07-15-2014 12:26 PM
1,900 ... 3031323334 ...
tools
  1. Aquila's Avatar
    And going back to your constitutional question, I don't think any of us can really say what the world would look like if we held government firmly to the Constitution, but the way you said it made it sound like we shouldn't even try. Just because it's happened in the past doesn't mean we shouldn't fight to prevent it from happening again and demand they pull back in areas where they have over stepped, or modify the Constitution to allow powers we believe would be best left to them.
    No I'm a big fan of the Constitution, I just think that it should be wielded by The People, not by the government. I'd also be heavily in favor of rewriting the majority of it in more modern english, removing the parts that no longer apply or make sense and adding a lot more in the way of restrictions. Is spying on americans legal without a warrant? Some say yes, some say no... depends on interpretation right? Here's a more clear statement:

    Information Gathering: Get A Warrant First.

    "Under no circumstances will any agent, employee or contractor of the federal government initiate, participate in or enlist via third parties, regardless of the complexity or number of intermediaries, ever collect any information on any citizen that is not specifically named in a warrant, signed by a judge, explaining the exact time, place and methodology of data collection, the specific evidentiary reason the person is suspected and exactly the nature of the information that will be collected. All agencies and persons employed in similar context as above will daily purge all their records of any data that may have inadvertently been collected and no data inadvertently collected shall ever be deemed admissible in a court of law, because retention beyond 24 hours will be a federal felony, punishable by no less than 5 years in prison per offense. This includes any photographs, notes, video recordings, audio recordings, information stored directly or by way of meta data on internet sites and all originals and hard copies must be deleted. No warrant shall ever be kept secret in any way from normal judiciary proceedings."

    Something to that effect that leaves no room for interpretation.

    Here's another:

    Show Up To Work:

    Participation of elected officials in the Federal Government is Mandatory. No member of The Congress, the Supreme Court, sitting President or Vice President shall ever miss a session of Congress or other mandated meeting for any reason other than bereavement, personal illness or injury or an ill or injured family member. Refusal to attend on any normal working day, including for vacations, fundraising or anything of a non-emergency nature will result in the immediate forfeiture of the post they have been elected to. In the case of the President and Vice President, succession will follow normal protocols. In the House and Senate, the post will remain vacant until a new election can be held with reasonable convenience, not to exceed the next scheduled election for that specific seat. In the Supreme Court, the post will remain vacant until a valid appointment can be approved.

    And finally:

    Bills Get Paid First

    The President, Vice President and the elected members of the Congress shall receive no Salary unless there is a agreed upon joint budget, passed by both Houses and signed by the President which INCLUDES A BUDGETARY SURPLUS. Total payroll will not exceed 10% of the Surplus amount, however legislated caps will be enforced and the lesser amount shall be paid assuming a surplus of sufficient size exists.


    Bottom line, they are our employees, not our customers and not our bosses. We tell them what's what, they do it. Of course we're not all going to agree, but that's why it's set up as a representative democracy, so that a general consensus can possibly be reached.
    11-02-2013 03:08 AM
  2. Aquila's Avatar
    I just heard a report that Forbes did a study that found upwards of 94 million people could be losing their current health insurance when looking at both private and company subsidized policies, small and large companies alike. I haven't had a chance to find and read the full report myself yet, so I don't know what they expect the outcome from those to be. I.e. going without, buying other coverage that complies with the law, etc. Regardless, you're looking at over 25% of the population being negatively effected by this law. At what point should we finally say enough is enough? Even if that study was over off by half, that's still a pretty big slice of the population.
    That number was floating around a couple of years ago too. Basically the 94 million assumes that almost all individual plans will be non-compliant and people will be changed to different plans with the same carrier or they'll shop for a new carrier. It then assumes that most small businesses and many large businesses will disrupt their grandfathered plans and as a company they'll switch to other plans, but they won't be the same. It's lumping those in all together as "losing current coverage".

    I know many big corps pick a provider and stay with it, but a smallish business that I worked at previously (1k employees) hopped carriers about every two years. Other than being issued new cards, it's been pretty much invisible to us in terms of doctors and rates, etc (we still have that insurance plan), but companies are always going to shop for what gets them the best rates for the return they want. So, of that 93 million, around 80 million were probably going to have aspects of their plans change, but they won't be turned to the exchanges for policy shopping, it'll be done by their employers in the background.

