Death of an American City


Off-Topic Discussions

151 to 200 of 340 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Belgium has an old separation in the dutch-speaking north, the Flanders area, and the french-speaking south, called Wallonia. Despite all attempts to the contrary, the differences got more pronounced in the last few years. Since the last administrations forced resignation and the new election in June 2010, there was no new administration formed as of mid-december. With every passing day, the possibility of a split increases according to political analysts. It might be that there will be two new countries will be formed (or even three, with Brussels as a city-state), or that one or both parts will become a part of its neighbour - Flanders to the Netherlands, and Wallonia to France or Luxemburg or Germany. There seems to be some reservation of Wallonia becoming part of France, perhaps due to the very centralistic organisation of France, as opposed to the more federal organisation of Germany.

I think that each part is too small to be a viable country on its own, as Belgium is not a big country to begin with, so the parts becoming a part of their bigger neighbours is probably a wise route to go - but still, the fracturing of countries in ever smaller pieces normally does not bode well, as each country will have its own government, own laws etc., so it gets more complicated on each field as a consequence. This means higher overall costs. Now, if the differences are too big and seemingly irreconcilable, there is no alternative, I guess. But still, I think this is a wrong direction, and it could be an example for even more separatistic movements, like in Italy or perhaps elsewhere - Catalonia comes to mind. This host of small states would IMO only be viable with an unified european government, which I don´t see coming into existence in my lifetime (which will hopefully be at least 40 more years).

Stefan


sunbeam wrote:
Canada gets a lot of flack from American conservatives but there aren't too many disaster areas like Troy, NY or Watertown there.

I'm from Troy, NY. For the record, it's been a disaster area for far longer than any of the other stuff on the thread -- the steel industry moved out just after the Civil War, and textiles largely moved south in the 1930s. Since Prohibition, in fact, the major industry (apart from the university) has been gangsterism -- our three most famous natives are Uncle Sam, Kurt Vonnegut, and mobster "Legs" Diamond, in that order.

Silver Crusade

bugleyman wrote:

Interesting. So, free trade is to blame for our economic woes?

What is the alternative? Protectionism leads to trade wars. And no matter what we make our tax policy look like, we'll never be able to compete with developing economies on the basis of wages (If/when we can, they won't be developing economies any more).

I disagree. We are oneof if not the bigest (maybe China is bigger) Consumers of finished goods in the world. If we put trade tarifs in place to counter balance the low prices of other countries we can help to make the US a country that can foster industry again. If you say well they will just put Tarifs on the goods we ship to them. I say "what goods?". Did you know that for every $1 worth of goods we export to them we inport $4.13 that is a HUGE gap! Here.

Until we start produceing true wealth in this country again we will continue our downward spiral.


sunbeam wrote:


What's bad about that exactly? Things have worked out ok for the former Czech countries. And the balkans might be in worse shape if Yugoslavia were still kept whole.

Of course Europe composed of even more small countries might be bossed around even more by Germany, and to a lesser extent France, than before. But it is hard to imagine it getting much worse than now.

With Czech and Slovakia, these two had about the same strength, so they made it on their own. I agree that trying to keep Yugoslavia intact would have not worked, as it fell apart in a bloody war right after the communist block dissolved - Yugoslavia was an artificial country to begin with. Italy falling apart would be bad, as the mezzogiorno would most probably not be a self-sustainable state for a long time, needing financial help from the EU right from the beginning (with much of it flowing into the mafias pockets anyway.) For now, Italy as a whole keeps that somewhat in check. If Italy fell apart, it would get hugely expensive.

Projecting from that, if more European states were to fall apart and Europe would consist of, say, fifty countries, each country would be rather weak internationally speaking. Europe would lose quite some of its economical power, I think. And if a few big countries remained (like France or Germany), these would easily dominate the union. Today, their influence is moderated by the other big players, which is a good thing.

Liberty's Edge

@Freehold_DM:

Look, I'm mostly Sicilian and from up there, you're black and from up there, and you know how it is/was between blacks and Italians back in the day.

I ran home from school almost every day, being the one Italian kid at Irvington High - Newark, basically. And got a spot on the track and cross country team as a result, the coach saw me running for my life (or at least a good portion of my skin) every day and rarely getting caught. So that was kind of cool.

And then there's Bensonhurst and that mess in the '80s.

And Giuliani is considerably older than either of us, moreso you than me, so he probably harbors some of whatever he grew up with in his soul as well. His New York was as different from our New York as ours is to the hipster New York.

So, I feel you, I know exactly where you're coming from with that. Not everyone can let go, even if it might be subconsciously. And a lot of Giuliani's stuff is probably a whole big ball of that.

Edit For the uninitiated: Blacks and Italians have a very weird history in America. The Detroit Free Press shot the first salvo when it declared that all of these new Sicilian immigrants would never make proper Americans, and the immigrants were sharing living space with black who had moved up from the South looking for work. So, you had, in effect, two groups of immigrants, in a way, competing for work and living space, with the blacks feeling somewhat superior, having been freshly minted full citizens of the U.S., and looking down on the Sicilians, and the Sicilians (who have long memories, and invented the whole "vendetta" thing) were prejudice against the blacks for the Moorish occupation of Sicily.

Now, both groups were treated like crap by the establishment English and Dutch whites and middle to lower class Irish, so there was a bit of "hey, we're kind of in the same boat" thing going on as well.

So you have two groups who are competing with each other, can't stand each other, but empathize with each other because they were both seen the same by the people in charge.

Makes for a strange dynamic, I tell you.


houstonderek wrote:
Jeremiziah wrote:
[list]
  • Negative population growth is not a bad thing in and of itself.
  • It is when cities down here get all the people who left there and make it harder for people down here to compete for jobs and what not.

    As to the politics thing: Pennsylvania Dems tend to be a lot more "Blue Dog" than Ohio Dems, New York Dems and Michigan Dems. Pennsylvania is a pretty conservative state for the most part.

    But, still, I wish people would stop moving from blue states to red states and bringing their politics with them. There's a reason I live down here, and it was to get away from NY politics, for the most part. I kind of like living in a business friendly state, and I would hate for a bunch of transplants to start electing people who are too blind to look at California, Ohio, Michigan and New York State and see what politicians did to those states.

