Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Cold Hard Cash, or Funny Money?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I doubt this is true. If a store really wanted to sell everything in Euro only, I doubt there's a law that it is illegal. I'd be interested in knowing, if it were.

Is it illegal to have a store where everything can only be bought in Bitcoin? I don't think so.

The reason most U.S. stores do not restrict themselves to Bitcoin or Euros is practical: they'll hardly get any customers. As far as I know, it is not illegal.

 

This conversation is way outside of my wheelhouse, and I don't know whether this contribution will help matters or further confuse them...

But what you say reminds me of various "stores" that produce their own "currency" and then transact in that currency, such as some Casinos and Amusement Parks. They provide a currency exchange, and thereafter rely on their own coins or chips or tickets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It looks to me like it could be both a protest and the first steps, not to a return to a gold standard, but to a system of competing currencies.

Sigh. And while Objectivists here argue about arcane laws that have no actual bearing on our everyday lives, there's an absolute emergency going on that needs our attention going on in another forum.

It's legitimate to barter with items that have already been taxed, e.g. previously purchased gold, silver, cars, artwork, etc., but value fluctuations that trigger capital gain taxes is an obstical to overcome...

 

"Mr. Franco (a coin dealer south of Salt Lake City) is among several supporters who say the law’s most important feature may be that it eliminates state capital gains taxes on the sale of gold and silver, a move he thinks will prompt individuals and large scale investors outside the state to move their gold and silver to Utah. But federal capital gains taxes would still apply.  I would hope the federal government would simply concede: ‘O.K., you’re right, it’s money, so we can’t tax it,’ said Larry Hilton, a lawyer and insurance broker who first took the idea to lawmakers. 'But that may not happen.'" *

 

So far as constitutional legalities go...

 

"Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution says no state shall coin money, though Mr. Hilton and some others argue that a phrase used later, saying no state shall 'make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts' can be read as a license for Utah’s new law and, perhaps, for a state’s right to mint its own coins." *

--

* http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/us/30gold.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Mr. Franco (a coin dealer south of Salt Lake City) is among several supporters who say the law’s most important feature may be that it eliminates state capital gains taxes on the sale of gold and silver, a move he thinks will prompt individuals and large scale investors outside the state to move their gold and silver to Utah...."

There are seven states that have Zero income tax. So, any entity for whom this aspect was important, and who had the option of moving, is probably already in a tax-free state. No point moving to Utah for this.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's legitimate to barter with items that have already been taxed, e.g. previously purchased gold, silver, cars, artwork, etc., but value fluctuations that trigger capital gain taxes is an obstical to overcome...

 

"Mr. Franco (a coin dealer south of Salt Lake City) is among several supporters who say the law’s most important feature may be that it eliminates state capital gains taxes on the sale of gold and silver, a move he thinks will prompt individuals and large scale investors outside the state to move their gold and silver to Utah. But federal capital gains taxes would still apply.  I would hope the federal government would simply concede: ‘O.K., you’re right, it’s money, so we can’t tax it,’ said Larry Hilton, a lawyer and insurance broker who first took the idea to lawmakers. 'But that may not happen.'" *

 

So far as constitutional legalities go...

 

"Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution says no state shall coin money, though Mr. Hilton and some others argue that a phrase used later, saying no state shall 'make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts' can be read as a license for Utah’s new law and, perhaps, for a state’s right to mint its own coins." *

--

* http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/us/30gold.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

So... it amounts to a tax incentive to prop up the gold industry. No different than Solyndra...

 

The constitution says no State is allowed to mint coins. It says nothing about private individuals who can and do make coins all of the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[bold mine]

Tell me where it says I cannot offer something for sale in exchange for ounces of gold. Be specific.

 

Your history of emotionally-charged carelessness suggests that you may not be constructing this strawman on purpose. So breath for a minute and think about what I'm writing. I didn't say legal tender refers to what must be accepted for sales, but rather for debts. And just in case there might be any confusion about what can and can't be offered, I also didn't say that a debtor can't offer something else as payment of that debt. Legal tender is a restriction on creditors; if a debtor wants to pay in federal reserve notes (dollars), the creditor must accept.

 

The argument you have isn't with the statute, it's with the definition of legal tender. But for what the statute is worth, Here you go. The law establishes that federal reserve notes (dollars) are legal tender.