    The other 5% of the population that is actually displaced IS STILL TOO MANY and I've heard from a few sources about an ineffectual law proposed that would let people keep their plans if they wanted to, even if they weren't compliant. I have no clue if that'll pass in time or not, but it should also specify that the insurance company cannot cancel it without cause just because of the compliance issue to be effective. It's not individuals canceling their plans now.
    11-02-2013 03:18 AM
  3. FuzzyB's Avatar
    Ultimately the demise of Ocare will not be the website but the fact that nobody wants the product. The only people who will enroll are the people who have nothing to put into the system and want to suck as much out of it as possible. It is a flawed theory and will go down in history as the worst piece of legislation ever enacted. The fool who's name it bears will forever be remembered for its failure and his failure as a president.

    Sent from my LG-D800
    AMEN BROTHER!!

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    11-02-2013 08:06 AM
  4. palandri's Avatar
    I just heard a report that Forbes did a study that found upwards of 94 million people could be losing their current health insurance when looking at both private and company subsidized policies, small and large companies alike. I haven't had a chance to find and read the full report myself yet, so I don't know what they expect the outcome from those to be. I.e. going without, buying other coverage that complies with the law, etc. Regardless, you're looking at over 25% of the population being negatively effected by this law. At what point should we finally say enough is enough? Even if that study was over off by half, that's still a pretty big slice of the population.......
    Keep in mind that there were some really bad and bizarre health insurance policies out there. I remember reading about one that had a $5000 deductible and a $20,000 cap, so basically you paid all your doctor visits and test out of your pocket, and if you ended up having surgery in a hospital, a $20,000 cap probably won't last real long. It's basically a catastrophic insurance, but only up to $20,000. Then there is the mini-med policy from McDonald's which is bizarre, A single worker can pay $14 a week for a plan that caps annual benefits at $2,000, or about $32 a week to get coverage up to $10,000 a year. If I remember correctly, McDonald's wanted a waiver from Obama on their mini-med policy.

    Addendum: Here's a link to the mini-med insurance through McDonald's: McDonald's Says It May Drop Health Plan - WSJ.com
    11-02-2013 08:10 AM
  5. msndrstood's Avatar
    The ACA is going to kill the economy. You need to really look ay what reasons the ACA can use to qualify your insurance as unacceptable. Within a couple years, no one will be allowed to keep their insurance and the government will have control of 1/6 of the economy. Call it extortion if you would like, its how Washington has conducted business for years on both sides of the aisle. I will also say this, if its so great and so many people want it, why is it mandated, even to the point of fining people? Its being turned into yet another entitlement, and entitlements have ruined this country, financially and mentally.

    Sent from a device that supports the proposed 28th amendment
    I worked 40 years for my 'entitlement'. I'm sick of Social Security being touted as 'ruining this country'. As a matter of fact, I'm sick of a lot of crap that's going on in this country and fueled by inflammatory rhetoric. The vitriol will soon reach critical mass, it cannot be sustained without consequences.

    This country belongs to everyone, not just those who scream the loudest.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    palandri and gamefreak715 like this.
    11-02-2013 08:27 AM
  6. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    I worked 40 years for my 'entitlement'. I'm sick of Social Security being touted as 'ruining this country'. As a matter of fact, I'm sick of a lot of crap that's going on in this country and fueled by inflammatory rhetoric. The vitriol will soon reach critical mass, it cannot be sustained without consequences.

    This country belongs to everyone, not just those who scream the loudest.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    Never said anything about social security. People work for that. And the reason social security allegedly has no money is because that's where the government first pulls money from when its needed somewhere else.

    Sent from a device that supports the proposed 28th amendment
    11-02-2013 08:37 AM
  7. jaj324's Avatar
    Jaj324,

    "So what is it? Nobody wants the product, or, only those who will suck it for all its worth?"

    Let me rephrase that statement for you. No one with any sense and a decent job who actually pays taxes will want this idiotic product.

    "What will these folks who sign up be sucking from the rest of us? Booze, cigarettes or illegal drugs? No. Health care, pure and simple."

    There is nothing pure or simple about healthcare. It's not a "thing" that has no value. It is very expensive and must be paid for by someone.

    "Failures of our current federal government are more the fault of an out of control and dangerous house then the executive branch."

