambulance since she couldn't afford the ride. I'm sure his opinion on the healthcare system would be bad. My family is actually pretty conservative and can't believe how horrible the American system is and say how lucky we are. I didn't bother to bring that up though since it's a small sample size, but since you used your brother as an argument, guess I'll use them. Where did I praise them? Now you’re putting words in my mouth. They tried to use that study to smear universal healthcare and it backfired and now people like Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are using it to support their policy. It’s funny. I don’t need to pick one. “Tories in Britain won’t touch it because the public think it’s sacrosanct and free..” Definitely sounds like you implied it. A government won’t touch it because the citizens think it’s good for them. So you’re saying that it’s actually not good for them and a system like yours would be better for them, although the people living there and living in the system massively disagree. Silly argument in my opinion. Again, every single country that has a universal healthcare system has a vast majority of people that agree with the system. Yet in America, a majority of people disagree with their system. I guess even though we don’t have to fill out papers for private insurances, worry about bankruptcy, having family members that die because they have no coverage, we’re the idiots because we’re actually happy when we can walk in and out of a doctors office or hospital without having a dollar in our wallet. If the universal system is as bad as what you’re making it out to be, there’d be countries changing their systems and majority of citizens rebelling against it. I wonder why we don’t see that. That I do. It’s not a desperate turn at all. Generally people that are against universal healthcare and say it’s too expensive won’t ever say anything about dropping thousands of bombs per month, not a thing about the 110 billion dollar arms deal with Saudi to commit a genocide on Yemen, and not a thing about the 8 unnecessary wars they’re in. More of a rant if anything. I’ve already talked about the free market above. Also, no. The person mostly against the Wall Street bailout in America is the furthest left politician, aka Bernie. If your point is that Obama was president when they were bailed out so it’s a left wing position, Obama is a centrist. Center right if anything. If you’re talking about Clinton and glass steagall as well, he’s centrist too. Arguing that deregulation of banks is a left wing position would be silly. I don’t see people going bankrupt over food, do you? I don’t see people being denied food because they have pre existing conditions, do you? I don’t see people paying over 50,000 dollars when they’re in Safeway shopping for groceries for an hour and a half and don’t have an air miles card, do you? I don’t see a person waiting for me after I walk out, wanting me to pay a 70 dollar fee just for coming and not getting my milk, do you? Compare all of the industrialized countries and see what each of their policies are like. Have a spectrum on the international stage. You’re basically saying that Bernie should rightfully be labeled a radical, meanwhile here in Canada or any of the Scandinavian countries, he’d be a center/left character. Internationally, he’s not a radical.
Let me get this right. America is spending waaay more on healthcare than other countries with universal healthcare at the moment. That's not debatable. So, you're saying that if America moved towards a universal healthcare system, like the other countries that have it implemented and are paying less, America would somehow end up paying more than they already are? I'm not getting your logic. You just posted an article saying moving towards universal healthcare would save 2 trillion yet you doubt what I said. You can't seem to keep up with your own logic.
Doctors are happy to work in the universal healthcare system, a universal healthcare system
No they're not. Most of the best doctors in the world go where the money is. It's like any other industry. That's like saying Lionel Messi would be happy to play for a no name Argentinian club and not get paid.
a universal healthcare system actually does include making prescription drugs free, if not much lower. Why would it? If the government are guaranteeing the sale of drugs then the drug companies can charge whatever they want. The only way to stop that is nationalize the drug companies and set price controls. I hope I don't have to explain why that's a bad idea.
Meanwhile countries like Norway, Denmark, Finland and Canada have stronger middle classes that are more well off than the likes of middle classes in America. Except Norway has had stagnant growth for many years now. Denmark has had to vote in more conservatives in the last few years to stop the rot. Sweden was at one point one of the 5 richest countries in the world per capita and since they've gone the social democracy road they've dropped big time. Also all these countries don't have to spend so much on defense since the US foots the bill for most of that.
So since you're in favor of a free market system, you're alright for people with pre existing conditions to get denied service by insurance companies. Yes. It's not a charity. It's a guaranteed loss for the insurance company. It's like selling someone fire insurance on your house after it's burned down.