Also, you are confused about bait-and-switch. Legal tender laws don't have anything to do with advertising financing (or sales advertisements) in dollars. They have to do with debts. Again, that's debts. Debts can be incurred irrespective of marketing or prior contracts. Let's say I crash into (and total) your 67 Chevy Camaro. I now owe you a debt. If I offer to pay you the dollar value of a Camaro to satisfy that debt, you may not refuse the money and instead demand that the debt be satisfied with a replacement 67 Chevy Camaro. If I happen to have one and offer that to you, you are free to accept it as satisfaction of the debt. But you may not refuse the money and still have the debt recognized in court.

Edited by FeatherFall
deleted typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

At the heart of the issue is Artical 1, Section 10 of the Constitution...

 

"1.  No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainer, ex post facto, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

 

It is my understanding that creation of legal tender is restricted to the Federal Government, and that the reference to making anything but gold and silver coin a tender refers to the production of federal tender by mints located in various states.  The apparent goal is to prevent the kind of competitive/alternate currencies states like Arizona & Utah are trying to produce.  I haven't seen much of a Federal response to silver and gold being introduced by States as currency, so I'm guessing there's a grey zone as to whether States like AZ & UT are actually creating a currency or a commodity; the former being expressly forbidden, and the latter being just another taxible good.  I suppose the test would be whether a federal tax is paid during the transaction from dollar to (gold/silver) coin.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

At the heart of the issue is Artical 1, Section 10 of the Constitution...

 

"1.  No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainer, ex post facto, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

 

At the time that was penned, the Federal Government was considered a State.

Consider the terms Statist, or Statism and to what it applies.

In this regard, it is the jurisdiciton of the Supreme Court to rule the Federal Reserve Act as unconstitutional, and understanding State in that original context would be a prerequisite to bringing about such an action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  

At the time that was penned, the Federal Government was considered a State.

Consider the terms Statist, or Statism and to what it applies.

In this regard, it is the jurisdiciton of the Supreme Court to rule the Federal Reserve Act as unconstitutional, and understanding State in that original context would be a prerequisite to bringing about such an action.

Madison provided the primary justification against allowing multiple state currencies in the Federalist Papers, No. 44 < http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_44.html >

 

"Had every State a right to regulate the value of its coin, there might be as many different currencies as States, and thus the intercourse among them would be impeded; retrospective alterations in its value might be made, and thus the citizens of other States be injured, and animosities be kindled among the States themselves."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to know what exactly you mean. It helps me formulate opinions.

Well, national banks for instance must be members of the Fed, by law. Also, depository institutions (any institution that is allowed to accept deposits from the public), are regulated by the FDIC (yes, that includes non-member banks).

So yeah, you can barter in gold, in direct transactions. But that's about all you can do. You cannot have a debit or credit card in gold, you cannot take out a mortgage in gold (because that sector is also heavily regulated), you cannot really have a lot of types of insurance in gold, etc.

There are laws that allow federal agencies to regulate all these industries, and the only framework in which they even have the ability to regulate them is in US dollars. That is why you cannot operate such institutions in gold, not because no one is willing to deal with you. I'm sure there would be at least some people willing to deal with such institutions, if they were allowed to exist. There are enough supporters of gold that two states adopted precious metals as legal currency.

In general, without banking, nothing can operate on any significant scale. Not even the few areas the federal government leaves alone. Saying that you're free to deal in gold because you can barter is like saying that you're free to travel despite the TSA stopping you from flying, because you can walk.

Edited by Nicky
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, you are confused about bait-and-switch. Legal tender laws don't have anything to do with advertising financing (or sales advertisements) in dollars. They have to do with debts. Again, that's debts. Debts can be incurred irrespective of marketing or prior contracts. Let's say I crash into (and total) your 67 Chevy Camaro. I now owe you a debt. If I offer to pay you the dollar value of a Camaro to satisfy that debt, you may not refuse the money and instead demand that the debt be satisfied with a replacement 67 Chevy Camaro. If I happen to have one and offer that to you, you are free to accept it as satisfaction of the debt. But you may not refuse the money and still have the debt recognized in court.

I interpreted it as if the creditor doesn't accept any other offers, the debtor must pay with legal tender. So if I offer you a Camaro to pay a debt, that would be valid legally. But until you state otherwise, the payment *must* be with legal tender. In other words, you are quite free to trade in any means you want, but for debts to be handled in a reasonable way in court, there would need to be some form of money that is valid in all cases. I wouldn't really consider that force or inappropriate, any more than putting someone in jail for a crime is force or inappropriate. Now, the Fed is a problem, but it doesn't sound like there is any interference with trade. At least, Nelli's claim that people aren't free to trade in any way they want is simply incorrect. If my interpretation is wrong, it would really help to find legal cases or precedents where a debt wasn't allowed to be satisfied in court when debtor and creditor mutually agreed on a payment besides legal tender.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites

[bold mine]

 

Your history of emotionally-charged carelessness suggests that you may not be constructing this strawman on purpose. So breath for a minute and think about what I'm writing. I didn't say legal tender refers to what must be accepted for sales, but rather for debts. And just in case there might be any confusion about what can and can't be offered, I also didn't say that a debtor can't offer something else as payment of that debt. Legal tender is a restriction on creditors; if a debtor wants to pay in federal reserve notes (dollars), the creditor must accept.