    Colorado is a great example of this pattern. Tens and tens of thousands of Californians have come here because of the cost of business in California and California companies moving their operations here. Unfortunately many of these people vote Democratic so they are electing politicians who enact the same policies that drove business out of California. The result seems to be a Colorado that is a blue boil surrounded by red with a rapidly shrinking middle class and good jobs leaving the area quickly.


    houstonderek wrote:


    TheAntiElite wrote:
    I think the main reason I wanted to point that out was in light of your comment about being small government, which I've more and more often seen as code for 'small government except for the stuff I like', i.e. the Military Industrial Complex, Personal Lifestyle Dictation, and Theocratic leanings. By no means do I intend to infer you are favoring any of the aforementioned - far from it! I simply note that people are co-opting your preference and interpreting it as something completely different.
    Nope, no theocratic leanings (other than taking the occasional dump in the CRD thread), 100% unadulterated Atheist here. The only Personal Lifestyle Dictation I...

    ...are you SURE you're a Houstonian?

    I kid, of course.

    That being said, I'm a mostly-agnostic former-Catholic who thinks that, while there's a lot of bad that government can and DOES do, overall it's supposed to be an expression of all of us, and the would-be-theocratic end of the Right Wing does not represent me, and makes me a not-nice person when invoked; no apologies for that part. I'm big on live and let live, and chipping in my part to keep all the nice things that come of society working; I think having a presence in the world is generally-unnecessary, and would prefer it more Peace Corps-like where we do groovy stuff to help others in exchange for people doing good to each other.

    I think we mostly agree on most stuff, but I get the impression from you, and please correct me if I'm mistaken in the understanding, that you feel that Government is Inherently Evil. Is this the case? Because I don't hold that against anyone, but knowing where the baseline assumption starts helps determine if I can consider you persuadable or even pleasant debate and discussion potential, or simply opting to agree to disagree as cordially as can be.

    Like I said, we mostly agree, with maybe slight wiggle-room for degrees.


    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    Welcome to our future....a two tiered America. You see Wall Street figured out 30 years ago they can make a lot more money if they just get rid of the middle class. The middle class, that pesky group of whiners that have the gall to demand things like fair pay, benefits and time off. They fooled us long ago into believing that they can't operate with regulations either.

    You wanna know what the wealthy want? They want to take this country back to 1899. A time when "trusts" ruled America. A time when a Sheriff and his deputies could be gunned down in broad daylight on the steps of a West Virginia courthouse for testifying against a mining company. They want a return to the "good old days" of child labor, mass pollution, and inhumane working conditions.

    If you want a glimpse just look at China today. A place with nonexistant environmental regulations. Workers here earn a small fraction of what we do. Ever hear of Foxconn? The mega factory that makes all the gadgets we love? Nearly 20 people committed suicide there last year. It's gotten so bad that the management now has special nets installed to catch people who jump.

    All of this is being pushed hard by the US Chamber of Commerce. You might as well call it 20th century slave labor. And no doubt those things we visit on people overseas will comeback to us as well one day. Remember one word: guolaosi. In Chinese, it literally means "worked to death", it happens to 600000 Chinese every year.

    Right wing reactionaries like Glenn Beck like to paint the US as on the road to Communism because of Social Justice. What Beck and his ilk do not realize is that the end results of capitalism and socialism are not that far off. Extreme socialism leads to a society that only Mao and Stalin could dream of where a human being becomes a gear in a giant machine with no voice or identity that can be easily replaced. Extreme capitalism isn't much better, that is a world where everything has a price, your life, your organs, you name it.

    Continue listening to the capitalists....one day your children will be nothing more than serfs...enslaved to the wealthy and the almighty Dollar.


    I_Use_Ref_Discretion wrote:
    bugleyman wrote:
    Interesting. Wealth redistribution is a term usually applied in the case of taxes, etc. I don't think voluntary trade can really be seen as wealth redistribution. Surely both sides are enriched, or they wouldn't choose to trade?

    Foreign workers are "enriched" relative to their former positions.

    Domestic and foreign companies are "enriched" due to their dramatically lower costs of production.

    Domestic consumers are slightly "enriched" due to slightly lower costs passed on to the consumers for the made goods.

    However, domestic non-service sector jobs are becoming more and more scarce due to this arrangement. Wages, overall, have remained flat or have declined since the 1970's yet massive consumption, credit overreliance, and borrowing have gone through the roof.

    US Unemployment (the "actively looking for work" fudge number of ~9.5% or the more realistic "everyone who doesn't have a job" number of ~16%) is just getting worse.

    A consumption based society cannot sustain this trend, as we are now seeing.

    I concur, and the working lower and middle classes seem to take the worst of it.

    I'm essentially a free trade advocate, but I believe the US must create a more competitive business climate without directly subsidizing business.


    LostSoul wrote:
    bugleyman wrote:

    Interesting. So, free trade is to blame for our economic woes?

    What is the alternative? Protectionism leads to trade wars. And no matter what we make our tax policy look like, we'll never be able to compete with developing economies on the basis of wages (If/when we can, they won't be developing economies any more).

    I disagree. We are oneof if not the bigest (maybe China is bigger) Consumers of finished goods in the world. If we put trade tarifs in place to counter balance the low prices of other countries we can help to make the US a country that can foster industry again. If you say well they will just put Tarifs on the goods we ship to them. I say "what goods?". Did you know that for every $1 worth of goods we export to them we inport $4.13 that is a HUGE gap! Here.

    Until we start produceing true wealth in this country again we will continue our downward spiral.

    Trade wars are not limited to tit-for-tat tariffs. The Chinese government could do many more things to hurt us financially. Like, say, stop buying American debt.

    As for producing true wealth, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to manufacturing?

    Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

    bugleyman wrote:
    As for producing true wealth, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to manufacturing?

    Kind of curious about this myself. 'True Wealth'? I mean except for land (place to live) food (to live) and clothing (it's low 30's here in Ohio, was 18 when I got up) anything else is extranious. We can't produce land, and we could swamp the world in food (and maybe textiles) and energy if we drill baby drill. (And by that I mean oil, gas, coal, nuke, etc etc.)


    houstonderek wrote:
    Freehold DM wrote:
    The size of the finger you are pointing at the unions makes me wonder whether or not you are scapegoating them while minimizing the non-union side of the equation.
    Unions wouldn't be a problem at all without serious collusion from government.