Let's say if you weren't high risk, but you ended up getting cancer, you'd get fucked if you didn't have healthcare beforehand. Well I have insurance because I'm not stupid and if I was I wouldn't complain to the government for own stupidity.
Before Obamacare, you'd get a huge bill even if you were still covered and that'd still lead to bankruptcy. A free market system would be for profit. How do insurance companies make more profit? Deny coverage as much as possible. Leading to more illness and leading to more deaths. You do realize it wasn't a free market before Obama. The US has been spending this amount of money in healthcare for decades. You also know Obamacare if basically subsidizing the insurance companies right. They can charge what they want. Even Bernie Sanders said this wasn't a good system. It's worse than universal healthcare.
Imagine him seeing that girl who got her leg snapped on the subway station and scream out for no one to call an ambulance since she couldn't afford the ride. Again I'm not a fan of the American system. It's not a real private system.
I'm sure his opinion on the healthcare system would be bad.
Actually we went to the States a few years ago and on the second day we were there he had to be taken to hospital. Luckily he had insurance. He said his care was very good. I doubt he'd say the same thing for Cuba, Canada and Britain.
Where did I praise them? Now you’re putting words in my mouth. They tried to use that study to smear universal healthcare and it backfired and now people like Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are using it to support their policy. It’s funny. I don’t need to pick one.
You know full well they could have buried that study and they didn't. You did praise them. I personally couldn't give two shits about them.
Definitely sounds like you implied it. A government won’t touch it because the citizens think it’s good for them. So you’re saying that it’s actually not good for them and a system like yours would be better for them, although the people living there and living in the system massively disagree. Silly argument in my opinion. Yes people never know what's good for them. A lot of people in the Muslim world think it's good to live in a Sharia system. There are still a lot of communists in Russia and they're the second biggest party. It really isn't. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's right or effective.
Generally people that are against universal healthcare and say it’s too expensive won’t ever say anything about dropping thousands of bombs per month, not a thing about the 110 billion dollar arms deal with Saudi to commit a genocide on Yemen, and not a thing about the 8 unnecessary wars they’re in. The reason the West supports regimes like Saudi Arabia is because they don't then the likes of Russia or China will step in and fill the vacuum. Unlike the States, guys like Putin and Jinping would do anything for more power. You also forget the energy the States need to keep their citizens from starving.
I’ve already talked about the free market above. Also, no. The person mostly against the Wall Street bailout in America is the furthest left politician, aka Bernie. If your point is that Obama was president when they were bailed out so it’s a left wing position, Obama is a centrist. Center right if anything. If you’re talking about Clinton and glass steagall as well, he’s centrist too. Arguing that deregulation of banks is a left wing position would be silly. No Sanders just wants to tax them into oblivion or enough for them to leave and no this is not about Obama or Bush or Sanders. It's a left wing position to guarantee the banks solvency if they fail since the money comes from the taxpayers. The banks didn't collapse because of deregulation or them betting. They betted on the collapse of the housing market. The housing market collapsed because the mortgages given out were shit and they were shit because of a law that made the banks not refuse a mortgage to someone with bad credit ratings. It didn't matter to the banks because they knew they'd be bailed out.
I don’t see people going bankrupt over food, do you? I don’t see people being denied food because they have pre existing conditions, do you? I don’t see people paying over 50,000 dollars when they’re in Safeway shopping for groceries for an hour and a half and don’t have an air miles card, do you? I don’t see a person waiting for me after I walk out, wanting me to pay a 70 dollar fee just for coming and not getting my milk, do you? No answer the question. Why don't the government guarantee everyone free food?
Compare all of the industrialized countries and see what each of their policies are like. Have a spectrum on the international stage. You’re basically saying that Bernie should rightfully be labeled a radical, meanwhile here in Canada or any of the Scandinavian countries, he’d be a center/left character. Internationally, he’s not a radical. So what if other countries do it or not. There are many dictatorships in the world and for most of human history it's been dictatorship yet somehow I think you'd agree if the States went towards dictatorship you'd agree it was radical.