 

The argument you have isn't with the statute, it's with the definition of legal tender. But for what the statute is worth, Here you go. The law establishes that federal reserve notes (dollars) are legal tender.

Also, you are confused about bait-and-switch. Legal tender laws don't have anything to do with advertising financing (or sales advertisements) in dollars. They have to do with debts. Again, that's debts. Debts can be incurred irrespective of marketing or prior contracts. Let's say I crash into (and total) your 67 Chevy Camaro. I now owe you a debt. If I offer to pay you the dollar value of a Camaro to satisfy that debt, you may not refuse the money and instead demand that the debt be satisfied with a replacement 67 Chevy Camaro. If I happen to have one and offer that to you, you are free to accept it as satisfaction of the debt. But you may not refuse the money and still have the debt recognized in court.

 

One more time. You can denominate a debt in anything you want. Mow my lawn, and I'll give you a popcycle. It's totally legal.

 

If I advertise my Camaro for 5000 dollars, then I owe you 5000 dollars. You may, if you look, find cars for trade. In this case, the seller is not charging you US dollars, he is charging something else (viz. another car or gold coins). I can advertise a car for sale in gold coins. The buyer can then come, take the car, and tell me he'll pay me all of the gold coins in six months. All totally legal. In this case the debtor cannot offer US dollars lest he be taken to a court and sued for the goods (not US dollars) he is supposed to forfeit. Only after a judgement could a judge order the surrender of US dollars--although he'd be free to force you to surrender other things as necessary to do what he feels covers the debt (and clearly of the defendant has the goods agreed to, those would be the goods surrendered and not US dollars).

 

All the "legal tender" laws say is that you cannot mint US dollars unless you are the US government. It does not restrict trade in any meaningful way.

 

US citizens can and do transact business deals without US dollars. Insofar as you are allowed do so, there are no laws that create a "monopoly on money" or anything else you might want to call it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, national banks for instance must be members of the Fed, by law. Also, depository institutions (any institution that is allowed to accept deposits from the public), are regulated by the FDIC (yes, that includes non-member banks).

So yeah, you can barter in gold, in direct transactions. But that's about all you can do. You cannot have a debit or credit card in gold, you cannot take out a mortgage in gold (because that sector is also heavily regulated), you cannot really have a lot of types of insurance in gold, etc.

There are laws that allow federal agencies to regulate all these industries, and the only framework in which they even have the ability to regulate them is in US dollars. That is why you cannot operate such institutions in gold, not because no one is willing to deal with you. I'm sure there would be at least some people willing to deal with such institutions, if they were allowed to exist. There are enough supporters of gold that two states adopted precious metals as legal currency.

In general, without banking, nothing can operate on any significant scale. Not even the few areas the federal government leaves alone. Saying that you're free to deal in gold because you can barter is like saying that you're free to travel despite the TSA stopping you from flying, because you can walk.

 

Well, yes, there are certainly regulations that having nothing to do with legal tender laws that restrict certain transactions. They are in practice, however, meaningless.

 

You could absolutely have a credit card in gold, effectively. You can go to eTrade get a credit card (I bet they have gold ones don't ya know) and then buy a security called "GLD" and move all of your US dollars there. Then you can go use your credit card at the grocery store, with your wealth stored in gold at all times, or nearly so.

 

Now, this is a bit of a contrived example, but that actually makes my point. You need to craft ridiculous scenarios to find a way in which the US government forces dollars upon you--and to be clear, in reality, and in anybody's practical life, these "injustices" are miniscule.

 

Gold is a multi-billion dollar industry last I checked. I'm sure they could figure out how to do all of these things you are imagining if there was even a remotely practical reason to do so. But there isn't. If you want to isolate yourself 100% from exposure to US dollars, you are free to do so.