    +1

    Unions (just like big business) have learned that they get more bang for their buck from buying politicians than by providing value.

    I still maintain that many trade unions provide real value in terms of apprenticeship, job placement, and portable benefits, but the public sector unions seem to do an abysmal job of advocating for their members. There is still quite a bit of difference in different kinds of unions in different parts of the country.


    Judy Bauer wrote:
    Andrew Turner wrote:

    Pretty amazing photos, sadly I thought of the Lone Wanderer and how many locations would be great for a Fallout movie...

    BTW, what kind of Librarian would leave all those books behind and in such disarray!?! Libraries all over the US have programs to accept books from libraries-in-closing, and the Feds even have a system for redistributing funded library materials across the US to other funded facilities.

    This blog talks about how some of the library books and other resources fell through the cracks (often despite employees' offers to volunteer their help).

    Also upsetting in the slideshow is the photo of the pile of abandoned evidence in a police station, consistent with this report of someone finding abandoned student records, including psychological records, in abandoned schools.

    Yet people wonder why I don't trust the government.


    Matthew Morris wrote:
    bugleyman wrote:
    As for producing true wealth, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to manufacturing?
    Kind of curious about this myself. 'True Wealth'? I mean except for land (place to live) food (to live) and clothing (it's low 30's here in Ohio, was 18 when I got up) anything else is extranious. We can't produce land, and we could swamp the world in food (and maybe textiles) and energy if we drill baby drill. (And by that I mean oil, gas, coal, nuke, etc etc.)

    The US is headed towards old age as an oil producer, and is about the same as a gas producer.

    Start hanging out at The Oil Drum if you think drilling will solve US energy problems. You might also be interested in reading some of the newer publications on exactly how much coal is left both in the US and worldwide. There is a lot less than the 400 or 1,000 years or whatever they used to bandy about. If memory serves the new coal peak is estimated to occur about 2030 or so. It's been a year or two since I've read much on this though.

    And as regards nuclear...

    That is another complicated issue. A lot of different things going on with that. For example the "once through" nuclear fuel cycle we use now leads to fuel depletion a lot sooner than you would think. There is a whole lot of things that are possible and have been talked about the past 60 years or so, but if you notice we haven't been doing it with nuclear.

    Crap I used to work in the nuclear industry. I could write pages on this.

    Suffice it to say, we need some new technologies to make nuclear a viable replacement for oil, gas, and coal. If you look at the things needed, they don't seem too hard, and people have proposed them for decades. But you never see them done. Reactors that don't need enriched fuel (Canada kicked our ass with KANDU IMHO), Fuel reprocessing, molten salt reactors (my favorite)...

    Even in France, I don't think they will be viable in the long haul without some changes. They do "sorta" fuel reprocessing, but one time only. Plus when some of that massive fleet of proposed Chinese reactors starts to come online fuel will get a lot more expensive for them (no matter what kind of double dealing they are pulling with fuel supplies in Africa right now).

    Right now we have about 5 decades worth of spent fuel sitting in pools all around the country, with no evidence that things are going to change anytime.

    Usually conservatives are really hopped up and blame democrats and environmentalists for things like this...

    But you can't discuss things like this in this limited space.

    To make it short, energy problems are coming, they will be severe, and they are coming much quicker than you think.

    The US is past it's prime as an oil and gas province (I think we have drilled more holes here than exist in the rest of the world, but I'd have to double check that).

    Drilling isn't going to do much more than what the gas fracking does now. You get some, then it peters away in a hurry.

    Man I could write a lot of stuff about energy.


    houstonderek wrote:

    @Freehold_DM:

    Look, I'm mostly Sicilian and from up there, you're black and from up there, and you know how it is/was between blacks and Italians back in the day.

    I ran home from school almost every day, being the one Italian kid at Irvington High - Newark, basically. And got a spot on the track and cross country team as a result, the coach saw me running for my life (or at least a good portion of my skin) every day and rarely getting caught. So that was kind of cool.

    And then there's Bensonhurst and that mess in the '80s.

    And Giuliani is considerably older than either of us, moreso you than me, so he probably harbors some of whatever he grew up with in his soul as well. His New York was as different from our New York as ours is to the hipster New York.

    So, I feel you, I know exactly where you're coming from with that. Not everyone can let go, even if it might be subconsciously. And a lot of Giuliani's stuff is probably a whole big ball of that.

    Edit For the uninitiated: Blacks and Italians have a very weird history in America. The Detroit Free Press shot the first salvo when it declared that all of these new Sicilian immigrants would never make proper Americans, and the immigrants were sharing living space with black who had moved up from the South looking for work. So, you had, in effect, two groups of immigrants, in a way, competing for work and living space, with the blacks feeling somewhat superior, having been freshly minted full citizens of the U.S., and looking down on the Sicilians, and the Sicilians (who have long memories, and invented the whole "vendetta" thing) were prejudice against the blacks for the Moorish occupation of Sicily.

    Now, both groups were treated like crap by the establishment English and Dutch whites and middle to lower class Irish, so there was a bit of "hey, we're kind of in the same boat" thing going on as well.

    So you have two groups who are competing with each other, can't stand each other, but empathize with each other because they were both seen...

    The world is truly smaller than we think it is. I'm sure my old stomping grounds in Gravesend were not too far away from where you lived. And there is a lot of truth in what you said regarding history, you raise some excellent points and bring back a lot of memories- A Bronx Tale in Brooklyn, essentially. Maybe I should ease up on Guiliani a bit. He was NOT the world's greatest mayor by far, but I'm sure he's an okay guy in his private life.

    As an interesting aside regarding the crap in Bensonhurst in the 80's- my old roommate lost his cousin in a copycat attack during that time period, and he was nervous living in Gravesend even in 2004-2005. My own experiences were quite friendly with Italians, there was one gorgeous Italian friend I had in high school who was sweet on me, but too afraid to date me due to what her father might say or do to us both. I found out from a friend(who I ran into while out one night on the second job, interestingly enough) that she is now married with 5 kids. FIVE KIDS. God, remembering her as I do, I'm sure her kids are plump and happy and know they're loved as only an Italian mom can love them. One of my best friends and former groomsmen is Sicilian, and he tells the most hilariously gauche stories of the Moors visiting his ancestors.


    Matthew Morris wrote:
    bugleyman wrote:
    As for producing true wealth, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to manufacturing?
    Kind of curious about this myself. 'True Wealth'? I mean except for land (place to live) food (to live) and clothing (it's low 30's here in Ohio, was 18 when I got up) anything else is extranious. We can't produce land, and we could swamp the world in food (and maybe textiles) and energy if we drill baby drill. (And by that I mean oil, gas, coal, nuke, etc etc.)

    I'm guessing he is referring to how much of our economy is kind of an illusion like the value of the US dollar. Trillions of dollars are made and lost in futures and derivatives, but how "real" (for want of a better word) are the profits and losses. Someone can lose ten thousand in equity on their home based on current value, but if you're not upside down or selling soon how real is that loss to that person?

    I think when the value of the dollar collapses we will begin to see terrible and real loss, and we will see it in a brutally regressive way. Major inflation will do the most damage to those who can cope with it the least.


    I always find these things incredebly sad as they are clearly glorious building fading away. It would be nice to think that they will find new uses and be restored

    however, fron a stylistic perspective, I do love the "look" of urban decay - some of those pictures are fantastic.

    a city close to me has a district full of gorgrous georgan buildings all empty and falling appart. it is, in some ways a very attractive vision of decay that could make incredible art, but i have always said, if i had the money, /I would buy one of them and restore it, as they are glorious buildings on a structural level, and the area could be incredible again in the future

    Liberty's Edge

    TheAntiElite wrote:
    houstonderek wrote:


    TheAntiElite wrote:
    I think the main reason I wanted to point that out was in light of your comment about being small government, which I've more and more often seen as code for 'small government except for the stuff I like', i.e. the Military Industrial Complex, Personal Lifestyle Dictation, and Theocratic leanings. By no means do I intend to infer you are favoring any of the aforementioned - far from it! I simply note that people are co-opting your preference and interpreting it as something completely different.
    Nope, no theocratic leanings (other than taking the occasional dump in the CRD thread), 100% unadulterated Atheist here. The only Personal Lifestyle Dictation I...

    ...are you SURE you're a Houstonian?

    I kid, of course.

    That being said, I'm a mostly-agnostic former-Catholic who thinks that, while there's a lot of bad that government can and DOES do, overall it's supposed to be an expression of all of us, and the would-be-theocratic end of the Right Wing does not represent me, and makes me a not-nice person when invoked; no apologies for that part. I'm big on live and let live, and chipping in my part to keep all the nice things that come of society working; I think having a presence in the world is generally-unnecessary, and would prefer it more Peace Corps-like where we do groovy stuff to help others in exchange for people doing good to each other.

    I think we mostly agree on most stuff, but I get the impression from you, and please correct me if I'm mistaken in the understanding, that you feel that Government is Inherently Evil. Is this the case? Because I don't hold that against anyone, but knowing where the baseline assumption starts helps determine if I can consider you persuadable or even pleasant debate and discussion potential, or simply opting to agree to disagree as cordially as can be.

    Like I said, we mostly agree, with maybe slight wiggle-room for degrees.

    Not inherently "evil" (I'm way too existentialist/nihilistic to even entertain the thought of "good" and "evil"), more like inherently inept, inefficient, duplicitous, hypocritical, easily swayed by the shiny and not the substantive, unoriginal (money solves everything!), out of touch, bloated, incapable of telling the truth, divisive, willfully ignorant, pandering, juvenile and harmful in most cases.

    So, basically, I look at our government like it's a bratty, dumb as a box of rocks, teenager who thinks they deserve a fat allowance but won't do any chores. Or, when it does, forgets to sort the laundry (turning all the whites a muddy pink) and wiped the counters with a dirty rag..

    I'm convinced that our "leaders" (and they should be our servants, not our leaders) don't really think about anything they're doing. It's like they pick crap out of a hat and say "let's do THAT!" without any thought of how it actually affects real people.

    And I have yet, in my forty years, to meet a government employee (i.e. civil servant) who was civil and thought their job was to serve the public.

    My biggest problem with our current government set up is it makes us all of the above. And add lazy to that list. We no longer really connect with other people, I think empathy (yes, right and left) is dead, and we rely on government to do what we should be doing ourselves (and we could do more efficiently): taking care of the people who fall through the cracks. We just assume the government will take care of it. Which amazes me, since everyone seems to hate 50% of the government at any given time.

    It also somehow convinced us there's a whit of difference between the two major poles on our political globe. Last I checked, both poles are cold as hell, and only crazy people want to live there.

    Dark Archive

    Jess Door wrote:
    Most of my extended family is in Michigan, so I hope things improve myself. [b]The west side of the state is doing quite poorly as well[b], as I saw during my visit home this holiday season. I ended up having to bite my tongue to keep from saying things that might have hurt or disturbed my friends and family as we drove through areas that are simply...devastated. I don't have another word for it. :(

    Emphasis Mine.

    I'm live in Grand Rapids and while there are businesses going under, we're not as bad as the East Side of the state.

    Dark Archive

    Archmage_Atrus wrote:

    I don't see why everyone is so upset. Didn't a floundering Detroit birth us RoboCop? The future is OCP!

    (Remove tongue from cheek...)

    +1!

    Sovereign Court

    Mac Boyce wrote:
    Jess Door wrote:
    Most of my extended family is in Michigan, so I hope things improve myself. [b]The west side of the state is doing quite poorly as well[b], as I saw during my visit home this holiday season. I ended up having to bite my tongue to keep from saying things that might have hurt or disturbed my friends and family as we drove through areas that are simply...devastated. I don't have another word for it. :(

    Emphasis Mine.

    I'm live in Grand Rapids and while there are businesses going under, we're not as bad as the East Side of the state.

    Oh, I know it's not as bad as Detroit, but it's a lot worse than when I left for Texas 3 years ago! :(

    Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

    Now see as a member of a small union I can tell you that Management isn't as beneficent as you let on HD.