These replies are taking way to long to scroll down on, so I’ll just PM you what I have to say since I’m sure everyone else is getting fucking annoyed.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 3, 2018 12:25:01 GMT
The great lesson in this case to me is really just that we now live in an artistically barren culture that forbids you from sardonically commenting ON the culture itself. So in effect you only get things that can safely fit into our parameters of mockery which of course guts the entire point of sarcasm, satire, humor, mockery at all.
David Spade used to do a really groan inducing thing in his act where he said that "Jon Benet Ramsey wasn't really that good looking without make-up" - now, is that funny or is it sick .........well I dunno but I'd argue that to laugh at that is to laugh at the culture obviously not the real life horror of the girls death .........and that's important, at least being open to laughing it is.
When you remove that element from everything how can you can't trust anything ..........who would want any Art produced by such a culture?
"I used to make a lot of offensive jokes. I don’t anymore. I don’t blame my past self for this, but I like myself more and feel like a more full human being and creator today. "
That Gunn quote is the real chilling, sad, offensive one.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,680
Likes: 2,114
|
Post by cherry68 on Aug 3, 2018 13:15:10 GMT
pacinoyes From what I have read of his tweets, they were not only disgusting and offensive, but even totally unfunny. He totally missed the point of satire.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Aug 3, 2018 13:27:25 GMT
That's possible but of course that isn't my point (and I know you know that cherry - just trying to make it clear), you have to defend the intent not the work itself. The artistic worthiness isn't important to the underlying principle - when the culture deems the "appropriateness" of this material, which is strictly language based too (in this case), we're all fncked anyway.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,680
Likes: 2,114
|
Post by cherry68 on Aug 3, 2018 13:54:57 GMT
That's possible but of course that isn't my point (and I know you know that cherry - just trying to make it clear), you have to defend the intent not the work itself. The artistic worthiness isn't important to the underlying principle - when the culture deems the "appropriateness" of this material, which is strictly language based too (in this case), we're all fncked anyway. In Italy, there's a specific crime called "apology of crime". Speeches given to celebrate or encourage a criminal conduct are a crime themselves. Speaking of pedophilia in a positive way goes under that definition. Probably Americans have a different attitude, but I feel that freedom of speech has a different meaning.
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Aug 5, 2018 20:47:29 GMT
That's possible but of course that isn't my point (and I know you know that cherry - just trying to make it clear), you have to defend the intent not the work itself. The artistic worthiness isn't important to the underlying principle - when the culture deems the "appropriateness" of this material, which is strictly language based too (in this case), we're all fncked anyway. In Italy, there's a specific crime called "apology of crime". Speeches given to celebrate or encourage a criminal conduct are a crime themselves. Speaking of pedophilia in a positive way goes under that definition. Probably Americans have a different attitude, but I feel that freedom of speech has a different meaning. Your feelings about FOS are woefully off, but that's irrelevant to the topic. That Italian law is insane, ridiculous, fascist, virtue signaling GARBAGE, rightfully mocked by all aware of it and a future Italian President with even a wif of courage will try to overturn it. If you think it's a remotely defensible law, you have problems faaaar bigger than Gunn does. The law is an ASSAULT on not just free speech but on common sense itself.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,680
Likes: 2,114
|
Post by cherry68 on Aug 6, 2018 6:31:14 GMT
In Italy, there's a specific crime called "apology of crime". Speeches given to celebrate or encourage a criminal conduct are a crime themselves. Speaking of pedophilia in a positive way goes under that definition. Probably Americans have a different attitude, but I feel that freedom of speech has a different meaning. Your feelings about FOS are woefully off, but that's irrelevant to the topic. That Italian law is insane, ridiculous, fascist, virtue signaling GARBAGE, rightfully mocked by all aware of it and a future Italian President with even a wif of courage will try to overturn it. If you think it's a remotely defensible law, you have problems faaaar bigger than Gunn does. The law is an ASSAULT on not just free speech but on common sense itself. You know nothing about our laws, if you think a president can cancel one. Don't discuss on topics you know nothing about. Thanks.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,680
Likes: 2,114
|
Post by cherry68 on Aug 6, 2018 7:11:30 GMT
For those who don't know about apology of crime, to integrate the apology of crime or the incitement to commit a crime it is not enough to express a positive judgment on a criminal episode, however obnoxious and reprehensible it may appear to the generality of people endowed with human sensitivity, but it is necessary that the behavior of the the agent is such due to its intrinsic content, to the personal condition of the author and to the factual circumstances in which it occurs, to determine the risk, not theoretical, but effective, of the consumption of other crimes and, specifically, of crimes detrimental to interests equivalent to those offended by the exalted crime. You can easily see how a celebrity on Twitter or whatever has more chances to influence the behavior of other people.