    That is the most ignorant statement I've read in a while but if it makes you feel better about this blithering fool that you elected president then go ahead, make yourself feel better.

    Posted via Android Central App
    11-02-2013 08:43 AM
  8. rexxman's Avatar
    The constitution itself. Point to one place in there where forcing anyone to buy anything is an enumerated power of the federal government. It's not the first time there has been questioning of a Supreme Court ruling.
    So, your source is YOUR disagreement with the SCOTUS ruling that dealt with this question. Got it, thanks.

    I do understand your frustration. It sure seemed that politically, the conservative court would rule against the ACA.
    palandri likes this.
    11-02-2013 08:47 AM
  9. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    So, your source is YOUR disagreement with the SCOTUS ruling that dealt with this question. Got it, thanks.

    I do understand your frustration. It sure seemed that politically, the conservative court would rule against the ACA.
    You need to take a look at the ruling. Scotus said the ACA was not unconstitutional so long as the mandate was enforced as a tax. The ACA wasn't passed properly as a tax bill, tax bills are to be started in the house. The ACA is constitutional, the mandate is not.

    Sent from a device that supports the proposed 28th amendment
    11-02-2013 09:23 AM
  10. Mooncatt's Avatar
    So, your source is YOUR disagreement with the SCOTUS ruling that dealt with this question. Got it, thanks.
    You can take it however you want, but you're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. If that's your opinion of my post, then no, you don't got it.
    11-02-2013 12:12 PM
  11. rexxman's Avatar
    You need to take a look at the ruling. Scotus said the ACA was not unconstitutional so long as the mandate was enforced as a tax. The ACA wasn't passed properly as a tax bill, tax bills are to be started in the house. The ACA is constitutional, the mandate is not.

    Sent from a device that supports the proposed 28th amendment
    You need to convince the courts of your analysis, not me or other folks on this forum. And I am guessing the political opposition to ACA are not pursuing this in the courts or we would have heard about it. Heck, they have tried everything else, including a threat to nuke our economy, if they didn't get their way. And wasted 24 billion dollars in that effort.
    11-02-2013 12:14 PM
  12. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    You need to convince the courts of your analysis, not me or other folks on this forum. And I am guessing the political opposition to ACA are not pursuing this in the courts or we would have heard about it. Heck, they have tried everything else, including a threat to nuke our economy, if they didn't get their way. And wasted 24 billion dollars in that effort.
    Why they arent pursuing it may have to do with the fact that they arent subject to it. The ACA is and will nuke our economy

    Sent from a device that supports the proposed 28th amendment
    11-02-2013 12:35 PM
  13. Mooncatt's Avatar
    You need to convince the courts of your analysis, not me or other folks on this forum.
    You asked, I answered. As for the Supreme Court, someone needs to convince Chief Justice Roberts not to listen to the media's opinions on a case or be more concerned with the public opinion of the court than of the case they're deciding.
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    11-02-2013 12:49 PM
  14. gamefreak715's Avatar
    I think the biggest problem with entitlement isn't a social program but rather our general state of mind. You rack up $200,000 in college tuition debt for an anthropology degree from the *best* school? You think you need the best house 3 times out of your budget? That brand new truck you bought on a min wage salary? When we start thinking that 1.America isnt the best and 2. Saying so doesn't mean we need the best things. Consumerism has our country by the throat and it seems like no one these days is capable of making their own financial decisions. I am in favor of social welfare; there needs to be assistance for people in hard situations, but how do we draw a line?

    Posted via Android Central App
    11-02-2013 05:47 PM
  15. Mooncatt's Avatar
    In short, you're just saying people need to act their wage.
    gamefreak715 likes this.
    11-02-2013 06:11 PM
  16. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I think the biggest problem with entitlement isn't a social program but rather our general state of mind. You rack up $200,000 in college tuition debt for an anthropology degree from the *best* school? You think you need the best house 3 times out of your budget? That brand new truck you bought on a min wage salary? When we start thinking that 1.America isnt the best and 2. Saying so doesn't mean we need the best things. Consumerism has our country by the throat and it seems like no one these days is capable of making their own financial decisions. I am in favor of social welfare; there needs to be assistance for people in hard situations, but how do we draw a line?

    Posted via Android Central App
    That is really what the issue is. Where and how to designate "need".