 

And if we are going to indulge in a contrived scenario, I would submit that the "utopia" here would not center around gold or any other specific commodity and would be even more complicated than what I am describing. If the US government wasn't in the picture (as they shouldn't be) then the world would be both more free and more complicated. We'd have lots of competing currencies etc. and goods and services would float around against all of them (and the US government would act like any other business and accept various popular forms of payment with its own idea of an exchange rate).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I interpreted it as if the creditor doesn't accept any other offers, the debtor must pay with legal tender. So if I offer you a Camaro to pay a debt, that would be valid legally. But until you state otherwise, the payment *must* be with legal tender. In other words, you are quite free to trade in any means you want, but for debts to be handled in a reasonable way in court, there would need to be some form of money that is valid in all cases. I wouldn't really consider that force or inappropriate, any more than putting someone in jail for a crime is force or inappropriate. Now, the Fed is a problem, but it doesn't sound like there is any interference with trade. At least, Nelli's claim that people aren't free to trade in any way they want is simply incorrect. If my interpretation is wrong, it would really help to find legal cases or precedents where a debt wasn't allowed to be satisfied in court when debtor and creditor mutually agreed on a payment besides legal tender.

 

Again, not true: if we agree that I give you my Camaro in exchange for your Trans Am, and you don't surrender your Trans Am, then we'll end up in court, and chances are that unless you otherwise got rid of the Trans Am, the judge will order you to hand it over. Only in the edge case could I be stuck with US dollars (which everybody would want to avoid in this case since there'd need to be some judgement about the exchange rate, which would be complicated, etc.).

 

To take an even more interesting example, if I sell you my Camaro for 10 oz. of Gold, and you don't surrender your gold even though you took my Camaro, we'll wind up in court, and barring you having the Gold available it's clear the judge would order you surrender a dollar-denominated amount in assets totaling the US dollar amount based on the current price of Gold which would allow you to, within minutes of leaving the courthouse, move your US dollars into gold. In this example the "tyranny" of the Government's standardization around their own currency is completely meaningless in all practicality.

Edited by CrowEpistemologist
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is pretty clear that the word "state" in that part of the constitution refers to each of the individual states within the U.S., and not to the Federal government.

Madison provided the primary justification against allowing multiple state currencies in the Federalist Papers, No. 44 < http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_44.html >

 

"Had every State a right to regulate the value of its coin, there might be as many different currencies as States, and thus the intercourse among them would be impeded; retrospective alterations in its value might be made, and thus the citizens of other States be injured, and animosities be kindled among the States themselves."

Sorry. It resonated with something from a while back, and I completely missed the mark on that one. I'll have to check out the Federalist Papers. Thanks for the pointer.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I interpreted it as if the creditor doesn't accept any other offers, the debtor must pay with legal tender.

It works both ways. A creditor could simply forgive the debt. You can offer a creditor the opportunity to rub your feet for ten minutes in exchange for his forgiveness. Or, he can refuse that wonderful opportunity and in stead settle for monetary compensation. On the other hand (and this is the point Crow keeps dodging), debts can be incurred irrespective of prior negotiation. Such as when a tort triggers a debt. Or when the government taxes you.

Anyway, what happens today with the monetary system is hardly the worst example of force. The real bummer came when the US owed debt in precious metals and then, cent by cent, defaulted by issuing it's own crap pretend money. After this initial devaluation, the force pretty much just amounts to a market distortion; it adds another degree of conversion when exchanging values. The threat of economic bloodletting by rapid currency devaluation remains, but so far it's been kept to a slow leech-induced anemia.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh. And while Objectivists here argue about arcane laws that have no actual bearing on our everyday lives, there's an absolute emergency going on that needs our attention going on in another forum. Focus on real issues that curtail real freedom people!

We're so lucky to have you here, sarcastically pointing out what's not worth discussing.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It works both ways. A creditor could simply forgive the debt. You can offer a creditor the opportunity to rub your feet for ten minutes in exchange for his forgiveness. Or, he can refuse that wonderful opportunity and in stead settle for monetary compensation. On the other hand (and this is the point Crow keeps dodging), debts can be incurred irrespective of prior negotiation. Such as when a tort triggers a debt. Or when the government taxes you.

Anyway, what happens today with the monetary system is hardly the worst example of force. The real bummer came when the US owed debt in precious metals and then, cent by cent, defaulted by issuing it's own crap pretend money. After this initial devaluation, the force pretty much just amounts to a market distortion; it adds another degree of conversion when exchanging values. The threat of economic bloodletting by rapid currency devaluation remains, but so far it's been kept to a slow leech-induced anemia.

 

I think we've all said a few dozen times here that yes, the US government charges taxes exclusively in US dollars.

 

I also explicitly mentioned the edge case wherein a trade for gold could be unfortunately paid out in dollars even if you specified gold in your contract. It would happen one in a thousand transactions and it would, qua US dollars, amount of a minor inconvenience (i.e. above and beyond the inconvenience of going to court to settle a failed transaction, etc.).