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Aug 6, 2018 7:14:23 GMT
Let me get this right. America is spending waaay more on healthcare than other countries with universal healthcare at the moment. That's not debatable. So, you're saying that if America moved towards a universal healthcare system, like the other countries that have it implemented and are paying less, America would somehow end up paying more than they already are? I'm not getting your logic. You just posted an article saying moving towards universal healthcare would save 2 trillion yet you doubt what I said. You can't seem to keep up with your own logic.
Doctors are happy to work in the universal healthcare system, a universal healthcare system
No they're not. Most of the best doctors in the world go where the money is. It's like any other industry. That's like saying Lionel Messi would be happy to play for a no name Argentinian club and not get paid.
a universal healthcare system actually does include making prescription drugs free, if not much lower. Why would it? If the government are guaranteeing the sale of drugs then the drug companies can charge whatever they want. The only way to stop that is nationalize the drug companies and set price controls. I hope I don't have to explain why that's a bad idea.
Meanwhile countries like Norway, Denmark, Finland and Canada have stronger middle classes that are more well off than the likes of middle classes in America. Except Norway has had stagnant growth for many years now. Denmark has had to vote in more conservatives in the last few years to stop the rot. Sweden was at one point one of the 5 richest countries in the world per capita and since they've gone the social democracy road they've dropped big time. Also all these countries don't have to spend so much on defense since the US foots the bill for most of that.
So since you're in favor of a free market system, you're alright for people with pre existing conditions to get denied service by insurance companies. Yes. It's not a charity. It's a guaranteed loss for the insurance company. It's like selling someone fire insurance on your house after it's burned down.
Let's say if you weren't high risk, but you ended up getting cancer, you'd get fucked if you didn't have healthcare beforehand. Well I have insurance because I'm not stupid and if I was I wouldn't complain to the government for own stupidity.
Before Obamacare, you'd get a huge bill even if you were still covered and that'd still lead to bankruptcy. A free market system would be for profit. How do insurance companies make more profit? Deny coverage as much as possible. Leading to more illness and leading to more deaths. You do realize it wasn't a free market before Obama. The US has been spending this amount of money in healthcare for decades. You also know Obamacare if basically subsidizing the insurance companies right. They can charge what they want. Even Bernie Sanders said this wasn't a good system. It's worse than universal healthcare.
Imagine him seeing that girl who got her leg snapped on the subway station and scream out for no one to call an ambulance since she couldn't afford the ride. Again I'm not a fan of the American system. It's not a real private system.
I'm sure his opinion on the healthcare system would be bad.
Actually we went to the States a few years ago and on the second day we were there he had to be taken to hospital. Luckily he had insurance. He said his care was very good. I doubt he'd say the same thing for Cuba, Canada and Britain.
Where did I praise them? Now you’re putting words in my mouth. They tried to use that study to smear universal healthcare and it backfired and now people like Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are using it to support their policy. It’s funny. I don’t need to pick one.
You know full well they could have buried that study and they didn't. You did praise them. I personally couldn't give two shits about them.
Definitely sounds like you implied it. A government won’t touch it because the citizens think it’s good for them. So you’re saying that it’s actually not good for them and a system like yours would be better for them, although the people living there and living in the system massively disagree. Silly argument in my opinion. Yes people never know what's good for them. A lot of people in the Muslim world think it's good to live in a Sharia system. There are still a lot of communists in Russia and they're the second biggest party. It really isn't. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's right or effective.
Generally people that are against universal healthcare and say it’s too expensive won’t ever say anything about dropping thousands of bombs per month, not a thing about the 110 billion dollar arms deal with Saudi to commit a genocide on Yemen, and not a thing about the 8 unnecessary wars they’re in. The reason the West supports regimes like Saudi Arabia is because they don't then the likes of Russia or China will step in and fill the vacuum. Unlike the States, guys like Putin and Jinping would do anything for more power. You also forget the energy the States need to keep their citizens from starving.