    For instance, I would like there to be hard limits on anyone taking government assistance(welfare, food stamps, unemployment, ect. NOT SS). Basically laws that keep them from purchasing anything not necessary to the person's well being. No cigarettes. No alcohol. No video games. No smartphone. No amusement parks. No new cars. No cable TV. No purchasing anything that is not necessary for them to live or help them get off of the tax payer's tab. I am sorry but when you take my money, I now have the right to know and limit what you spend it on.

    I always enjoy news casts about helping "poor" people when there are interviews in the unfortunate person's home. I like to play the game "find the 50" plasma screen". There is always one there. The poor people can probably only afford 100 channel cable too. Bless their heart.

    Pointy joking aside, if there was an effective system set in place to keep people from abusing the programs and the programs were not designed to keep people dependent, I would really not have a problem with them. People hit hard times and have no one else to help them sometimes. They should be able to get help.
    gamefreak715 likes this.
    11-02-2013 10:54 PM
  17. Aquila's Avatar
    That is really what the issue is. Where and how to designate "need".

    For instance, I would like there to be hard limits on anyone taking government assistance(welfare, food stamps, unemployment, ect. NOT SS). Basically laws that keep them from purchasing anything not necessary to the person's well being. No cigarettes. No alcohol. No video games. No smartphone. No amusement parks. No new cars. No cable TV. No purchasing anything that is not necessary for them to live or help them get off of the tax payer's tab. I am sorry but when you take my money, I now have the right to know and limit what you spend it on.

    I always enjoy news casts about helping "poor" people when there are interviews in the unfortunate person's home. I like to play the game "find the 50" plasma screen". There is always one there. The poor people can probably only afford 100 channel cable too. Bless their heart.

    Pointy joking aside, if there was an effective system set in place to keep people from abusing the programs and the programs were not designed to keep people dependent, I would really not have a problem with them. People hit hard times and have no one else to help them sometimes. They should be able to get help.
    If we have to choose between one extreme and the other, I'd personally like to see the government not getting into people's private lives in any ways at all, rather than controlling it entirely. I moved to the United States of America, not Iran or North Korea. I don't think the government should be allowed to collect information about a person's habits, even if we're paying for them, and especially should not be able to dictate those habits. What's the difference between a welfare recipient and any other civic employee? Money is coming from the same place, but we don't tell the employee how to spend their salary.

    Given that the population that doesn't self advance themselves out of the programs is very small, I think we can find ways to control what the funds they receive are spent on... such as using debt cards that only work for certain goods and services that require a photo ID to utilize (prevents selling benefits, etc). Now, will people buy goods and possible sell those goods? Maybe, but that's beyond the scope of us caring, because people trade goods and services all the time, it's called business. But nothing changes from today's model, where we control what is purchased with our money, but what happens after that is none of our business unless it's endangering children or violating other laws, both of which are handled on an indvidual case by case basis, rather than with broad punishments towards everyone else.

    It sucks, but since it costs around $.08 per average tax payer (that's not receiving a refund) per month to finance food stamps, personally I don't care about my less than $1 per year going to that cause, etc. Yes, it all adds up, but if $.95 of my $.96 cents is helping people who need it and $.01 is being used by people to do stuff I'd prefer they didn't, I still don't care because I'm not them and they're free to live in poverty if that's what they wish to do.
    msndrstood likes this.
    11-02-2013 11:11 PM
  18. Aquila's Avatar
    Another interesting point... it is often cheaper to drive a brand new Mercedes than to purchase a quality and reliable used budget vehicle. For example, last year you could lease a 2013 C Class sedan for $175 a month, whereas buying a 2009 Ford Taurus was around $250 a month with a longer term, no warranty and much more in potential issues to deal with. This is generally caused by the difference in depreciation, etc. For people without giant piles of cash, leasing an Altima for $0 signing and $99 a month is MUCH cheaper than buying even a 5-10 year old car, which would require 20% down, have high interest, a huge markup, etc. all which force the cost up a lotand it's obviously going to be a more reliable vehicle in terms of cost of maintenance and uptime, etc. Food for thought. These situations don't work for everyone this way and it takes shopping and savvy to figure out what is actually the best option for each family, but someone being in a brand new car could literally be saving them money over their previous sitatution, at least from a down payment and monthly budgetary standpoint. Long term, the costs and returns vary greatly by situation and habits.
    11-02-2013 11:16 PM
  19. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I recommend you look up Dave Ramsey's views on (f)leasing vehicles. That's actually the most expensive way to get a vehicle and you don't even get to keep it.
    11-02-2013 11:33 PM
  20. Aquila's Avatar
    I recommend you look up Dave Ramsey's views on (f)leasing vehicles. That's actually the most expensive way to get a vehicle and you don't even get to keep it.
    From a math perspective it's entirely based on your habits. If you're the type of person who upgrades cars like most people upgrade cell phones, it can work out to be beneficial or stupid and entirely dependent on the buyer/leasee and the specifics of the lease/sale, vehicle, market, etc. There are some people who will always have a car payment, and for those people it's a consideration worth making, especially if they're terrible negotiators when it comes time to trade in, or are not handy with repairs and want maintenance schedules and costs to be someone else's task to deal with. A lot of leases include options to purchase as well, however I would recommend not doing that in many situations. Financing a used vehicle almost always ends up with a loan that's at least temporarily, if not permanently upside down and puts nearly all of the risk on the buyer, while leasing is essentially paying the cost of depreciation and usage.

