 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / November 2008Why Citi Group, but not GM
Seems the Republicans are more than willing to give Citi Group as much money as they want, but won't lend GM a dime....where is the fairness in that? Having dealt with Citi credit cards, I can assure you anything bad you can say about GM is a drop in the pocket compared to Citi Group's dishonest practices. Citi Group is one of the financial organizations that is directly responsible for the current financial crisis. As I see it the Republicans are punishing Detroit automakers as a roundabout way of whacking the UAW. They are willing to risk destroying a major US industry because the UAW is in the Democrat's pocket. They forget that UAW members have helped get many Republicans elected despite the wishes of the UAW fat cats. And come Democrats [Pelosi] are willing to let the Detroit three go under because they are short sighted and stupid. They figure the Japanese will build the cars they want us to have, if they have to let us have cars at all. Ed > Seems the Republicans are more than willing to give Citi Group as much > money as they want, but won't lend GM a dime....where is the fairness > in that? Under what provision of the U.S. Constitution would the Republicans be authorized to bail out either? Or do you believe "the end justifies the means" (a very slippery slope indeed) and government should just do whatever the hell it wants whenever it wants whether lawful or not?  SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> Seems the Republicans are more than willing to give Citi Group as >> much [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > do whatever the hell it wants whenever it wants whether lawful or > not? The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..... Ed "C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in message > The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts > and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and > general Welfare of the United States..... > > Ed Er, it might be stretched paper thin to make that clause work, but the Supreme Court, George Bush, and the Congress have made just such stretches of fantasy in recent times. > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in message >> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > of fantasy > in recent times. Try FDR in the thirties... Ed > The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, > Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common > Defence and general Welfare of the United States..... That attaches to the specific powers delegated to the federal government under Article 1, section 8. So I repeat, under what section of the Constitution would such a bailout be authorized under? SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, >> Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > under Article 1, section 8. So I repeat, under what section of the > Constitution would such a bailout be authorized under? I am not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but even I can see how lawyers can and have interpreted the part that states "The Congress shall have Power to....provide for ...the general Welfare of the United States..." to mean Congress can do damn near anything if it is claimed to be for the general welfare of the country. Obviously you want to claim that this clause has never before been used to do things that some people don't like. Fine, you are just being silly. When you take your seat on the Supreme Court, you can correct the misuse of this phrase. Until then, get over it. Congress has been bailing out companies, or setting up special commercial arrangements for years. Land speculation, railroad building, annexation of territory, canal building, etc. have all been promoted by the US Congress despite their being no air tight perfectly clear clause permitting such activities. It seems some people want to pretend the US Constitution is a solid steel document that is unbending and all powerful, while others look at it as a scrap of paper of little meaning. The truth is in between somewhere. The precedent for the US Government lending money to corporations or individuals was made long ago. If you don't like it in this case, fine, argue against it because it is a bad idea, in this case. Arguing that the Government doesn't have the authority to do it is a waste of time. They clearly can do it. Ed "C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in message "The Congress shall have Power > to....provide for ...the general Welfare of the United States..." to mean > Congress can do damn near anything if it is claimed to be for the general > welfare of the country. Yes, they can, if they dont get caught doing something illegal or extremely unpopular. Those pimps in Washington would sell their mothers to stay in office. > I am not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I didn't stay at a > Holiday Inn Express last night, but even I can see how lawyers can and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > general welfare of the country. Obviously you want to claim that this > clause has never before been used to do things that some people don't I don't claim it has never been misused that way by seditionist judges and polititicians, however the fact remains that the original intent of that clause was to be restrictive rather than expansive. In fact, James Madison assured the States that this was the case, they were wary of overly-powerful central authority and would not have ratified the constitution otherwise. Looking at the original intent of the "general welfare" clause, there is simply no authority there for a bailout of the automobile industry, or any other industry. The auto companies should avail themselves of Chapter 11 reorganization if they cannot otherwise continue, that's what the bankruptcy laws are for. > fine, argue against it because it is a bad idea, in this case. Arguing > that the Government doesn't have the authority to do it is a waste of > time. They clearly can do it. Just because "they can do it" does not mean they have the lawful authority to do so. Throughout history governments have frequently exceeded their lawful authority. In the instant case it is simply another indication of rampant, out-of-control government that has escaped the "chains of the constitution" that Thomas Jefferson wrote about. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) >> I am not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I didn't stay at a >> Holiday Inn Express last night, but even I can see how lawyers can [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > escaped the "chains of the constitution" that Thomas Jefferson > wrote about. Jefferson didn't mind ignoring the Constitution when it suited him to do so. Original intent; now that is a catchy phrase. Who's original intent? Do you think that every person/state that ratified the constitution shared the same original intent as Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson? Do you think even Mr. Hamilton shared it? I think you want the authority to decide which "original intent" counts the most. This makes you a prime candidate for the Supreme Court. For better or worse they get to make such decisions. And the truth is, long ago your interpretation was rejected. Trying to argue against long established precedents is just foolish. Why is it the "Conservatives" always seem to be trying to argue that they know the original intent of the people who wrote the constitution? The people that wrote the constitution included a group (the Supreme Court) who get to make such decisions. And clearly, the people that wrote the Constitution couldn't see the future. Ed : > Seems the Republicans are more than willing to give Citi Group as much : > money as they want, but won't lend GM a dime....where is the fairness [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : the means" (a very slippery slope indeed) and government should just : do whatever the hell it wants whenever it wants whether lawful or not? Been that way for near 8 years and yes the 'Pubs have been at the wheel (mostly asleep) and in the majory for much of that time. > Been that way for near 8 years and yes the 'Pubs have been at the wheel > (mostly asleep) and in the majory for much of that time. It's been that way for much longer than 8 years. Try to shed your partisanship and Bush Derangement Syndrome long enough take a look the expansion of illicit government power since FDR. The idea that the Democrats have any more respect for the constitutional limitations on governmental authority than the Republicans is laughable on its face. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email. "Google Groups" messages killfiled due to spam.) > Seems the Republicans are more than willing to give Citi Group as much > money as they want, but won't lend GM a dime....where is the fairness in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Ed Who contributes to Republican election campaigns. I think someone should be doing some research. "Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message > Who contributes to Republican election campaigns. I think someone should > be doing some research. That would take about 2 seconds. The big donors give to both parties so they can cover their a.s in any situation. > Seems the Republicans are more than willing to give Citi Group as much > money as they want, but won't lend GM a dime....where is the fairness in > that? Life isnt fair always, Ed. The effect of a failure of Citi Group on the global economy would be far more disastrous than the failure of GM, frankly. I think that the government will eventually choose to help GM, and the others, but those shitteaux's had better come in with a plan and an attitude change. >> Seems the Republicans are more than willing to give Citi Group as much >> money as they want, but won't lend GM a dime....where is the fairness [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > but those shitteaux's had better come in with a plan and an attitude > change. The Senators have created this whole banking problem not to mention the US auto industry problem. They allow all of these cars to come into the country from third world countries and expect workers to compete in wages. How stupid are they or don't they care about Joe Six Pack? "Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:ce0a5$492b00ac$cef8ac46 > The Senators have created this whole banking problem not to mention the US > auto industry problem. > They allow all of these cars to come into the country from third world > countries and expect workers to compete in wages. How stupid are they or > don't they care about Joe Six Pack? The decision was made a long time ago that protectionism was negative to the US and world economy. If you shut off third world autos and parts, you would be sticking it to GM, Ford, and Chrysler as well. Congress did not cause this problem. (They are worth damn little, admittedly, but the car companies did this to themselves) > "Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:ce0a5$492b00ac$cef8ac46 >> The Senators have created this whole banking problem not to mention [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the > US and world economy. By whom? Ronald Reagan? > If you shut off third world autos and parts, you would be sticking it to > GM, Ford, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > admittedly, but > the car companies did this to themselves) "Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:74b78$492b3102$cef8ac46 > By whom? Ronald Reagan? sh.t no, bro. This is the result of the great financial minds of our time. Reagan, bless his heart, had no mind left. I am not saying I agree with the evaluation, but that is what is believed in high economic circles.. > "Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:74b78$492b3102$cef8ac46 >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > believed in high economic > circles.. High economic circles worry about GDP, not individual's standards of living. It is the Wall St. people who benefit from all of this, not the worker, as we are seeing now with the Wall St. bailout and disregard for the manufacturing