Jump to content

Liberal, Conservative, Urban, Rural


IronTiger

Recommended Posts

Why are urban areas generally more liberal than rural areas? I mean, if you look at county-by-county in "blue states", much of it is conservative. For example, Illinois. A lot of the counties were red, but because Chicago is large and influential, Illinois voted for Obama. Look at this, there is a definite correlation between large cities and voting for Obama.

800px-2008_General_Election_Results_by_County.PNG

In Texas, you can see that Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin, and San Antonio all went blue. In Florida, you can notice Orlando and Miami-Ft. Lauderdale. In fact, county-for-county, McCain took America, but because the urban areas hold much of the people, Obama won (and by the way, Obama did not win "in a landslide" as reported). By contrast, the 1948 election (Truman is blue)...

But that's another issue. In the modern world, large cities tend to vote liberal and rural conservative. Why is that?

And no mean answers like "Because rural areas are generally made of backwards redneck hicks" or stupid answers like "Because high traffic in urban areas tend to sway people to liberal causes".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are urban areas generally more liberal than rural areas? I mean, if you look at county-by-county in "blue states", much of it is conservative. For example, Illinois. A lot of the counties were red, but because Chicago is large and influential, Illinois voted for Obama. Look at this, there is a definite correlation between large cities and voting for Obama.

800px-2008_General_Election_Results_by_County.PNG

In Texas, you can see that Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin, and San Antonio all went blue. In Florida, you can notice Orlando and Miami-Ft. Lauderdale. In fact, county-for-county, McCain took America, but because the urban areas hold much of the people, Obama won (and by the way, Obama did not win "in a landslide" as reported). By contrast, the 1948 election (Truman is blue)...

But that's another issue. In the modern world, large cities tend to vote liberal and rural conservative. Why is that?

And no mean answers like "Because rural areas are generally made of backwards redneck hicks" or stupid answers like "Because high traffic in urban areas tend to sway people to liberal causes".

Looking at your map it does not appear that Ft. Worth voted for Obama. Tarrant county appears red. Other urban counties in Texas that voted blue appear to be El Paso, Jefferson (Beaumont-Port Arthur), Cameron (Brownsville-Harlingen), Hidalgo (McAllen-Edinburgh) and Webb (Laredo).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking the factor of who is running out of the mix, simply whether they run as a Liberal or a Conservative is the key for the majority of votes. If you take the core beliefs of each party, it's clear why more urbanized areas lean blue, and why Rural areas go red. Big cities, fast paced lives, rapid change are simply more liberal. While rural, red areas are more traditional, Religious and lean conservative. As the population grows, and areas become more densely populated I think this will lead to more counties going blue or being borderline blue as the years go on.

As for this election specifically, race probably was a factor in some red areas, but also some blue areas. I'm sure it levels out those voting against Obama because he was black, and those voting for him because he was black. Frustration with the results of the past 8 years with 6 of them entirely under Republican rule I think was the deciding factor in giving Obama the Presidency. This turned some distraught Republicans Blue, and may have caused a lot of Republicans to also "sit this one out" so to speak, causing McCain to lose many votes he would have otherwise gotten to narrow the gap.

All of these whys and hows are debatable, but this is why I think Obama won. If you got numbers and statistics and other ideas to disprove what I just said, or to supplement what I just said, I would love to hear them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of these whys and hows are debatable, but this is why I think Obama won. If you got numbers and statistics and other ideas to disprove what I just said, or to supplement what I just said, I would love to hear them.

That's another issue, but for now why are urban areas liberal and rural areas conservative? That's the primary purpose here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest that the political differences are attributable to the diversity found in cities versus rural areas. In encountering the enlightenment and challenges of cultural and social differences - race, religion, nationality, sexuality, to name a few - a more progressive attitude and approach develops.

That being said, there are some notable exceptions to the rural-metro voting on this map. There's blue in Northern MN, Northern WI, Northern MI, eastern IA, VT, NH, ME, that small, but consistent swath through the middle of AL, northern NM, northern AZ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think these are from 2004, might be from 2000 tho'. The first is a county map like yours, but the second is skewed so that each county is expanded or contracted in such a way that its size on the map correlates to its population.

post-4016-1244745373_thumb.png

post-4016-1244745383_thumb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's another issue, but for now why are urban areas liberal and rural areas conservative? That's the primary purpose here.

Then forget about numbers and statistics... what at least was thought about my first paragraph... which was very much on-topic. I expanded on it with the other paragraphs because I did not want to convey that those reasons I gave for why its generally red/rural, blue/urban was the specific reason for the outcome of this election (as my wording may have you believe). I do want to convey, that it may affect the outcome of future elections and more liberal outcomes happen in urban areas as urban areas continue to rapidly expand.

I think these are from 2004, might be from 2000 tho'. The first is a county map like yours, but the second is skewed so that each county is expanded or contracted in such a way that its size on the map correlates to its population.

post-4016-1244745373_thumb.png

post-4016-1244745383_thumb.png

Total population, or population of those that voted the corresponding color? That 2nd map is really trippy btw. Thought you should know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rural Texas used to be strong Democrat country until the late 60s. The Dems were different back then, more conservative than they are today, yet they still were liberal. On top of that, you had LBJ, a Texas Dem in the White House, which likely had a lot to do with that. Many rural Texans then weren't wealthy, and needed work. The Dems WPA projects of the 30s and 40s brought jobs to those rural areas which included road and bridge building, state park construction, dams, swimming pools, stadiums and construction of government buildings such as schools and county courthouses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rural Texas used to be strong Democrat country until the late 60s. The Dems were different back then, more conservative than they are today, yet they still were liberal. On top of that, you had LBJ, a Texas Dem in the White House, which likely had a lot to do with that. Many rural Texans then weren't wealthy, and needed work. The Dems WPA projects of the 30s and 40s brought jobs to those rural areas which included road and bridge building, state park construction, dams, swimming pools, stadiums and construction of government buildings such as schools and county courthouses.