    I will use a sanitized version of my own story. I used to be a salaried employee of a Big 3 automaker in the security, safety, and fire protection division. Said automaker decided before the bottom fell out of the economy to completely sever the entire division. At the end of our final contract the Company outsourced us wholesale to a Contractor without even sitting down to talk to us. They told us that either we apply to work for the new Contractor or we "quit."

    Now I'm sorry but that's a metric ton of unicorn sprinkles. When you give an entire division of workers who have a contract with you the boot you have to at least sit down to discuss the matter, then offer some manner of severence. They merely coerced us into folding into the new Contractor so they didn't lose the knowledge base of the employees that were still required to do the job.

    Granted we took them to court and won a pitiable settlement from them, but it was insulting. I can safely say that 90% of my union enjoyed working for said Big 3 Company and would have gladly given concessions on our contract in order to remain with the company. But we weren't given that chance. To top it all off our accumulated 401ks and financial accounts were frozen in 2005. We couldn't touch them, manage them, or roll them over into IRA's through the market crash. Some of us lost tens of thousands of dollars with no way to to stem the bleeding unless we decided to retire which was unfeasible for the majority. In all we basically do the same job now for far less in benefits (in terms of quality) and in a far more hostile environment.

    You see the new Contractor that came in has a record of dealing very poorly with unions across the country. Their CEO in fact has called us terrorists! In the last 5 years we've won at least 3 major labor suits against them because they're basically lying, cheating bastards. Of course the Big 3 Company is micromanaging them to death, dictating how they are to do their jobs so I can understand why they feel pressure. However they consistently cut our headcount & expect us to do the same functions we did before! I don't know if you are familiar with security and fire protection, but we're kind of a fixed cost that you have to have. I know they eventually want us to take pay cuts but they have posted $500+ million in profits over each of the last 5 years!. They are so audacious about their success that at Christmas they post their yearly earnings in the newsletter that comes with our paychecks. Don't tinkle on my head and tell me its raining.

    Unions are still vital because companies show no loyalty to their workers, only their shareholders. I don't pretend to be a vital link in the running of a major industry but I do expect to be treated fairly and with a bit of respect by my employer if I do the same towards them.


    primemover003 wrote:

    Now see as a member of a small union I can tell you that Management isn't as beneficent as you let on HD.

    I will use a sanitized version of my own story. I used to be a salaried employee of a Big 3 automaker in the security, safety, and fire protection division. Said automaker decided before the bottom fell out of the economy to completely sever the entire division. At the end of our final contract the Company outsourced us wholesale to a Contractor without even sitting down to talk to us. They told us that either we apply to work for the new Contractor or we "quit."

    Now I'm sorry but that's a metric ton of unicorn sprinkles. When you give an entire division of workers who have a contract with you the boot you have to at least sit down to discuss the matter, then offer some manner of severence. They merely coerced us into folding into the new Contractor so they didn't lose the knowledge base of the employees that were still required to do the job.

    Granted we took them to court and won a pitiable settlement from them, but it was insulting. I can safely say that 90% of my union enjoyed working for said Big 3 Company and would have gladly given concessions on our contract in order to remain with the company. But we weren't given that chance. To top it all off our accumulated 401ks and financial accounts were frozen in 2005. We couldn't touch them, manage them, or roll them over into IRA's through the market crash. Some of us lost tens of thousands of dollars with no way to to stem the bleeding unless we decided to retire which was unfeasible for the majority. In all we basically do the same job now for far less in benefits (in terms of quality) and in a far more hostile environment.

    You see the new Contractor that came in has a record of dealing very poorly with unions across the country. Their CEO in fact has called us terrorists! In the last 5 years we've won at least 3 major labor suits against them because they're basically lying, cheating bastards. Of course the Big 3 Company...

    That bites, but didn't your union basically fail you? When push came to shove what did they do for you?

    BTW, in your hall did the union provide your pension and other benefits as part of your dues so your benefits would be portable?


    Don't you love the government?

    Pittsburgh man latest to have home accidentally demolished

    "Experiences like Hall's are distressingly common."

    Wow

    Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2013

    Matthew Morris wrote:
    Who in their right mind thinks that corporations pay taxes?

    Corporations. THey spend billions every year just to evaluate the tax consequences of major decisions. Mergers. Expanding product. Going through a different buyer. Shipping to states with lame tax laws whre you pay extra taxes for that driver on the day he drove in that state. Billions.

    The government. Every year brings changes to the tax code. WHat can we do to stimulate business but pay for our spending? WHat loopholes can we close. Note loopholes is vernacular for "that business is legally keeping their own money".

    Small business owners. Most small businesses are llc or subchapter s corporations, which means their business incomes and 1099 work is reported on their personal income. So they pay taxes as an earner, taxes on profits if they can't hide them all, taxes for being self-employed, etc.

    Consumers. Now, if I get you right, you are saying companies either find loopholes or pass those taxes on to consumers to reach their goals. Totally correct, which means eliminating taxes for companies brings down prices without costing the fed revenue. Which is then something we ought to serioculy consider, as it would address (not entriely solve) a large number of economic problems, like unemployment, trade deficits, undocumented workers, the size of the undeground economy, etc.

    Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2013

    houstonderek wrote:
    I'm convinced that our "leaders" (and they should be our servants, not our leaders) don't really think about anything they're doing. It's like they pick crap out of a hat and say "let's do THAT!" without any thought of how it actually affects real people.

    Totally agreed. First, how would some of these folks even know? Kerry gets $1000 haircuts - how does he know how it feels to have to budget your styling or just have your wife do it? Barney Frank still wonders why banks aren't lending to poor people. Moron. Biden goes into a small business and is totally caught off guard when the restaurant owner complains about taxes. Duh. You have to be able to listen in order to hear.

    Second, we need courageous solutions, like the national retail sales tax. Something with serious research and debate behind it, but something that actually affects mutiple symptoms. We don't need another box of bandaids. We need the good stuff.

    Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2013

    Soluzar wrote:
    Right wing reactionaries like Glenn Beck like to paint the US as on the road to Communism because of Social Justice. What Beck and his ilk do not realize is that the end results of capitalism and socialism are not that far off. Extreme socialism leads to a society that only Mao and Stalin could dream of where a human being becomes a gear in a giant machine with no voice or identity that can be easily replaced. Extreme capitalism isn't much better, that is a world where everything has a price, your life, your organs, you name it.