I’ve already talked about the free market above. Also, no. The person mostly against the Wall Street bailout in America is the furthest left politician, aka Bernie. If your point is that Obama was president when they were bailed out so it’s a left wing position, Obama is a centrist. Center right if anything. If you’re talking about Clinton and glass steagall as well, he’s centrist too. Arguing that deregulation of banks is a left wing position would be silly. No Sanders just wants to tax them into oblivion or enough for them to leave and no this is not about Obama or Bush or Sanders. It's a left wing position to guarantee the banks solvency if they fail since the money comes from the taxpayers. The banks didn't collapse because of deregulation or them betting. They betted on the collapse of the housing market. The housing market collapsed because the mortgages given out were shit and they were shit because of a law that made the banks not refuse a mortgage to someone with bad credit ratings. It didn't matter to the banks because they knew they'd be bailed out.
I don’t see people going bankrupt over food, do you? I don’t see people being denied food because they have pre existing conditions, do you? I don’t see people paying over 50,000 dollars when they’re in Safeway shopping for groceries for an hour and a half and don’t have an air miles card, do you? I don’t see a person waiting for me after I walk out, wanting me to pay a 70 dollar fee just for coming and not getting my milk, do you? No answer the question. Why don't the government guarantee everyone free food?
Compare all of the industrialized countries and see what each of their policies are like. Have a spectrum on the international stage. You’re basically saying that Bernie should rightfully be labeled a radical, meanwhile here in Canada or any of the Scandinavian countries, he’d be a center/left character. Internationally, he’s not a radical. So what if other countries do it or not. There are many dictatorships in the world and for most of human history it's been dictatorship yet somehow I think you'd agree if the States went towards dictatorship you'd agree it was radical.
These replies are taking way to long to scroll down on, so I’ll just PM you what I have to say since I’m sure everyone else is getting fucking annoyed. I'm not. I want to see how long these replies can get even though I'm not actually reading them.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Aug 6, 2018 19:32:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Aug 6, 2018 19:46:57 GMT
After all this, it’s probably for the best he doesn’t come back. He’s in a no-win scenario, and so is Disney, so at best they ought to use his script, maybe polish it a bit, and find someone else to take leadership.
One thing’s for sure, though: Fuck Mike Cernovich!
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Aug 9, 2018 18:42:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Aug 9, 2018 21:41:24 GMT
there have been plenty of movies where another person actually directed the movie without credit.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Aug 11, 2018 22:50:20 GMT
Apparently this was from a "To Catch A Predator"-themed party. And of course the source of this smear attempt is...Breitbart.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Aug 11, 2018 23:16:46 GMT
This is never ending....
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Aug 11, 2018 23:34:08 GMT
Disney’s in a no-win scenario here. If they toss Gunn, they get blasted for caving in to censorship and playing everything safe. If they rehire him, they threaten alienating audiences who aren’t going to care about context, bigger than the conspiracy theorists spreading these stories like wildfires (and if the gossipers stay away anyway, good. Fuck ‘em). I think the best thing they can do is use Gunn’s script, maybe cunsult with him, but not actually put him in charge.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Aug 11, 2018 23:51:07 GMT
Disney’s in a no-win scenario here. If they toss Gunn, they get blasted for caving in to censorship and playing everything safe. If they rehire him, they threaten alienating audiences who aren’t going to care about context, bigger than the conspiracy theorists spreading these stories like wildfires (and if the gossipers stay away anyway, good. Fuck ‘em). I think the best thing they can do is use Gunn’s script, maybe cunsult with him, but not actually put him in charge. They probably could have gotten away with him directing the movie under pseudonym but now it is too late because it continues to be out there. Phantom directing happens. Disney will never rehire this guy. If Marvel wants him back then they need to find a way to release the movies themselves. This is one of those take the L and move on type of situations because nobody wants to be associated with this type of behavior.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2018 9:51:26 GMT
I hate that the constant articles that Disney will definitely not hire him back is marked as “breaking news”. 🙄
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Mar 15, 2019 18:20:27 GMT
|
|