industry. > > "Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:74b78$492b3102$cef8ac46 > >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > as we are seeing now with the Wall St. bailout and disregard for the > manufacturing industry. Tim, The problem isn't what the government has done, it's what the consumers have done. Look at import penetration into the US market, now compare that to the rest of the world. In most countries the people prefer to buy locally-designed and locally-produced. In the US the people prefer to buy imports. If there's demand in the US for import cars, nothing the US government can do is going to prevent those cars from being sold here. People will buy them illegally and ship them in if they have to, if there's demand. The big-3's biggest mistake is in not running their operations so that they had a) a full spread of product, both small and large and b) made sure that all product lines they offered were profitable. They assumed that they could subsidize some product lines with other product lines, and did this for many years. Then market tastes changed and now the market only wants to buy the cars the big 3 make that cost them money to make. But, the fact is that the Big-3's mistake pales in comparison to the typical US consumer's mistake that they can continue to buy foreign-designed, foreign-made products, sold in big-box chains like Lowes & Walmart, and not have it affect their own economy. To give you an example - check out the upcoming switch to HDTV from NTSC in Feb. 2009. Now, name me ONE manufacturer of HDTV's that is owned and based and manufactured in the United States. Now imagine how many TV sets there are in the US and that within 2 years, most will be replaced with HDTV's. What country will get the lion's share of the money for this conversion? It WON'T be the US, I can tell you that! And the US consumers will be perfectly happy about it. Ted >> > "Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:74b78$492b3102$cef8ac46 >> >> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > >Ted Lots of truth there, Ted. You can't consume more than you produce - in the long run. --Vic >>> "Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:74b78$492b3102$cef8ac46 >>>> By whom? Ronald Reagan? [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Ted I agree but like I have said before, the government should be protecting the economy by not letting those products in. How many people can think that far ahead to see what damage will be done? Even Greenspan couldn't believe how careless the bigwigs on Wall St. were and these guys are university educated experts. "I have found a flaw. I don't know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact." ...... "I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms." - Alan Greenspan "Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:1f35b$492c9605$cef8ac46 > I agree but like I have said before, the government should be protecting > the economy by not letting those products in. I told you before, that is not the policy of this governmental administration, nor of any in recent years before it. Shoulda, coulda, woulda.... Our years of hard core isolationism ended, IIRC, about the time the Second World War started. I agree that jobs shoulda been held here in the USA, but if the manufacturers have the leeway to get things done for slave wages in the orient, that is exactly what they will do until forced to do otherwise. And this numbnuts government has not intervened. > "Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:1f35b$492c9605$cef8ac46 >> I agree but like I have said before, the government should be [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > And this numbnuts government has not intervened. I know you told me before. And I don't need to be told because it was obvious for the last 25 years. You can't blame the companies when the government lets in all of these new companies to compete who have access to lower wage employees. Either the companies compete with lower wage employees or they go out of business. You can't blame the companies when the American people want to drive big trucks and cars with no concern for gas mileage because the price of gas is relatively low and, "gosh darn, we're Americans and it's our god given right to drive whatever we want". "Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:74f34$492c9a03$cef8ac46 > I know you told me before. And I don't need to be told because it was > obvious for the last 25 years. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > is relatively low and, "gosh darn, we're Americans and it's our god given > right to drive whatever we want". I agree, you cant blame companies, but there is also an expectation that you protect your clients. We cannot import everything and sell it on the cheap when people are losing their jobs. We are a consumerist society. We buy, use, throw away, and buy more. The great American way... We have so many problems that have just been swept under the carpet for years. And now the carpet wont hold any more. We hope that Obama will be the hero that we need to save us from ourselves. It is for damned sure that Bush just made it worse by the trillions. Pray for us.. > "Tim" <jmeth111@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:74f34$492c9a03$cef8ac46 >> I know you told me before. And I don't need to be told because it was [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Pray for us.. Pray for you? Heck, I'm hoping we won't go down too. "HLS" <nospam@nospam.nix> wrote in message > We have so many problems that have just been swept under the carpet for > years. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Pray for us.. Obama has a stimulus package in the works. I doubt it involves balancing the budget any time soon. Scary though, no matter what party is in power. > "HLS" <nospam@nospam.nix> wrote in message >> We have so many problems that have just been swept under the carpet for [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > balancing the budget any time soon. Scary though, no matter what party > is in power. That and if there's any money left he can do it with. I heard today that Bush is giving away another $800B. >> Now imagine how many TV sets there are in the US and that within 2 >> years, most will be replaced with HDTV's. What country will get the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I agree but like I have said before, the government should be protecting > the economy by not letting those products in. No, that is *exactly* what they did wrong with the auto industry. They *should* force US industry to diversify. Any other way leads to ruin the exact same way. > How many people can think that far ahead to see what damage will be > done? Even Greenspan couldn't believe how careless the bigwigs on Wall > St. were and these guys are university educated experts. So that means they didn't think there'd be/might be a problem later on? No, it means they saw a profit in it full stop. > To give you an example - check out the upcoming switch to HDTV from > NTSC in Feb. 2009. Now, name me ONE manufacturer of HDTV's that > is owned and based and manufactured in the United States. Olevia and Vizio are American companies, but as you probably know, the TVs sold under these brands are manufactured in the far east. Ed. Bush the Worst ... has been foxing California with Enron since day one. Building 7 collaspe with no fire or plane ... held the evidence of the fraud. There is a culture war ... and Bush is out to kill the Blue States ... now that there are so many of them with the last election ... well Bush and Chenny and the GOPerps just have more targets then before. They are winning the culture war you see ... and then they will shoot them selves with koolaid and their children ... if they are ever over run. So they have plans. People stuck in their toddler tantrum do such things .. it is how Jonestown happens. They were all raised to 'roll' and give the little Bubble Boy what he wants just to shut him up. Barbara and Poppie have only themselves to blame for raising such a spoiled rotten little child. Beat up a baby in the womb, the come out diaper poop wall wipers ... jammy turd brains. They want to kill mommy and daddy for the womb beating ... but they can't .. so they go out and destroy all that mommy and daddy love and want. They sh.t the house, the burn the house, the crash the car, the suicide out. The defense structure is trying to make them cry because of such casualties, saddness and regrets. Comes with all dysfunctional family systems such as the Bush family. It is across the USA sorry to say. There is hope ... people are getting better. The GOPerps are getting sicker of course. How could a jealous God the Father who makes babies with His daughters do such a thing ??? ya ... how could some God like that do such things. My God don't Fox around ... their God does. sumbuddie wear blind sea :) >>> Seems the Republicans are more than willing to give Citi Group as much >>> money as they want, but won't lend GM a dime....where is the fairness [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > countries and expect workers to compete in wages. How stupid are they or > don't they care about Joe Six Pack? Once again with reality engaged? The US auto companies can't even compete with foreign companies making cars with US union employees in the US. They're badly run pure and simple. Too much of a monopoly does that. Look how pathetic their explanations were to congress on what they would *do* with the money. And they aren't even accountants or economists. Just politicians. Friendly ones. I as a Canadian will be glad to see them go. Maybe we can have our *own* auto companies again instead of the poorly suited crap that comes out of Detroit. That may be your opinion but what CitiBank charges its card customer is clearly stated when on receives their card. Those fees may be what the are but they are dishonest I have a CitiBank card and I do not pay them a penny. All one needs do is pay the accumulated monthly balance and they will pay you 3% rebate > Seems the Republicans are more than willing to give Citi Group as much > money as they want, but won't lend GM a dime....where is the fairness in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Ed > That may be your opinion but what CitiBank charges its card customer > is clearly stated when on receives their card. Those fees may be > what the are but they are dishonest Stating excessive fees does not make them fair, particualrly if you when you change the rules on a long time Customer with a large balance that they can't pay off immeadiatley (which is not my problem, I never run a balance). I can live with that, even if I think it is a disgusting buisness practice. What angered me was when they significantly reduced the grace period before payment was due and printed the due date in miniscule letters directly above the perforations on the part you return. In my opinion, this was done with the intent of causing some people to miss the due date, to allow CitiBank to collect ridiculously high late fees (and interest). And then when I mailed them a compalint about this shady practice, with the check attached, they responded to the complaint and cashed the check, but then claimed the check was late, even though their repsonse letter was mailed days before the paytment was due. They also make it clear that THEY are not responsible for slow or misdelivered mail, but that YOU are. So if your bill from them gets lost in the mail and never shows up, or it shows up very late, it is your problem. If your payment is mailed on time and gets lost or delayed in the mail, they still blame you, even if you can provide proof of when the payment was mailed. I still ahve a CitiCard, but avoid using it. I have other cards that provide the same benefits with a lot less drama. > I have a CitiBank card and I do not pay them a penny. All one needs > do is pay the accumulated monthly balance and they will pay you 3% > rebate So will many other credit card companies. Citi Bank should be allowed to crash and burn as far as I am concerned. I want them to send my portion of the billions they are going send to Citi Bank to GM instead. Ed >> Seems the