    THe kind of capitalism we want: what made the US a world power and allowed generous wealthy people to impact the world around them.

    What you get with socialism: someone else has to provide your military, you run a risk of despotism because the same elites feel you are wamr enough and have enough food, so they can build another rape room, and when you finalyl realize it's too late and you have to pull the belt pretty tight, your self-entitled youth throw rocks at your policemen, because you told them education, healthcare, housing, food and (really....this is sick) WiFi were free.


    Steven T. Helt wrote:
    Totally agreed.

    By citing only Democrats, you only HALF agree with HD, rather than "totally agree." He was referring to ALL of our so-called "leaders," from BOTH parties.

    Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

    Bitter Thorn wrote:

    That bites, but didn't your union basically fail you? When push came to shove what did they do for you?

    BTW, in your hall did the union provide your pension and other benefits as part of your dues so your benefits would be portable?

    What could they do for me? At that point your only recourse is the NLRB which ruled in our favor but couldn't change the decision of the Company. We were only about 400 members in total so it's not like we could really shake the foundations of the company if we went on strike, though it was discussed.

    No we do not have pension or other benefits through our union. We were odd in that we were Salaried employees of the Company that were unionized. The Company provided retirement benefits, 401K, etc as any other supervisor below Senior management.


    primemover003 wrote:
    Bitter Thorn wrote:

    That bites, but didn't your union basically fail you? When push came to shove what did they do for you?

    BTW, in your hall did the union provide your pension and other benefits as part of your dues so your benefits would be portable?

    What could they do for me? At that point your only recourse is the NLRB which ruled in our favor but couldn't change the decision of the Company. We were only about 400 members in total so it's not like we could really shake the foundations of the company if we went on strike, though it was discussed.

    No we do not have pension or other benefits through our union. We were odd in that we were Salaried employees of the Company that were unionized. The Company provided retirement benefits, 401K, etc as any other supervisor below Senior management.

    I'm not trying to put down your local, but what did they do to earn your dues? It doesn't sound like they provided much benefit. I'm not saying it was their fault. Do they have a system to call out members to fill jobs? I prefer a model were your pension and other benefits are handled by the union rather than the company for maximum portability.

    I've done a lot more work with trade unions, so I'm trying to understand the differences.

    The IBEW, for example, provides apprenticeships and continuing training, portable benefits, and job placement. I don't know how steep their dues are, but Local 113 is the strongest hall south of Denver that I know of in Colorado. IUPAT's benefits were decent and the dues were quite modest.

    Do you feel like your union provided value for your dues?


    houstonderek wrote:
    primemover003 wrote:
    Hell the europeans think we're crazy the way we treat our own people.
    Maybe the European masses think this, but their leaders understand their social programs are unsustainable. And, judging from the riots over the last year in Spain, Belgium, Britain, France, Portugal and Greece (as all of those nations took steps to right fix budgets), the people aren't too fond of reality...

    I notice you don't include Ireland - possibly the most screwed of the lot. With Greece, if you take some high profile people and throw them in jail for tax evasion and make sure that its all over the media they might well convince the plebeians to pay their taxes. Do that and they could just manage to dig themselves out of this hole.

    Ireland's situation is one where a low tax business friendly society's only option is going to be drastically cut services while jacking taxes up like mad. I'm sure the people are going to love that, services where already less then most of western Europe and now they are going to get a lot smaller while taxes go through the roof.

    On the other hand a number of the left leaning states are really doing rather well. All the Nordic countries are pretty much fine. Social programs are perfectly sustainable as long as you have high enough taxes. Its low taxes and high services that is unsustainable. Either low services and low taxes or high services and high taxes are perfectly viable models.

    The real problem is with nation states that convince their populations that they can have their cake and eat it too. That's not possible and nations that try that eventually have to face the music.


    I_Use_Ref_Discretion wrote:


    In 1971, U.S. President Richard Nixon set unilateral tariffs against Japan, Germany and other countries that refused to let their currencies strengthen. Far from setting off a trade war, this persuaded these nations to help rebalance the world economy cooperatively. There is every reason to expect the same outcome today.

    I'd say pretty much the opposite. There is every reason to believe that nations today would fight tooth and nail against this based on their experience with what happened historically. Back in the day the main target of this policy was Japan and when Japan agreed to allow their currency to float it shot up phenomenally fast. By the time it was finished rising the Japanese Miracle was over. If one listens to the Chinese economists today they pretty much never enter into a discussion of allowing the Yaun to float without bring up what happened to Japan.

    Meanwhile I think America would actually have a really hard time trying to force China to do anything economically via reprisals. A lot of American businesses depend on these cheap imports and they will make their position known to their congressman. Many other influential companies want to do business in China and they don't want to deal with the Chinese counter reprisals and the average American tends to be sympathetic to the idea that they should be allowed to buy things cheaply. A model that's only effect appears to be to make everything more expensive at the store because the government is taxing really heavily will probably go over like a lead balloon.


    Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
    houstonderek wrote:
    primemover003 wrote:
    Hell the europeans think we're crazy the way we treat our own people.
    Maybe the European masses think this, but their leaders understand their social programs are unsustainable. And, judging from the riots over the last year in Spain, Belgium, Britain, France, Portugal and Greece (as all of those nations took steps to right fix budgets), the people aren't too fond of reality...

    I notice you don't include Ireland - possibly the most screwed of the lot. With Greece, if you take some high profile people and throw them in jail for tax evasion and make sure that its all over the media they might well convince the plebeians to pay their taxes. Do that and they could just manage to dig themselves out of this hole.

    Ireland's situation is one where a low tax business friendly society's only option is going to be drastically cut services while jacking taxes up like mad. I'm sure the people are going to love that, services where already less then most of western Europe and now they are going to get a lot smaller while taxes go through the roof.

    On the other hand a number of the left leaning states are really doing rather well. All the Nordic countries are pretty much fine. Social programs are perfectly sustainable as long as you have high enough taxes. Its low taxes and high services that is unsustainable. Either low services and low taxes or high services and high taxes are perfectly viable models.

    The real problem is with nation states that convince their populations that they can have their cake and eat it too. That's not possible and nations that try that eventually have to face the music.

    Doesn't the high tax and high service model eventually collapse under its own weight like the USSR? (I wouldn't say the soviets provided high services, but I think you know what I mean.)


    Bitter Thorn wrote:


    Doesn't the high tax and high service model eventually collapse under its own weight like the USSR? (I wouldn't say the soviets provided high services, but I think you know what I mean.)

    Not necessarily collapse, but even the social systems in the scandinavian countries are being cut back these days. It is not a problem of the system per se, but rather of the demographic factor - less births and people growing ever older means less workers have to sustain more pensioners (who, of course, cause higher health costs as well).

    Liberty's Edge

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Steven T. Helt wrote:
    Totally agreed.
    By citing only Democrats, you only HALF agree with HD, rather than "totally agree." He was referring to ALL of our so-called "leaders," from BOTH parties.

    Yep. The last time I was remotely happy with the way things were was 94-98 when Clinton and Gingrich were locking horns. I respected Clinton for moving to the center after the election in '94. I don't care if it was an actual epiphany or just political savvy, I liked the results. (edit: and I appreciated the appearance that he was "bowing to the will of the people" and actually pretending he worked for us). And Gingrich being a completely heartless bastard prevented him from caving on much, even if he was totally undercut by Clinton co-opting quite a bit of the opposition's thunder and glory on the budget. Everything that's happened after '98 just steadily slid downhill.

    In the last election, the Republicans were gang-jacked in the primaries by a motley group of Libertarians, weirdos and people who are just sick of the whole thing. But they're all allegedly fiscal conservatives. They deposed a lot of "RINO's" and moderate Republicans and the party moved right.

    Then the newly right larger party met the Democrats in November and gang-jacked them in almost every evenly contested race (purple districts). The Dems they deposed were mostly "blue dog", and were already inclined to being fiscally moderate to conservative, so the congress moved more socially conservative as well. This also moved the remaining party to the left.

    So, the partisan ideologue poppycock continues, but they're inanely shouting at each other from an even further opposite perspective. Grandstanding doesn't equal governance and it's getting old.

    But the new congress was just sat yesterday, so I'll sit back and wait and see if it has the "94" effect and actually makes these idiots start working together since, as it stands, if everyone entrenches their positions, absolutely nothing can get done since no one has the leverage to force it to happen. The Republicans hold the purse strings, which gives them a slight advantage, but not having the Senate blocks their ability to make Obama have to ride the veto pen or further alienate his base.

    Personally I hope they do slam headfirst into gridlock.

    Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

    Steven T. Helt wrote:
    Consumers. Now, if I get you right, you are saying companies either find loopholes or pass those taxes on to consumers to reach their goals. Totally correct, which means eliminating taxes for companies brings down prices without costing the fed revenue. Which is then something we ought to serioculy consider, as it would address (not entriely solve) a large number of economic problems, like unemployment, trade deficits, undocumented workers, the size of the undeground economy, etc.

    Thank you for articulating my point better than I could.

    Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

    primemover003 wrote:
    Bitter Thorn wrote:

    That bites, but didn't your union basically fail you? When push came to shove what did they do for you?

    BTW, in your hall did the union provide your pension and other benefits as part of your dues so your benefits would be portable?

    What could they do for me? At that point your only recourse is the NLRB which ruled in our favor but couldn't change the decision of the Company. We were only about 400 members in total so it's not like we could really shake the foundations of the company if we went on strike, though it was discussed.

    No we do not have pension or other benefits through our union. We were odd in that we were Salaried employees of the Company that were unionized. The Company provided retirement benefits, 401K, etc as any other supervisor below Senior management.

    Weird, but your experiences sound kind of similar to my dad's. The NLRB ruled for them quite often, but the company would change the rules they were protesting right before the ruling, so then it was dismissed.

    Liberty's Edge

    Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
    houstonderek wrote:
    primemover003 wrote:
    Hell the europeans think we're crazy the way we treat our own people.
    Maybe the European masses think this, but their leaders understand their social programs are unsustainable. And, judging from the riots over the last year in Spain, Belgium, Britain, France, Portugal and Greece (as all of those nations took steps to right fix budgets), the people aren't too fond of reality...

    I notice you don't include Ireland - possibly the most screwed of the lot. With Greece, if you take some high profile people and throw them in jail for tax evasion and make sure that its all over the media they might well convince the plebeians to pay their taxes. Do that and they could just manage to dig themselves out of this hole.

    Ireland's situation is one where a low tax business friendly society's only option is going to be drastically cut services while jacking taxes up like mad. I'm sure the people are going to love that, services where already less then most of western Europe and now they are going to get a lot smaller while taxes go through the roof.

    On the other hand a number of the left leaning states are really doing rather well. All the Nordic countries are pretty much fine. Social programs are perfectly sustainable as long as you have high enough taxes. Its low taxes and high services that is unsustainable. Either low services and low taxes or high services and high taxes are perfectly viable models.

    The real problem is with nation states that convince their populations that they can have their cake and eat it too. That's not possible and nations that try that eventually have to face the music.

    I was under the impression the riots in Northern Ireland were just a flare up of the Troubles, and not related to any government policy.

    And, as you point out, they're not as invested in the social democracy model much of Europe follows to varying degrees. Their problems are distinctly different than what the Continental nations are dealing with.

    I probably should have included them, though.

    I agree with your last two paragraphs 100%, I just prefer the "low tax/low service" model.

    Liberty's Edge

    primemover003 wrote:

    Now see as a member of a small union I can tell you that Management isn't as beneficent as you let on HD.

    I will use a sanitized version of my own story. I used to be a salaried employee of a Big 3 automaker in the security, safety, and fire protection division. Said automaker decided before the bottom fell out of the economy to completely sever the entire division. At the end of our final contract the Company outsourced us wholesale to a Contractor without even sitting down to talk to us. They told us that either we apply to work for the new Contractor or we "quit."

    Now I'm sorry but that's a metric ton of unicorn sprinkles. When you give an entire division of workers who have a contract with you the boot you have to at least sit down to discuss the matter, then offer some manner of severence. They merely coerced us into folding into the new Contractor so they didn't lose the knowledge base of the employees that were still required to do the job.