    Same scenario as above, if you can get a 2009 Taurus for $2500 up front + $250 a month for 60 months for a total of $17,500 paid on what amounts to a $12,000 car that is worth $4,000 at the end of the cycle, + all the maintenance costs incurred on what ends up being a 9 year old car... or you can get a 2013 Mercedes for 3 years at $175 a month + no fees, they pay most of the maintenance and in 3 years you get a 2016 Mercedes for $175 a month + no fees for a total of $12,600 paid, you're now ahead by $900 not including the maintance costs incurred on the Taurus and have an extra year of vehicle, in two 3 year periods, versus one 5 year period... which one is the better decision? Obviously there are some cases where the numbers will work out very differently in favor of either choice, but in this case buying the used car is a pretty poor decision from a pure numbers standpoint.

    Plus, a lot of people have trouble coming up with down payments, so in some cases new cars can greatly alleviate the bulk up front. One could easily argue that if you can't save for a down payment or buy it outright, you can't afford the car... but that doesn't help if you're searching for a job or have a job and absolutely cannot have your transportation fail or be non-existent.
    11-02-2013 11:48 PM
  21. palandri's Avatar
    ....For instance, I would like there to be hard limits on anyone taking government assistance(welfare, food stamps, unemployment, ect. NOT SS). Basically laws that keep them from purchasing anything not necessary to the person's well being. No cigarettes. No alcohol. No video games. No smartphone. No amusement parks. No new cars. No cable TV. No purchasing anything that is not necessary for them to live or help them get off of the tax payer's tab. I am sorry but when you take my money, I now have the right to know and limit what you spend it on....
    Where did you get that information? I've never looked into it because I've never been on welfare, but I don't think you can purchase cigarettes, alcohol, smartphones, cable TV, buy a new car or go on amusement park rides with a welfare debit card. If you have other information, please link me to it because I am obviously ignorant on the issue.

    I know unemployment insurance varies from state to state, but isn't it paid by your employer buying or paying unemployment insurance, not your tax money? Link me and correct me if I am wrong.

    Thanks!
    Aquila and rexxman like this.
    11-02-2013 11:54 PM
  22. Aquila's Avatar
    Where did you get that information? I've never looked into it because I've never been on welfare, but I don't think you can purchase cigarettes, alcohol, smartphones, cable TV, buy a new car or go on amusement park rides with a welfare debit card. If you have other information, please link me to it because I am obviously ignorant on the issue.

    I know unemployment insurance varies from state to state, but isn't it paid by your employer buying or paying unemployment insurance, not your tax money? Link me and correct me if I am wrong.

