|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/24/2005 09:08:25 AM · #251 |
Church gain their tax exemption by incorporating and requesting the IRS for non-profit, tax-exempt status under a section of the IRS code (it's section 501 (c) 3 for non-religious non-profits -- I forget the section number for churches). Any "church" not so incorporated would not only fail to gain tax-exempt status, but would have a hard time acquiring property, establishing utility service, or any of the other normal processes of conducting business. Otherwise you just have a group of individuals in a loose, un-named association -- leaving the individuals liable for the activities of the group.
The mayor is elected by and represents the people. If you let me (and the whole town) vote for your pastor, maybe it would be OK to expend public funds for them to offer political advice. Right now, that person is privately appointed, and the rules forbid political activity at public expense. |
|
|
|
03/24/2005 09:28:32 AM · #252 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Church gain their tax exemption by incorporating and requesting the IRS for non-profit, tax-exempt status under a section of the IRS code (it's section 501 (c) 3 for non-religious non-profits -- I forget the section number for churches). Any "church" not so incorporated would not only fail to gain tax-exempt status, but would have a hard time acquiring property, establishing utility service, or any of the other normal processes of conducting business. Otherwise you just have a group of individuals in a loose, un-named association -- leaving the individuals liable for the activities of the group.
The mayor is elected by and represents the people. If you let me (and the whole town) vote for your pastor, maybe it would be OK to expend public funds for them to offer political advice. Right now, that person is privately appointed, and the rules forbid political activity at public expense. |
That didn't seem to stop Bill Clinton from making political statements from the pulpit during last year's campaign: This NYDailyNews article which says "Bill Clinton hammered Republicans from a Manhattan church pulpit yesterday as a group of right-wingers bearing "false witness" against the Democrats."
And it didn't seem to stop John Kerry from making political statements from the pulpit during last year's campaign:
This WashingtonPost article which says of Kerry "He told the crowd of 1,500 he wasn't there to preach but went on to, well, preach about the Good Samaritan, the emptiness of a faith devoid of deeds and God's high calling to love one another -- before criticizing from the pulpit President Bush over Social Security and jobs."
And it didn't seem to stop Al Gore from making political statements from the pulpit during the 2000 campaign:
This NationalReviewOnline article where it says "Moving on to Pittsburgh, on November 4, Gore held a rally at the Wesley AME Zion Church. Reverend Gore ascended the pulpit, where he screamed: "Then they rose up like a mighty army and they went to the polls! Let us vote together on Tuesday!""
Seems that only Democratic speakers should be exempt from the law, eh?
Message edited by author 2005-03-24 09:30:25. |
|
|
|
03/24/2005 09:37:46 AM · #253 |
| Since I have no knowledge of those instances, I have no opinion on them or their legality. That you can find instances of Democratic "wrongdoing" to match every example by Republicans is neither surprising nor germane to the issues we were discussing. |
|
|
|
03/24/2005 09:44:21 AM · #254 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Since I have no knowledge of those instances, I have no opinion on them or their legality. That you can find instances of Democratic "wrongdoing" to match every example by Republicans is neither surprising nor germane to the issues we were discussing. |
No, the issue we were discussing is whether or not the rights of a legislator to introduce legislation that disagrees with your position should be supported or not. You indicate that you oppose that right for at least SOME legislation either because it was introduced by a Republican, or because it requests a change to the law that you do not support. Correct me if I'm wrong on that point. |
|
|
|
03/24/2005 10:42:53 AM · #255 |
My understanding is that legislators get involved with an issue and propose new legislation when there are many cases that involve a certain instance or issue requiring a new law and that the judiciary are responsible for deciding on a case by case basis, but the legislators don't get involved until a pattern of cases shows a need for new legislation. There have been too few cases like Shiavo to require new legislation and for the time being, they should be decided by the parties involved and the courts.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Since I have no knowledge of those instances, I have no opinion on them or their legality. That you can find instances of Democratic "wrongdoing" to match every example by Republicans is neither surprising nor germane to the issues we were discussing. |
No, the issue we were discussing is whether or not the rights of a legislator to introduce legislation that disagrees with your position should be supported or not. You indicate that you oppose that right for at least SOME legislation either because it was introduced by a Republican, or because it requests a change to the law that you do not support. Correct me if I'm wrong on that point. |
|
|
|
|
03/24/2005 10:48:18 AM · #256 |
I had posted a comment, but upon sober reflection thought it too be too confrontational, hence I removed it.
Ray
Message edited by author 2005-03-24 11:13:42. |
|
|
|
03/24/2005 11:18:02 AM · #257 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
My understanding is that legislators get involved with an issue and propose new legislation when there are many cases that involve a certain instance or issue requiring a new law and that the judiciary are responsible for deciding on a case by case basis, but the legislators don't get involved until a pattern of cases shows a need for new legislation. There have been too few cases like Shiavo to require new legislation and for the time being, they should be decided by the parties involved and the courts.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Since I have no knowledge of those instances, I have no opinion on them or their legality. That you can find instances of Democratic "wrongdoing" to match every example by Republicans is neither surprising nor germane to the issues we were discussing. |
No, the issue we were discussing is whether or not the rights of a legislator to introduce legislation that disagrees with your position should be supported or not. You indicate that you oppose that right for at least SOME legislation either because it was introduced by a Republican, or because it requests a change to the law that you do not support. Correct me if I'm wrong on that point. |
|
So, two questions:
1) How many have to die before it rises to the level where there is a "pattern" indicating that new legislation is "needed"?
2) Are you saying the no new legislation should ever be proposed unless there is a "pattern" indicating that such new legislation is "needed"?
And a response:
Since at least three highly prominent Democrats have used the pulpit for political commentary, there is a "pattern" that indicates that new legislation is needed to protect them, and future commentators from being charged with violation of the ( existing ) law. |
|
|
|
03/24/2005 02:28:52 PM · #258 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Since at least three highly prominent Democrats have used the pulpit for political commentary, there is a "pattern" that indicates that new legislation is needed to protect them, and future commentators from being charged with violation of the ( existing ) law. |
I can't believe that no one has pointed out the outright ill-informed assumption that RonB is trying to propagate here.
Yes, candidates of BOTH political parties often attend church gatherings and are sometimes invited to speak from the pulpit; however, when they do, candidates of BOTH parties do not use that opportunity to make a blatant political statement -- that is, they don't attack or advocate one policy position or another. Now, clearly, this is a subtle distinction, since it goes without say that if a candidate of a given party is up at a pulpit, then most congregants can reasonably assume that there's some sort of tacit endorsement being made. However, as I posted earlier from this article, what some activist fundamentalist Republican legislators are proposing goes beyond merely giving the church the ability to make "tacit endorsements." Instead, what these Republican legislators are seeking is to completely obliterate the Church/State divide that has served our nation so well for over 200 years -- which is what's made us the most successful pluralistic democracy on earth. More specifically, the proposed Republican legislation would permit the clergy to ACTIVELY endorse candidates, and to ACTIVELY engage in other common political activities.
Now, from our current vantage, it may seem alarmist to suggest that we're in the brink of a Theocracy; however, as an example, let's acknowledge, as many have already pointed out, that the only reason why the federal government intervened in Mrs. Shiavo's tragedy is because Republican politicians deemed it necessary to satiate the demands from the religious fundamentalists base within their party. Again, it's not just some lone voices in the woods that are opining this; Republican Representative Christopher Shays said as much:
"My party is demonstrating that they are for states' rights unless they don't like what states are doing," said Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut, one of five House Republicans who voted against the bill. "This couldn't be a more classic case of a state responsibility."
"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy," Shays said. "There are going to be repercussions from this vote. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them."
Additionally, while we fight against Islamic terrorism, we've been engaged against fighting fundamentalism in Afghanistan and Iraq; and, too, our nation continually points at the perils of fundamentalism in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, it appears that while we fight abroad, some are perfectly happy and willing to institute our brand of fundamentalism here are home. I, for one, cannot believe that the parallels are not being widely and publicly discussed. Finally, keep in mind that this is not about denying anybody their free speech right: the fact that our entire nation is enthralled by this tragic case is a clear example that no one's free speech rights have been obstructed. Instead, the concern here is that adopting the fundamentalist tenets/values of one group puts in PERIL and UNDERMINES our pluralistic representative-democracy -- basically, there's a bunch of us living in our lovely country, with different religions, values, etc. and, if the arbiter between these groups (i.e., government) adopts one group's fundamentalism over another's, we run the risk of having a lot unhappy folks (running around questioning the legitimacy of the entire system). I'd hate to live in that type of society, and sincerely hope that we can avoid it.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2005 02:35:01 PM · #259 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
I can't believe that no one has pointed out the outright ill-informed assumption that RonB is trying to propagate here. |
maybe everyone realizes it's okay for everyone else to have an opinion adverse to theirs. For every point there's a counter-point on both sides. It's okay.....
:-) |
|
|
|
03/24/2005 03:09:48 PM · #260 |
| Thats what makes the world go around. |
|
|
|
03/24/2005 03:37:56 PM · #261 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
I can't believe that no one has pointed out the outright ill-informed assumption that RonB is trying to propagate here.
Yes, candidates of BOTH political parties often attend church gatherings and are sometimes invited to speak from the pulpit; however, when they do, candidates of BOTH parties do not use that opportunity to make a blatant political statement -- that is, they don't attack or advocate one policy position or another. |
Obviously, you didn't read the links I posted, or look at the transcripts from those pulpit speeches.
From Bill Clinton's speech FROM THE PULPIT:
"So my values compel me to be concerned about an economy with no new jobs, incomes going down, poverty rising. My values compel me to look at the evidence whenâ€Â¦ the eight years when we were there, we moved 100 times as many people out of poverty as in the previous 12 years. 100 times! We had fifty percent more jobs, but 100 times as many people moved out of poverty. That’s because choices were made, by people who had certain values.
It bothers me that we have an environmental policy where we talk about healthy forests, and cut trees down we shouldn't cut down. We talk about making the air cleaner when it's getting dirtier. We're talking about making the water cleaner when millions of fish are dying in New Jersey that weren't dying four years ago. That bothers me.
It bothers me when we talk about how we have to go to war and stand against people who could control our destiny when we have our destiny, as it relates to energy, in our own hands. If we only would embrace a clean energy future, we could liberate ourselves, and create millions of jobs, and change our future.
It bothers me when senior citizens are told they're getting drug benefit, and it turns out half of them can̢۪t benefit from it, and the drug companies get a $40 billion subsidy they don't need. That bothers me.
On the security issues, I'm so sick and tired of being told Democrats are weak. Hillary serves on the Armed Services Committee. We did what we could to modernize the military and change our whole weapons structure, and when they fought the conflict in Iraq we had far fewer casualties in the beginning because we had more smart weapons.
That was done through Democratic leadership. Not because the Republicans were weak on defense but because nobody would knowingly not protect our young men and women in uniform. No one would knowingly not give America the tools we need, but there is a difference here.
We dont believe in a world where our enemy is fundamentalism and hatred and absolutism, and where we cannot possibly kill, jail, or occupy everybody who might be against us, that we can just have a military solution. We think we've got to make a world with more partners and fewer enemies.
So, yes we need a defense, but we can't have a defense alone. And it bothers me that people talk about the homeland defense, but the Republicans are about to meet here, and they're going to stop the subways running under the tunnels under Madison Square Garden, right? Because, while they're meeting, and they should, because somebody could go down there and set off a bomb and collapse the Garden. But there has been for months and months and months a plan to reinforce those tunnels. It costs $600 million. It was not done, so we got to stop the subways. Why? Because my tax cut was more important."
Sounds like advocating some policy positions to me.
From John Kerry's speech, FROM THE PULPIT:
"'This might be a good surprise for the wealthy and well-connected, but it's a disaster for the middle class,'Kerry told the congregation at Mt. Olivet Baptist Church in Columbus. 'The president's privatization plan for Social Security is another way of saying to our seniors that the promise of security is going to be broken'"
Sounds like advocating a policy position to me
|
|
|
|
03/24/2005 03:46:18 PM · #262 |
Back to Shiavo...
I say that above all else, the governement should not have a say in what is happening... Especially the federal government. Americans [I am one] seem to be quite willing to forgo vast amounts of personal freedom in exchange for what? A stonger, and potentially more oppressive government? I say no thanks.
Terri Shiavo has very little mental capacity remaining, and has been in a vegitative state for an extrememly long time. I would not want to "live" that way, and I trust that her husband would know her well enough to know that. Sure he has done some dumb things along the way, but so have we...
It is time for the government, and the public to back off. |
|
|
|
03/24/2005 04:45:12 PM · #263 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RonB:
And your reaction is just more evidence that liberals desire to deny Christians ( especially the fundamentalists ) the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Though I didn't hear you complaining when Clinton and Kerry were delivering their anti-Bush speeches from the pulpits during last year's campaign. |
The problem is that churches enjoy certain priviledges the rest of us don't -- tax exemption. Which means they are essentially subsidized by taxpaying citizens. In exchange for that Federal tax exemption, they (and all other non-profits) give up some of their "free speech" rights.
Any church which chooses to forego that tax exemption is free to speak out on issues or endorse any candidates they wish.
BTW: I know the Constitution makes several references to the rights of citizens or people. I'd appreciate if you could direct me to the language which confers any rights --particularly "free speech" rights -- to corporations. |
For those who wish to read the Constitution or any other of our Founding Fathers writings: US History |
|
|
|
03/24/2005 04:47:39 PM · #264 |
Originally posted by tryals15:
Back to Shiavo...
Terri Shiavo has very little mental capacity remaining, and has been in a vegitative state for an extrememly long time. |
And just how do you know that - for a fact?
For every "expert" you provide to testify that she IS in a vegatative state, I can produce one that will testify that she is NOT.
You believe what you want to believe - I believe what I want to believe. The difference is that your belief sentences an innocent woman to death, and my belief does not.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2005 04:57:42 PM · #265 |
Originally posted by RonB:
For every "expert" you provide to testify that she IS in a vegatative state, I can produce one that will testify that she is NOT. |
Ah, but can you produce a neurologist who will testify that she not in a vegetative state who has actually given her a full examination?
Message edited by author 2005-03-24 16:58:04. |
|
|
|
03/24/2005 05:25:29 PM · #266 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
For every "expert" you provide to testify that she IS in a vegatative state, I can produce one that will testify that she is NOT. |
Ah, but can you produce a neurologist who will testify that she not in a vegetative state who has actually given her a full examination? |
Would you believe Dr. William M. Hammesfahr, a neurologist specializing in the treatment of brain injuries, who spent over 12 hours examining Terri Schiavo in 2002?
He did a full examination of Terri Schiavo and found the following:
"The patient is not in coma.
She is alert and responsive to her environment.
She responds to specific people best.
She tries to please others by doing activities for which she gets verbal praise.
She responds negatively to poor tone of voice.
She responds to music.
She differentiates sounds from voices.
She differentiates specific people's voices from others.
She differentiates music from stray sound.
She attempts to verbalize.
She has voluntary control over multiple extremities
She can swallow.
She is partially blind
She is probably aphasic and has a degree of receptive aphasia.
She can feel pain."
His full report can be viewed here |
|
|
|
03/24/2005 06:11:14 PM · #267 |
I had wondered when RonB or those opposing Mrs. Shiavo's stated wishes to her husband would cite Dr. William M. Hammesfahr as an authority. Again, Mrs. Shiavo's opponents are very organized and have had the resources to politicize this tragedy by various means, including disinformation -- attacks on the husband and, as we'll see, by using "authorities" of questionable repute. What I'm amazed at is how our mainstream media never debunks the barrage of misinformation put out by this vociferous faction... but that's an entirely different conversation.
Well, back to this Dr. William M. Hammesfahr. First, he's often cited in right wing radio, and has recently made the rounds on Fox News and right wing radio, as an authority on this case. We, though, as consumers of information, should know more about the context of his role in this case.
* Close ties to fundamentalist evangelical organizations.
* Close ties to Republican party activists.
* Been reprimanded by Florida Board of Medicine for not providing services to a patient and charging for services.
* The same Florida Board of Medicine concluded that the treatment that Dr. William M. Hammesfahr recommends for Mrs. Shiavo is "not within the generally accepted standard of care."
* He is one of the "experts" retained by the parents of Mrs. Shiavo.
You can read more here and here.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2005 06:16:28 PM · #268 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
I had wondered when RonB or those opposing Mrs. Shiavo's stated wishes to her husband would cite Dr. William M. Hammesfahr as an authority. Again, Mrs. Shiavo's opponents are very organized and have had the resources to politicize this tragedy by various means, including disinformation -- attacks on the husband and, as we'll see, by using "authorities" of questionable repute. What I'm amazed at is how our mainstream media never debunks the barrage of misinformation put out by this vociferous faction... but that's an entirely different conversation.
Well, back to this Dr. William M. Hammesfahr. First, he's often cited in right wing radio, and has recently made the rounds on Fox News and right wing radio, as an authority on this case. We, though, as consumers of information, should know more about the context of his role in this case.
* Close ties to fundamentalist evangelical organizations.
* Close ties to Republican party activists.
* Been reprimanded by Florida Board of Medicine for not providing services to a patient and charging for services.
* The same Florida Board of Medicine concluded that the treatment that Dr. William M. Hammesfahr recommends for Mrs. Shiavo is "not within the generally accepted standard of care."
* He is one of the "experts" retained by the parents of Mrs. Shiavo.
You can read more here and here. |
Is there no end to your hatred for Christians? It seems that the number one characteristic that disqualifies ANYONE from being credible is that they have a tie to Fundamental or Evangelical Christianity. I for one am totally offended by your Christophobia. |
|
|
|
03/24/2005 06:23:19 PM · #269 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Is there no end to your hatred for Christians? It seems that the number one characteristic that disqualifies ANYONE from being credible is that they have a tie to Fundamental or Evangelical Christianity. I for one am totally offended by your Christophobia. |
Are you serious!? Some of my best friends, family and girlfriend are god loving New Testament following Christians. My mother is Christian... my Grandmother is Christian... I've received a Christian/Catholic up bringing and early education -- I very much respect the tolerant, inclusive, forgiving, embracing and loving teachings of Christ. I just don't wish to have my values -- specially any sort of fundamentalist interpretation of them -- imposed on anyone else. PERIOD.
|
|
|
|
03/24/2005 07:05:08 PM · #270 |
| I'm sure that we could bicker about this all day, but at the end of it, I'd rather my personal freedom than a controlling government. |
|
|
|
03/24/2005 07:51:32 PM · #271 |
From Dr. Hammesfahr's website, the 1st line reads:
"God Leaves No One Behind, our mission statement"
*edit to clarify;
This is an issue because it shows an obvious bias, pre-conceived opinion and is a conflict of interest in the case at hand.
Message edited by author 2005-03-24 20:39:15. |
|
|
|
03/24/2005 08:44:11 PM · #272 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by RonB:
Is there no end to your hatred for Christians? It seems that the number one characteristic that disqualifies ANYONE from being credible is that they have a tie to Fundamental or Evangelical Christianity. I for one am totally offended by your Christophobia. |
Are you serious!? Some of my best friends, family and girlfriend are god loving New Testament following Christians. My mother is Christian... my Grandmother is Christian... I've received a Christian/Catholic up bringing and early education -- I very much respect the tolerant, inclusive, forgiving, embracing and loving teachings of Christ. I just don't wish to have my values -- specially any sort of fundamentalist interpretation of them -- imposed on anyone else. PERIOD. |
I don't believe that if Dr. Hammesfahr was Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or Atheist that you would mention his religious belief as an automatic reason for dismissal of his professional opinion.
I also don't think that if he were a Democrat, a Socialist, a Communist, or of any other political persuasion that you would mention it as an automatic reason for dismissal of his professional opinion.