    Granted we took them to court and won a pitiable settlement from them, but it was insulting. I can safely say that 90% of my union enjoyed working for said Big 3 Company and would have gladly given concessions on our contract in order to remain with the company. But we weren't given that chance. To top it all off our accumulated 401ks and financial accounts were frozen in 2005. We couldn't touch them, manage them, or roll them over into IRA's through the market crash. Some of us lost tens of thousands of dollars with no way to to stem the bleeding unless we decided to retire which was unfeasible for the majority. In all we basically do the same job now for far less in benefits (in terms of quality) and in a far more hostile environment.

    You see the new Contractor that came in has a record of dealing very poorly with unions across the country. Their CEO in fact has called us terrorists! In the last 5 years we've won at least 3 major labor suits against them because they're basically lying, cheating bastards. Of course the Big 3 Company...

    Nothing is absolute, and all situations are different, and there's always YMMV included into anyone's experiences and opinions. I have no problem with the rank and file of unions at all, and I believe in free assembly, so it would be foolish and unconstitutional to say they couldn't form an organization for the purposes of collective bargaining. I just, by and large, do not trust union leadership, nor do I think many only have their own interests at heart, not the rank and file's.

    I know a lot of smaller unions that aren't nationally affiliated (and even some local chapters of national unions) operate on more good faith, and generally consider both sides when negotiating a contract, but that's not who I'm talking about, really.

    Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2013

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Steven T. Helt wrote:
    Totally agreed.
    By citing only Democrats, you only HALF agree with HD, rather than "totally agree." He was referring to ALL of our so-called "leaders," from BOTH parties.

    Did I make some statement that the GOP is without flaws, socialists or progressives? I think not. : }

    Leaders from both parties have been failures, and some have been egregious, dishonest failures. While I remain a Republican because I don't believe three parties will move us forward, my criticism of establishment wimps and faux consevratives has not been remiss. You'll recall the "get drunk and vote for McCain movement" that reflected a complete mistrust in Obama, and a lack of faith in a nonconservative nominee partially chosen by the media and Northeastern Democrats.

    No - assertions that I palce party before responsible government are outrageously misplaced, Kirth.


    Steven T. Helt wrote:
    ...without flaws, socialists or progressives...

    Who said McCarthyism is dead? Socialist is the new communist, baby.

    Go ask a self-identifying socialist how many members of either major party are socialists.

    Let me know when he/she stops laughing.


    Steven T. Helt wrote:
    No - assertions that I place party before responsible government are outrageously misplaced, Kirth.

    Ideology, then? After all, the only time I've ever seen you offer even the most mild criticism of Republican persons or policy is when you didn't feel they were "Republican" (read: neocon) enough.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Steven T. Helt wrote:
    No - assertions that I place party before responsible government are outrageously misplaced, Kirth.
    Ideology, then? After all, the only time I've ever seen you offer even the most mild criticism of Republican persons or policy is when you didn't feel they were "Republican" (read: neocon) enough.

    Did you miss the part where all other ideologies are inherently irresponsible?


    "I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."

    --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789. ME 7:300


    Steven T. Helt wrote:

    THe kind of capitalism we want: what made the US a world power and allowed generous wealthy people to impact the world around them.

    What you get with socialism: someone else has to provide your military, you run a risk of despotism because the same elites feel you are wamr enough and have enough food, so they can build another rape room, and when you finalyl realize it's too late and you have to pull the belt pretty tight, your self-entitled youth throw rocks at your policemen, because you told them education, healthcare, housing, food and (really....this is sick) WiFi were free.

    Respectfully, I feel like you're pitting an idealized version of capitalism which never actually existed (or to the extent that it did, did so with drawbacks you're glossing over) against a strawman version of socialism.

    It's pretty clear that "the government does everything" isn't a good solution, but it's equally clear that "the government does nothing" isn't a good solution, either. The discussion of how to better draw the line between isn't served by trying to artificially paint it in black and white.


    Mongoose: Be careful, or you'll be called 'anti-american'.


    Dire Mongoose wrote:

    Respectfully, I feel like you're pitting an idealized version of capitalism which never actually existed (or to the extent that it did, did so with drawbacks you're glossing over) against a strawman version of socialism.

    It's pretty clear that "the government does everything" isn't a good solution, but it's equally clear that "the government does nothing" isn't a good solution, either. The discussion of how to better draw the line between isn't served by trying to artificially paint it in black and white.

    Got it in one.

    P.S. Why do you hate America?

    Sovereign Court

    For me it's much more about the federal government co-opting powers that should lie with more local government.

    The larger any body of people gets, the more inefficient it gets. It's the nature of masses of humans working together. When we centralize a lot of government functions (I believe unconstitutionally, though the Supreme Court has, for the last 100 years or so, by and large disagreed) we introduce greater inefficiencies.

    I think this is exacerbated by the greater distance federal officials are from the taxpayer base at large.

    Some functions must be handled by the federal government. There is a reason that the United States under the Articles of Confederation didn't work out so well. But if we got back to having the state goverments handling services, we would:


    • shrink the scope and size of the bureaucracies (state bureaucracy is going to be smaller than federal) - which should improve efficiency and make it easier to keep an eye on waste.
    • empower voters to change many of the laws and regulations that they live under more quickly - state government is under much more immediate and direct scrutiny by the local taxpayers
    • introduce competition into governance - if you don't like the way your state is handling things, and the majority of the electorate does consistently, you can move to a state that more fits your philosophy. (I think this is borne out in the north east right now, with people leaving New York and New Jersey for less heavily taxed states...the movement of people has finally forced New Jersey to examine why it can't compete against other states to keep wealthy population around)

    But the federal government isn't going to lessen its own power voluntarily. That's in the interest of nobody in D.C. So it's up to the states to fight for their rights under the Constitution again. And that'll be a long road after the Civil War.


    Jess Door wrote:
    But the federal government isn't going to lessen its own power voluntarily. That's in the interest of nobody in D.C. So it's up to the states to fight for their rights under the Constitution again. And that'll be a long road after the Civil War.

    I'm not sure I've ever agreed with you before on so many things in a row. Sweet!


    Jess Door wrote:
    But the federal government isn't going to lessen its own power voluntarily.

    True. Of course, you could probably put pretty much any group in place of "federal government" and have this statement remain true -- but it remains a point worth remembering.

    151 to 200 of 340 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Death of an American City All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.