Republicans are more than willing to give Citi Group as >> much money as they want, but won't lend GM a dime....where is the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> >> Ed "C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in message > So will many other credit card companies. Citi Bank should be allowed to > crash and burn as far as I am concerned. I want them to send my portion of > the billions they are going send to Citi Bank to GM instead. If we started a charity for GM, would you send your cash money, Ed? I am sure I can get an address. Better still, send me the money and when I get $25 billion, I will immediately forward it to the car maker of your choice. ;>) > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in message >> So will many other credit card companies. Citi Bank should be [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > immediately > forward it to the car maker of your choice. ;>) Send a note to Pelosi and have her send my share directly to you. No need to handle it myself. Ed "C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in message news:492b0f66 > Send a note to Pelosi and have her send my share directly to you. No need > to handle it myself. > > Ed It is already in their hands, Ed....I am sure you will be hearing from Wagoner soon. If you read your agreement you will see that whenever a CC provider changes the contract they have with a customer, the customer has the right to close the account and pay off any balance under the rules of your contract. They tell you that whenever they make changes authorized by the latest banking laws. As to mail problems what someone may have told you in NOT correct. One need only remind the CC provider or any other person of the fact, of which they ARE aware, that under the US postal laws mail becomes the property of the addressee when it is postmarked, same as with ones tax return. Recipe, or posting dates, are immaterial. You can not be held responsible for the idiosyncrasies of the mail or their accounting practices. It is their responsibility to prove it was postmarked after the due date. >> That may be your opinion but what CitiBank charges its card customer is >> clearly stated when on receives their card. Those fees may be what the [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Ed >Seems the Republicans are more than willing to give Citi Group as much >money as they want, but won't lend GM a dime....where is the fairness [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Ed Perhaps the Gov't realizes that Citi Group is a bank made up of ordinary employees whereas GM/Ford/ChryCo are populated by, and still trying to support a pool of leeches. Let GM/Ford/ChryCo go bust, Nationalize the assets Pay the Porsche management to repopulate the employee & management pool for 5 years and then sell the company back into the market. The old employee's? Not to worry, St.Obama will provide "free" national heathcare and a wonderful welfare state. I look at it this way, Porsche has so/so products but wonderful employee's. The big 3 potentially have great products but..... > Seems the Republicans are more than willing to give Citi Group as much > money as they want, but won't lend GM a dime....where is the fairness > in that? Not the party per se, but the moron at the peak. The original bailout was *his* idea and the congress were ablt to only change it *slightly* without him vetoing it. Send the bum to jail, save his parents more grief. > Seems the Republicans are more than willing to give Citi Group as much > money as they want, but won't lend GM a dime....where is the fairness > in that? Fairness? Come on Ed - I like your posts, but this sounds like elementary school. > Having dealt with Citi credit cards, I can assure you anything bad you > can say about GM is a drop in the pocket compared to Citi Group's > dishonest practices. Citi Group is one of the financial organizations > that is directly responsible for the current financial crisis. Agreed. Should let them sink. > As I see it the Republicans are punishing Detroit automakers as a > roundabout way of whacking the UAW. Ed - you're killing me. Don't do this. Sure they want to whack Detroit - but rightfully so. The Detroit executive mindset has been so full of themselves and has foisted so much of bean counter design on the American public for so long, that it's time they paid the piper. This has nothing to do with the UAW - this is the good old boys club in Detroit being called to task - finally. > They are willing to risk > destroying a major US industry because the UAW is in the Democrat's > pocket. Bullshit Ed. Detroit destroyed a major US industry. The unions only rode on the same gravy train that the good old boys rode on. It's a Detroit thing - not a Congressional thing. It applies to the UAW and to the executive ranks. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > Seems the Republicans are more than willing to give Citi Group as much > money as they want, but won't lend GM a dime....where is the fairness in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Ed I completely disagree with you on this one. Citibank had a PLAN... the Big three arrived on their private jets with their hands out and NO PLAN. Believe me, they'll come back in a few days with a strategy that makes sense, and the repub's WILL make the loans. There's NO way the current Repub administration will allow the Big 3 to fail on their watch. Wes > I completely disagree with you on this one. Citibank had a PLAN... the > Big three arrived on their private jets with their hands out and NO [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sense, and the repub's WILL make the loans. There's NO way the current > Repub administration will allow the Big 3 to fail on their watch. They won't anyways. None of the auto companies will fail or even fall into chapter 11 before january. And just like Kissenger didn't allow the hostages in Iran to be released before the new year, it will be used the next time there's an election with no care at all for the truth. And it will probably work. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.