    Thanks!
    I think he means the person utilizing other sources of income to purchase things while they subsist on programs. I'd also agree take unemployment off of there in any case, but you're right, many programs are set up already to limit the ability to directly spend the funds on unessential items.
    palandri likes this.
    11-02-2013 11:59 PM
  23. Aquila's Avatar
    Here's a quick set of matrices that I put together for car payments, grouped by original cost less down payment (loan amount), term and interest rate. The point of it is that it demonstrates that someone wanting to pay $100 a month for a car, is basically looking in the $0 to $6,000 range, assuming they have up to $1,250 to put down, etc. For that same $100 you can lease an Altima, Avenger, Fusion, Chrysler 200, etc that's brand new. Yes, at the end you don't own the vehicle unless you choose to purchase the delta, however a $0-$5,000 at the end of 3 years isn't necessarily worth much more than $0 and had maintenance costs added in, so the math CAN balance out if you're savvy. Then again, if you can buy used and work on it yourself with good connections for parts, you can make a car last many years and it can be much cheaper to do that. All depends on the numbers and the person.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...rive_web#gid=0
    11-03-2013 12:56 AM
  24. Mooncatt's Avatar
    From a math perspective it's entirely based on your habits. If you're the type of person who upgrades cars like most people upgrade cell phones, it can work out to be beneficial or stupid and entirely dependent on the buyer/leasee and the specifics of the lease/sale, vehicle, market, etc. There are some people who will always have a car payment, and for those people it's a consideration worth making, especially if they're terrible negotiators when it comes time to trade in, or are not handy with repairs and want maintenance schedules and costs to be someone else's task to deal with. A lot of leases include options to purchase as well, however I would recommend not doing that in many situations. Financing a used vehicle almost always ends up with a loan that's at least temporarily, if not permanently upside down and puts nearly all of the risk on the buyer, while leasing is essentially paying the cost of depreciation and usage.

    Same scenario as above, if you can get a 2009 Taurus for $2500 up front + $250 a month for 60 months for a total of $17,500 paid on what amounts to a $12,000 car that is worth $4,000 at the end of the cycle, + all the maintenance costs incurred on what ends up being a 9 year old car... or you can get a 2013 Mercedes for 3 years at $175 a month + no fees, they pay most of the maintenance and in 3 years you get a 2016 Mercedes for $175 a month + no fees for a total of $12,600 paid, you're now ahead by $900 not including the maintance costs incurred on the Taurus and have an extra year of vehicle, in two 3 year periods, versus one 5 year period... which one is the better decision? Obviously there are some cases where the numbers will work out very differently in favor of either choice, but in this case buying the used car is a pretty poor decision from a pure numbers standpoint.

    Plus, a lot of people have trouble coming up with down payments, so in some cases new cars can greatly alleviate the bulk up front. One could easily argue that if you can't save for a down payment or buy it outright, you can't afford the car... but that doesn't help if you're searching for a job or have a job and absolutely cannot have your transportation fail or be non-existent.
    You're mistaken on a few big issues regarding depreciation costs, maintenance costs, and the dealer's profit in leases. I wouldn't mind discussing this more with you, but I don't want to derail this thread more. Pm's work or we could start a new thread about buying vs leasing if you'd like.
    gamefreak715 likes this.
    11-03-2013 12:57 AM
  25. Aquila's Avatar
    You're mistaken on a few big issues regarding depreciation costs, maintenance costs, and the dealer's profit in leases. I wouldn't mind discussing this more with you, but I don't want to derail this thread more. Pm's work or we could start a new thread about buying vs leasing if you'd like.
    Didn't want to go super deep into it, just to say that someone driving a new car isn't necessarily a sign that they're being financially irresponsible. There are a lot of factors, and that might have been the cheapest short term viable option available to them. Basically addressing the broken paradigm that assumes income correlates to intelligence, responsibility, work ethic or anything else, rather than a combination of preparedness, drive and opportunity (being in the right place and time to capitalize on an opportunity or having the right circumstances to successfully implement your own opportunities). New shoes was brought up in another thread and it was the same issue, there are a myriad of ways that a person could have shoes obtained for their child, most of which are scamming no one. The problem of prejudging is almost always a problem in the perception, not the reality. Cars is just an example
    11-03-2013 01:17 AM
1,900 ... 3031323334 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Should there be another category for Games?
    By Basis in forum Android Games
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-21-2010, 09:22 PM
  2. Should I be upset about this dirt under my screen.
    By rem_kujawa in forum HTC EVO 4G
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 07-06-2010, 08:12 PM
  3. Should I be disappointed? Screen color availability!
    By TREOpalooza in forum HTC EVO 4G
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-31-2010, 01:56 PM
  4. Should GMail be telling me how many new?
    By dgalanter in forum Verizon Droid Incredible
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-09-2010, 04:46 PM
  5. Should I be worried about the LED?
    By solideliquid in forum Motorola Droid
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-28-2010, 09:30 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD