Jump to content

GO VOTE FOR YOUR CANDIDATES TODAY!


dmillsphoto

Recommended Posts

I find it rather interesting that these conservatives think our city is going down the drain. We have one of the best job markets in the nation, an unbelievably low unemployment rate in Davidson, and people moving here in droves. Yes the public schools need work, but they are improving and much of that responsibility falls on parents, not the school system itself. We have no debt problem in this city, as I have proven over and over again on this forum(much to FMJ's chagrin).

 

FMJ,

 

I am sorry your neighborhood hasn't seen the terrific growth that the rest of the city has. You are welcome to move to another area. Many areas are gentrifying with young families and terrific new restaurants that are walkable neighborhoods!

 

My guess is that your neighborhood is a victim of the type of income inequality that an increased minimum wage would seek to correct. Kind of ironic isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Okay, I can only assume you felt the need to move on from the actual topic to a make-believe topic called - 

...conservatives think our city is going down the drain.


Ha, did any conservative actually say that in this thread? 

I love Nashville and obviously do not believe it to be going down the proverbial drain. I would not live here with my family and be investing in my business if I did not believe the city to be dynamic and full of excitement ... while at same time being affordable. Probably the single worst failure is the intransigent running of the Public school system. Some parents are waking-up to their dire situation and demanding more charters but it is an uphill battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I can only assume you felt the need to move on from the actual topic to a make-believe topic called - 

...conservatives think our city is going down the drain.


Ha, did any conservative actually say that in this thread? 

I love Nashville and obviously do not believe it to be going down the proverbial drain. I would not live here with my family and be investing in my business if I did not believe the city to be dynamic and full of excitement ... while at same time being affordable. Probably the single worst failure is the intransigent running of the Public school system. Some parents are waking-up to their dire situation and demanding more charters but it is an uphill battle.

 

I am all for charter schools, and am excited at the prospect of getting more. I guess my question is, what changes do you hope to see from Fox? Spending is not out of control, to me that is simply a talking point until someone proves otherwise with numbers. As a taxpayer I have zero issue with how much we have spent in this county, and it is completely sustainable in my opinion. So again, what do you fear from Barry and what do you want to see from Fox?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I will go down the rabbit hole... 

 

The original critique of my post was in relation to the totally arbitrary $15 / hour wage mandate for low-skilled workers. If you wish to show some dissent within Booth with a $9 / hour wage then you will of course see less unanimity. The second article by the laureates cite a $10.10 / hour wage is less than a ringing endorsement of the $15 cause de la joune, “Certainly a high enough minimum wage would have damaging effects, but it seems to me unlikely that $10.10 is high enough to have widespread bad effects,” Sims said in an e-mail. (This was one of the best arguments for an increase in your article). Your third article is again left-of center and yet again only calls for a $10.10 wage limit... it may have even been reporting on your previous article. And the CBO report you posted actually says...that a $10.10 min wage would cost the jobs of between 500,000 and 1,000,000 low-skilled workers....what do you think that number would be with an insane $15 rate?

Basically, the lower the artificial wage mandate the lower the ill effects... and the converse is true. As the artificial wage approaches and then exceed the previous national median wages, the more likely the jobs of low-skilled workers will be eliminated never to return. This is common sense. A $10.10 wage may not move the fast food industry to develop new technologies to replace workers but each successive increase exponentially increases that eventuality. Different industries will be affected in different ways and have different wage tolerances. It is currently difficult for a robot to clean an office building so that segment has a higher cost tolerance because currently only a person can perform the task to satisfaction...of course one answer is to have the office cleaned less frequently. However, is quite simple to automate a fast food restaurant...from self-service to mechanized cooking ... the jobs are extremely sensitive to a wage increase.


http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21659741-global-movement-toward-much-higher-minimum-wages-dangerous-reckless-wager?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e
 

You throw down quite the gauntlet by stating -

 

“There is no real-world statistical data you can find that demonstrates any long-term effect on job growth or economic function precipitated by a moderate minimum wage increase. Most increases were followed by short-term growth, some by short-term loss, and still others had no significant effect whatsoever. Most, however, have resulted in pushing significant numbers of workers above the federal poverty line.”