 

So a minor inconvenience every thousand transactions, otherwise you are 100% free to not use US dollars if you don't want to. I'm not seeing the pain here. So yes, not only not the worst example of force, but its not even in the top 10,000 (SoCal's assault on the rights of nudists is #3,452 in case you were wondering).

 

In the first Objectivist meeting I ever organized (a million years ago) we were visited by a member of the John Birch Society who spoke of the global conspiracy by Evil People who, among other things, controlled our society (for the benefit of Satan) by using the Federal Reserve, which they/He ultimately controlled. I kept asking why they would do this, and how this control was realized. I only got a bunch of "what ifs" and potential abuses of power, and promises that, real soon now, those abuses of power would come to the fore and our lives would be irreversibly controlled.

 

This isn't going to sound fair (and it probably isn't, exactly), but these conversations bring back memories...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was a worthwhile post, JASKN.

Crow, I created some confusion, then I got Jerky, and now I'm sorry. The example I gave in my second post really didn't address the point I'm trying to make in this thread, which is about legal tender and non-negotiated debts.

 

I disagree that regulations have nothing to do with legal tender laws; they were crafted in the wake of such laws to conform to them. I also don't share your evaluation that such regulations are miniscule (which I read to mean, trivial or negligible); such an apathetic response to force makes me think you suffer from what I'll call "Stockholm Patriotism." If your point is that the force, put in context, isn't really that bad compared to past abuses, then fine. The real bummer happened when the government owed specie and defaulted, cent by cent, through the introduction of crap pretend money.  What we experience today are the lingering after effects, which amount to a market distortion as whatever values we trade require another meaningless conversion step.

PS: I had to write this post twice because my original double-posted. When I tried to delete one of the doubles, both died. I'm going to bed.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to post
Share on other sites

An update. The (Republican and fairly conservative) governor vetoed the bill.

Your link leads to a article about her vetoing gun law and "birther" bills, so I'm adding this link, which leads to her veto of the precious metal as currency bill:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/03/usa-arizona-gold-idUSL2N0DK02620130503

 

So, that leaves Utah as enacted, followed by several states with similar measures: South Carolina, Missouri, Montana, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, New Hampshire, Georgia, Washington, Minnesota, Tennessee, and Virginia.

http://gwinnettdailyonline.com/GDP/archive/article7CD4AA60A92246B7B9805C775851D0C4.asp

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is why is only gold and silver being allowed? What principle are these lawmakers working on where gold and silver are okay, but copper or iron are not?

 

Probably because these are the only two explicitly named in Article 1, Section 10, 1, of the Constitution (see my previous post #31)

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to post
Share on other sites

At the heart of the issue is Artical 1, Section 10 of the Constitution...

 

"1.  No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainer, ex post facto, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

I look at that again, and that jumps out again. Perhaps I can word it more effectively here:

 

If No State shall coin money, make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts - wouldn't a state be in violation of this by paying their debts in any thing other than?

It is the house and senate that passed a law telling the states to violate the constitution in this regard.

 

Ok States, payments of debts are only to be made in gold and silver coin, per the contract we are supposed to be guided by when passing any new laws.

 

There is a proceedure for amending the Constitution. Does simply passing a law comply with that proceedure? Now return back to the Supreme Court and re-iterate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at that again, and that jumps out again. Perhaps I can word it more effectively here:

 

If No State shall coin money, make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts - wouldn't a state be in violation of this by paying their debts in any thing other than?

It is the house and senate that passed a law telling the states to violate the constitution in this regard.

 

Ok States, payments of debts are only to be made in gold and silver coin, per the contract we are supposed to be guided by when passing any new laws.

 

There is a proceedure for amending the Constitution. Does simply passing a law comply with that proceedure? Now return back to the Supreme Court and re-iterate.

 

There's a difference between no state being allowed to "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts", and no state being allowed to repay debts in anything but gold and silver coins.

 

"The power to make any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts, is withdrawn from the States, on the same principle with that of striking of paper currency." ~ Madison, Federalist, no 44 >> http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_10_1s5.html

 

The reference to gold and silver has to do with federal regulation of the value of coins being minted by multiple states for the purpose of avoiding a diversity of state regulated values being assigned to the coins being minted.  The effort being to avoid multiple values for the same material (gold & silver) being used... I think...

 

As to the Supreme Court, the latest hearing of Obama's Individual Mandates for health care being validated under the general authority to "tax and spend" casts some question as to the accuracy of intrepretation being rendered by the current panel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...