It is only when one has conservative, or republican, or Christian ties that you feel it worthy of mention.
No, it is only worthy of mention if they have Christian ties or Republican ties. As if possession of either of those characteristics automatically paint their other credentials as immaterial.
The folks on this site wouldn't stand for it if you were to paint such discredit on someone for being Jewish, or Muslim and you know it. I do not know why they tolerate such anti-Christian rhetoric. |
|
|
|
03/24/2005 08:46:15 PM · #273 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by bdobe:
I had wondered when RonB or those opposing Mrs. Shiavo's stated wishes to her husband would cite Dr. William M. Hammesfahr as an authority. Again, Mrs. Shiavo's opponents are very organized and have had the resources to politicize this tragedy by various means, including disinformation -- attacks on the husband and, as we'll see, by using "authorities" of questionable repute. What I'm amazed at is how our mainstream media never debunks the barrage of misinformation put out by this vociferous faction... but that's an entirely different conversation.
Well, back to this Dr. William M. Hammesfahr. First, he's often cited in right wing radio, and has recently made the rounds on Fox News and right wing radio, as an authority on this case. We, though, as consumers of information, should know more about the context of his role in this case.
* Close ties to fundamentalist evangelical organizations.
* Close ties to Republican party activists.
* Been reprimanded by Florida Board of Medicine for not providing services to a patient and charging for services.
* The same Florida Board of Medicine concluded that the treatment that Dr. William M. Hammesfahr recommends for Mrs. Shiavo is "not within the generally accepted standard of care."
* He is one of the "experts" retained by the parents of Mrs. Shiavo.
You can read more here and here. |
Is there no end to your hatred for Christians? It seems that the number one characteristic that disqualifies ANYONE from being credible is that they have a tie to Fundamental or Evangelical Christianity. I for one am totally offended by your Christophobia. |
I don't see where he's expressing a hatred of Christianity here. His close ties to certain organizations, religious or otherwise, important for putting his comments in context. If the origanizations to which he is closely tied have an agenda to push in this case, (as any religious organization most certainly would), he might be expected to favor that agenda. Knowing that is important in placing his comments in context.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
03/24/2005 09:16:23 PM · #274 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I don't believe that if Dr. Hammesfahr was Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or Atheist that you would mention his religious belief as an automatic reason for dismissal of his professional opinion.
I also don't think that if he were a Democrat, a Socialist, a Communist, or of any other political persuasion that you would mention it as an automatic reason for dismissal of his professional opinion.
It is only when one has conservative, or republican, or Christian ties that you feel it worthy of mention.
No, it is only worthy of mention if they have Christian ties or Republican ties. As if possession of either of those characteristics automatically paint their other credentials as immaterial.
The folks on this site wouldn't stand for it if you were to paint such discredit on someone for being Jewish, or Muslim and you know it. I do not know why they tolerate such anti-Christian rhetoric. |
bdobe's post did not seek to dismiss his professional opinion, but it does (as he stated) seek to place his comments in context of factors which might shape his opinion. What bdobe pointed out what not Dr. Hammesfahr's faith, but his close association with religious and other organizations and individuals who have an agenda on this issue.
Let's say, for example, that a doctor arguing the other side of this issue were closely affiliated with the Union for Reform Judaism, which supports the right to passive euthanasia (the right of the patient, or in the case of incapacity, the patient's surrogate, to refuse or discontinue life support). Let's further suppose that in addition to this, our hypothetical doctor had documented ties to other right-to-die organizations. Would it not be understandable and indeed proper to point out that doctor's potential bias in a discussion on the issue?
-Terry
|
|
|
|
03/24/2005 10:48:06 PM · #275 |
| My friend, Dr. Lonny Shavelson, is an emergency room physician and published photojournalist. He has addressed some of these and related issues in his book, A Chosen Death: The Dying Confront Assisted Suicide. You might want to hear what some actually dying people have to say about the experience. He's also a really good photographer ... check out some of his other stuff too while you're there. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 02:19:09 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 02:19:09 PM EDT.
|