 

Well actually it was quite easy…. did you read the CBO report to which you linked…. as I quoted above a $10.10 increase would cost 500,000 to 1,000,000 job loses I will let you extrapolate the jobs lost due to a ruinous $15 wage. Also, this article from Forbes does a rather rapier job on your arguments absolutist tone.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/04/17/the-record-is-clear-minimum-wage-hikes-destroy-jobs/

 

 

Ha, Only a weak argument would try to equate my stance with a view that labor (people) is expendable… To be clear, common sense dictates the jobs of highlyp-available, low-skilled workers are in jeopardy …  but not by my views...by the same people that purport to want to ‘help’ the plight of workers.
 


“I'll argue that if shareholders are entitled to enjoy a corporation's profits without any liability for its debts then there should be some consideration for the worker who helped create those profits.”

Why should you concern yourself with the debt of corporations. It is the market that determines and sets risk tolerances. The shareholder is only providing capital for a (hopeful) return and thus are in a subordinate position to bondholders when if an enterprise must reorganize. As for the ‘consideration’ owed to the workers … it is called wages and benefits.

 

 “The corporation itself is a construct created within the boundaries and laws set by government and society--you cannot abstract it from that reality--so to claim it carries no responsibility in deference is rather odd. If you're prepared to go really meta we can dive into corporate personhood, which after the case law created from Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission makes this conversation even more strange. A corporation can claim no responsibility to government or society while simultaneously being a legally recognized and protected member of said government and society? Bulls**t.”

Again, in your hubris, you belittle the corporation as a simple construct of law. In reality it is a collective of individuals acting in concert and thus has almost all (no 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination) of the associated rights. It is not easily beholden to the whims of nascent left-wing demagoguery. If a corporation speaks, it is but the voice of the shareholders… at least 50%+1 support.

 

Responsibility to government? Flesh this out for me. What is the responsibility that you speak of? To overpay labor, or are you again trying to minimize corporate personhood? And if corporate personhood is anathema to your conscience, are you also offended by the double taxation that derives from the corporate ‘person’.

First, let me thank you for the thoughtful and civil response, NB.  I for one agree with a ton of what you've said here.  On the other hand, I think you've stopped your line of reasoning short of it's logical conclusion with regard to the minimum wage discussion (particularly as to how it relates to your economic assumptions) and are neglecting a few important points in your understanding of the theoretical justifications for creating corporations in the first place. 

You said, "Basically, the lower the artificial wage mandate the lower the ill effects... and the converse is true. As the artificial wage approaches and then exceed the previous national median wages, the more likely the jobs of low-skilled workers will be eliminated never to return. This is common sense. A $10.10 wage may not move the fast food industry to develop new technologies to replace workers but each successive increase exponentially increases that eventuality. Different industries will be affected in different ways and have different wage tolerances. It is currently difficult for a robot to clean an office building so that segment has a higher cost tolerance because currently only a person can perform the task to satisfaction...of course one answer is to have the office cleaned less frequently. However, is quite simple to automate a fast food restaurant...from self-service to mechanized cooking ... the jobs are extremely sensitive to a wage increase."

This is all accurate!  As you've noted however, these fast food jobs are extremely wage sensitive already and the technological disruptions that could completely eliminate the entire job category could come into play by raising the base wage by just a couple dollars an hour.  On that note, even if we don't raise the minimum wage, how long do you think it will be until those technologies become cheaper than the current 7.25 an hour?  Forget fast food, what do you think will happen in 5/10 years when automated cars replace cab/truck/bus drivers and 3% of the U.S. workforce (not to mention global implications) suddenly re-enter the labor pool?  How long after that will it be before the guys loading the trucks will be replaced too?  And so it goes on up the ladder...

I give these examples to make a couple points.  You are correct that having an artificial minimum wage increases the likelihood that technological innovation will more quickly undercut and replace the artificially inflated human labor costs.  In doing so, however, you're not arguing against raising the minimum wage, you're arguing against having a minimum wage at all.  As i noted in the previous paragraph, it's not long before technological advancements in many industries will drive the price of robotics and automation below the wage floor we've already set.  According to your economics as you've laid them out, if the cost of buying and maintaining a burger flipping robot goes below 7 dollars an hour, then the human burger flippers would be better off demanding only $6.90 an hour than losing their jobs.

But is a job that pays 6.90 an hour actually better than no job at all?  Is it possible to survive in America on 6.90 an hour? (forgetting for a moment that even this 6.90 figure will surely be suppressed further in 'short order' when more technological improvements come along).  

Well, that's the catch, right?  It is theoretically possible to live in America on $6.90 per hour, but only because of government assistance.  This is not happenstance--in fact, major corporations across the board have strategically utilized the fact that our government will subsidize their labor costs increasingly in proportion to how little they can get away with paying their employees.  Remember a couple years ago when McDonald's created a budget for it's employees that specifically recommended they apply for food stamps?  (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/07/mcdonalds-cant-figure-out-how-its-workers-survive-on-minimum-wage/277845/)

If a business depends upon human labor to operate, that business ought to be paying a living wage to each full-time employee they require, right?  Isn't that a more accurate reflection of the actual market rate of human capital?  Paying anything less than a living wage to full time employees is nothing more than corporate welfare masquerading as traditional welfare, minus the demonization of course.  If the business is incapable of meeting those requirements, then the business model itself is fatally flawed and should not be propped up on the tax payer's dime.  It's not the 'responsibility of corporations to overpay labor' as you put it, it's their responsibility to actually pay the cost of the labor they require.

 

Regarding your more general statements about corporations, you said "Again, in your hubris, you belittle the corporation as a simple construct of law. In reality it is a collective of individuals acting in concert and thus has almost all (no 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination) of the associated rights. It is not easily beholden to the whims of nascent left-wing demagoguery. If a corporation speaks, it is but the voice of the shareholders… at least 50%+1 support."

Here, you are also correct that corporations are really collections of people and are (theoretically) acting out the will of 51% of their shareholders.  I'm not sure how that in any way refutes the idea that the corporation is a construct of law.  Of course it's just a construct of law--specifically, laws that limit the liabilities of those people and shareholders who make up the corporation in relation to corporate actions.  It's a pretty straightforward deal, in exchange for limited liability, corporations must operate within the purview and rules set by the entity that created them.  In the case of U.S. corporations, that entity is the U.S. government, which (again theoretically) is indeed beholden to the whims of U.S. citizens, nascent left-wing demagoguery or not.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly! Public schools aside, I think Nashville is humming along nicely and I believe that Fox is the candidate most likely to stay the course. Spending is high relative to Dean's  entry year ($1,565,783,100 Fiscal 2008 versus $1,968,285,900  for fiscal 2016), but I am happy given that the budgets have balanced (by law) and Karl only passed 1 property tax increase during his tenure. The spending is sustainable so long as the economy continues to grow. 

At the end of the day Barry is making a lot of expensive promises and the money has to come from somewhere...she promised to -


- Fully-Fund public school both the existing system but also a much improvement public school system (I do not even know what this means but is sounds open-ended)

- provide universal pre-K to all Davidson Country children

- Make poverty a very high priority

- Make subsidized (affordable) housing a priority

- Mass Transit will be a priority

Lots and lots of priorities all costing money.....

And honestly the biggest farce of all is when she manages to speak about legal immigrants and illegal immigrants as the same... constituents to be served....ridiculous. She speaks out against the former 287(g) program and even against the current 'secure communities' .... she does not say this but it sounds a if she is one step away from advocating for Nashville to become a 'sanctuary city'.

 

No Fox is obviously the more moderate choice and I believe he will give her a run for her money... even in Blue Nashville.

UPDATE - I had posted and 5 minutes later the Tennessean has an article detailing more Barry spending promises...actually quite extensive...

"

In an "open letter" to Bill Freeman supporters, mayoral candidate Megan Barry promises to push for tripling the number of community schools in Nashville if she wins the upcoming run-off election.

Barry says the idea of increasing after-school programs, in-school health care options and other "wraparound" services is key to improving Nashville public schools.

"As a council member who has spent a lot of time in our public schools over the years, and as someone who briefly taught in the classroom early in my career, I understand the importance of wraparound services such as health care, adult education, and after-school and summer programming that are critical in community schools," Barry said in a news release.

"With this in mind, I want to assure Bill and his supporters that, as mayor, I will take up the cause of community schools and work toward the collective vision to triple the number of community schools in Nashville.""

 

I am all for charter schools, and am excited at the prospect of getting more. I guess my question is, what changes do you hope to see from Fox? Spending is not out of control, to me that is simply a talking point until someone proves otherwise with numbers. As a taxpayer I have zero issue with how much we have spent in this county, and it is completely sustainable in my opinion. So again, what do you fear from Barry and what do you want to see from Fox?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it rather interesting that these conservatives think our city is going down the drain.

No one said that, but then you know that.

We have one of the best job markets in the nation, an unbelievably low unemployment rate in Davidson, and people moving here in droves.

Folks anxious to escape the kinds of places managed with the politically similar mindset of SamsonH.

Yes the public schools need work, but they are improving and much of that responsibility falls on parents, not the school system itself.

Need work, eh ? The institution itself is a failure. It was a failure when I was in it 30 years ago. The left wants to keep poor (mostly non-White) children enslaved to that failed system. Parents that care about their children (who can afford it) get their children out of it.

We have no debt problem in this city, as I have proven over and over again on this forum(much to FMJ's chagrin).

If you repeat a lie enough, as your ideology always does in order to cover up the disasters that it makes, it does not make it so.

FMJ,

 

I am sorry your neighborhood hasn't seen the terrific growth that the rest of the city has.

Your sympathy is duly noted. We were doing just fine until the left-leaning know-it-all elites downtown decided to play social engineering with Antioch in the early 1990s.

You are welcome to move to another area.

Most kind your suggestion is. Will you buy my house ? How 'bout paying me and my family what it would be worth if the politicians you support downtown didn't work their enlightened magic out here ?

Many areas are gentrifying with young families and terrific new restaurants that are walkable neighborhoods!

Thank you. May I have the 1980s back for my neighborhood when it was a nice, safe and QUIET area ? Back when there weren't murders and attempted murders within earshot by people that don't belong in our country ?

My guess is that your neighborhood is a victim of the type of income inequality that an increased minimum wage would seek to correct. Kind of ironic isn't it?

Nope. Wrong again as usual. Of course, wanting to put more people out of work by involving yourself in attempting to control the private sector seems to be a chronic fetish for you leftists. Cloward-Piven and all that jazz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one said that, but then you know that.

Folks anxious to escape the kinds of places managed with the politically similar mindset of SamsonH.

Need work, eh ? The institution itself is a failure. It was a failure when I was in it 30 years ago. The left wants to keep poor (mostly non-White) children enslaved to that failed system. Parents that care about their children (who can afford it) get their children out of it.

If you repeat a lie enough, as your ideology always does in order to cover up the disasters that it makes, it does not make it so.

Your sympathy is duly noted. We were doing just fine until the left-leaning know-it-all elites downtown decided to play social engineering with Antioch in the early 1990s.

Most kind your suggestion is. Will you buy my house ? How 'bout paying me and my family what it would be worth if the politicians you support downtown didn't work their enlightened magic out here ?

Thank you. May I have the 1980s back for my neighborhood when it was a nice, safe and QUIET area ? Back when there weren't murders and attempted murders within earshot by people that don't belong in our country ?

Nope. Wrong again as usual. Of course, wanting to put more people out of work by involving yourself in attempting to control the private sector seems to be a chronic fetish for you leftists. Cloward-Piven and all that jazz.

The people moving into the urban areas seeing a boom in Nashville tend to overwhelmingly be liberal. If they wanted to be around conservatives they would move to Columbia TN. The young professionals in 12 south vote for Megan Berry for a reason.  I find it bizarre that you think I want the school system to fail. Earlier in this thread I stated I am in favor of charter schools in Nashville and I think the most important factor is involvement of the parents. Best teacher cannot overcome crappy parents.

I am not familiar with how Antioch was socially engineered. You mention it angrily in many threads. Can you please educate me on the policies that led to it's current state? I cannot tell if you are blaming local politicians for illegal immigration so some clarity would be nice.

I work in the private sector, and pay loads of taxes. I do not want to control it. I do however believe human beings no matter their income level should be treated as such. It's really a simple philosophy. Things have gone well in my life. I work hard and reap the benefits. But a lot of my success is due to luck/genetics/factors out of my control. If I were not successful I would still be a human being and want a life of dignity though.

You chose a neighborhood to buy your house in in the 1980s. You chose the wrong neighborhood. That's okay. You can choose a better neighborhood now. Life is all about learning from our mistakes. Your house is what it's worth, to pretend it ought to be worth some other amount is a game I will not play. Neighborhoods evolve over many years. You had a chance to get out and chose not to. That was your choice. Live with it and stop complaining or move. Or run for Metro Council and get some changes made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I will go down the rabbit hole... 

 

The original critique of my post was in relation to the totally arbitrary $15 / hour wage mandate for low-skilled workers. If you wish to show some dissent within Booth with a $9 / hour wage then you will of course see less unanimity. The second article by the laureates cite a $10.10 / hour wage is less than a ringing endorsement of the $15 cause de la joune, “Certainly a high enough minimum wage would have damaging effects, but it seems to me unlikely that $10.10 is high enough to have widespread bad effects,” Sims said in an e-mail. (This was one of the best arguments for an increase in your article). Your third article is again left-of center and yet again only calls for a $10.10 wage limit... it may have even been reporting on your previous article. And the CBO report you posted actually says...that a $10.10 min wage would cost the jobs of between 500,000 and 1,000,000 low-skilled workers....what do you think that number would be with an insane $15 rate?

I never advocated for a $15 minimum wage--I'm not sure why this has entered the discussion. Your post that I responded to was addressed directly to me so if you're referencing something else here color me confused. I said "While I think an arbitrary $15/hr is excessive, I do think the minimum wage should be tied to a reworked CLI (cost of living index)." This is essentially what the second article is calling for wherein "the group called for the hourly minimum wage to reach $10.10 by 2016 from its current $7.25, and then be indexed for inflation thereafter. They said “the weight” of economic research shows higher pay doesn’t lead to fewer jobs."

Also, rather than cherrypick quotes from the CBO report as you have, I will post the numbers in context. 

Effects of the $10.10 Option on Employment and Income. Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects. As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers. (note: this option includes annual adjustments for inflation based on the CPI).

Effects of the $9.00 Option on Employment and Income. The $9.00 option would reduce employment by about 100,000 workers, or by less than 0.1 percent, CBO projects. There is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight increase in employment and a reduction in employment of 200,000 workers, in CBO’s assessment. Roughly 7.6 million workers who will earn up to $9.00 per hour under current law would have higher earnings during an average week in the second half of 2016 if this option was implemented, CBO estimates, and some people earning more than $9.00 would have higher earnings as well.

I added the emphasis (bolded) for two reasons: First, to stress that these are estimates, not statistics. Second, to show the direct contradiction of one of these estimates to your earlier statement: "It is my view, and that of the Chicago School of Economics, that your solution will result in less employment and higher cost to the government." [emphasis added]

However, is quite simple to automate a fast food restaurant...from self-service to mechanized cooking ... the jobs are extremely sensitive to a wage increase.

As a mechanical engineer working in the commercial/industrial automation field, I'm going to go ahead and say no, it is most certainly not simple.

You throw down quite the gauntlet by stating -

 

“There is no real-world statistical data you can find that demonstrates any long-term effect on job growth or economic function precipitated by a moderate minimum wage increase. Most increases were followed by short-term growth, some by short-term loss, and still others had no significant effect whatsoever. Most, however, have resulted in pushing significant numbers of workers above the federal poverty line.”

 

Well actually it was quite easy…. did you read the CBO report to which you linked…. as I quoted above a $10.10 increase would cost 500,000 to 1,000,000 job loses I will let you extrapolate the jobs lost due to a ruinous $15 wage. Also, this article from Forbes does a rather rapier job on your arguments absolutist tone.

 Should I reiterate that those CBO figures are estimates? Or the fact that you quoted them out of context, deliberately or not? So again I ask for you to find some "real-world statistical data" counter to my statement.

Why should you concern yourself with the debt of corporations. It is the market that determines and sets risk tolerances. The shareholder is only providing capital for a (hopeful) return and thus are in a subordinate position to bondholders when if an enterprise must reorganize. As for the ‘consideration’ owed to the workers … it is called wages and benefits.

 TARP.

Again, in your hubris, you belittle the corporation as a simple construct of law. In reality it is a collective of individuals acting in concert and thus has almost all (no 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination) of the associated rights. It is not easily beholden to the whims of nascent left-wing demagoguery. If a corporation speaks, it is but the voice of the shareholders… at least 50%+1 support.

Sounds like a union or something. Find me a corporation that is not a construct of law, or one that can exist without charter by a government. If we're talking chicken and egg, government came first.

Responsibility to government? Flesh this out for me. What is the responsibility that you speak of? To overpay labor, or are you again trying to minimize corporate personhood? And if corporate personhood is anathema to your conscience, are you also offended by the double taxation that derives from the corporate ‘person’.

 You keep acting as if a corporation is some entity derived from nature. Regardless, I think we've now moved a bit beyond the point and into an area of philosophical difference. Let's save that for another time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I think the conversation has been mostly civil, but again, let's try to avoid anything personal towards any posters. And let's try to avoid purely philosophical debates and keep this framed on Nashville and the mayoral candidates, i.e. why you think David Fox or Megan Barry would or would not be a good choice for mayor. This type of topic will definitely result in disagreements, but as long as they are civil and not personal towards any posters, we will keep this topic open.

If it goes off the rails again, it's not coming back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just curious...when did it go off the rails?

Guys, I think the conversation has been mostly civil, but again, let's try to avoid anything personal towards any posters. And let's try to avoid purely philosophical debates and keep this framed on Nashville and the mayoral candidates, i.e. why you think David Fox or Megan Barry would or would not be a good choice for mayor. This type of topic will definitely result in disagreements, but as long as they are civil and not personal towards any posters, we will keep this topic open.

If it goes off the rails again, it's not coming back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just curious...when did it go off the rails?

 

When it stopped being about Nashville candidates and started being an argument about minimum wage and economics.

I understand that there will always be little tangents and side arguments, but let's please keep it focused on the topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just curious...when did it go off the rails?

 

When it stopped being about Nashville candidates and started being an argument about minimum wage and economics.

I understand that there will always be little tangents and side arguments, but let's please keep it focused on the topic.

little tangents and sides

-==-

Train+derailment_ff13aa_4431331.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kevin,

I am not sure how talking directly about the issue the candidates espouse is 'off topic' but whatever....

 

Do you know how many inane 'off-topic' jokes and puns (I can see it from my office in the Batman building.... Lake Palmer..... 'Beaman"- wasteland...stupid memes) I have to wade through to actually find something of interest on these boards? Here we are having a civil disagreement that is totally on-point regarding the mayoral election and this is where you choose to threaten to 'get it back on the tracks'? SMH
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe, that is too bad.... it is crazy that people can not just talk and agree or disagree...

Agreed, I have tons of friends with various political beliefs, all the way from apathetic to ultra liberal to ultra conservative. We can all have talk politics and learn why the other believes what they do. It helps you reexamine your own belief system. It's critically important to be surrounded by other opinions, and to seek them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the simple solution is to warn and then ban if necessary the person(s) who name-call...not shut-down whole threads that have obviously not gone off any rails....especially in the coffee house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the simple solution is to warn and then ban if necessary the person(s) who name-call...not shut-down whole threads that have obviously not gone off any rails....especially in the coffee house.

Todd, if you want a moderator position, just say so

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.