Much of the south voted democrat prior to the 80's. I think some of it could just be the post-civil war legacy where the Republican party was seen as 'northern'. Regardless, the Democrats had such a lock on the south that I recall my father saying he was a registered Democrat because otherwise he really couldn't vote in any elections, particularly local ones, since the Republicans weren't really a factor. In those days, elections in Texas and elsewhere in the south were mostly determined in the Democratic primaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My ancestors came to a small town called Hillister in East Texas in the 1870s. They all lived in close proximity to each other until the 1940s. WWII brought a lot of them out of the country and into the cities. My father was one who stayed in the rural areas while his Aunt moved to Houston in the 1950s. These two people were raised in the same rural area by the same group of people and they are within 10 years in age. They couldn't be further apart on politics. My Aunt who has lived in Houston since the 1950s "loves her black president" as she puts it. She's also wealthy so higher taxes are not much of a concern to her. My father can't stop talking about how terrible Obama is. I've seen this same pattern with all my "city" relatives and "country" relatives. I've been living in Houston for 13 years now and I'm much further to the left than I was before I came here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's amazing is Oklahoma. Not one county voted for Obama. The only state in the Union that went all for one candidate.

As for the original question, I think there are three reasons why Obama did so well in urban areas.

1) Diversity. Obama did well with blacks and Hispanics and held his own amongst Asians. People of color are definitely more clustered in urban areas. Additionally, "diversity" would also help explain some of the rural counties won by Obama (blacks helped him carry much of the Mississippi Delta and Deep South, Hispanics along the border and New Mexico, and even the Native American vote in rural Arizona and parts of the Dakotas).

2) Education. Obama fared very well with people who hold a college degree. The well educated tend to live in metro areas. In fact, Obama won all ten states that have the highest % of college graduates (Massachusetts, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Virginia, New Jersey, Vermont, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Washington).

3). Wealth. Obama actually defeated McCain amongst voters who make more than $200,000 a year. The super rich also tend to live in urban areas. Again, Obama carried 9 of the top 10 states according to median household income. The only state he lost in the top 10 was Alaska.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's amazing is Oklahoma. Not one county voted for Obama. The only state in the Union that went all for one candidate.

As for the original question, I think there are three reasons why Obama did so well in urban areas.

1) Diversity. Obama did well with blacks and Hispanics and held his own amongst Asians. People of color are definitely more clustered in urban areas. Additionally, "diversity" would also help explain some of the rural counties won by Obama (blacks helped him carry much of the Mississippi Delta and Deep South, Hispanics along the border and New Mexico, and even the Native American vote in rural Arizona and parts of the Dakotas).

2) Education. Obama fared very well with people who hold a college degree. The well educated tend to live in metro areas. In fact, Obama won all ten states that have the highest % of college graduates (Massachusetts, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Virginia, New Jersey, Vermont, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Washington).

3). Wealth. Obama actually defeated McCain amongst voters who make more than $200,000 a year. The super rich also tend to live in urban areas. Again, Obama carried 9 of the top 10 states according to median household income. The only state he lost in the top 10 was Alaska.

Almost all of New England got exclusively Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking the factor of who is running out of the mix, simply whether they run as a Liberal or a Conservative is the key for the majority of votes. If you take the core beliefs of each party, it's clear why more urbanized areas lean blue, and why Rural areas go red. Big cities, fast paced lives, rapid change are simply more liberal. While rural, red areas are more traditional, Religious and lean conservative. As the population grows, and areas become more densely populated I think this will lead to more counties going blue or being borderline blue as the years go on.

As for this election specifically, race probably was a factor in some red areas, but also some blue areas. I'm sure it levels out those voting against Obama because he was black, and those voting for him because he was black. Frustration with the results of the past 8 years with 6 of them entirely under Republican rule I think was the deciding factor in giving Obama the Presidency. This turned some distraught Republicans Blue, and may have caused a lot of Republicans to also "sit this one out" so to speak, causing McCain to lose many votes he would have otherwise gotten to narrow the gap.

All of these whys and hows are debatable, but this is why I think Obama won. If you got numbers and statistics and other ideas to disprove what I just said, or to supplement what I just said, I would love to hear them.

I think there are several reasons why Obama carried urban over rural. First, rural living folks tend to be more independent...they favor less intervention in their daily lives not more, less rules, less government intrusion...they tend to do things for themselves and not wait for the government or someone else to do it. Urban living people dont even know what independent life is...they have grown up with more rules than almost any rural dweller could handle..Urban areas, have noise restrictions, parking restrictions, deed restrictions,curfews, you name it....everything is restricted in the urban areas to make it more comfortable for the greater number of people. The Democratic party leans heavily toward more restrictions and doing everything for the person...Democrats want more intervention, more rules, less rights...I think this is a huge reason rural leans republican.

Also rural areas have much lower income than urban areas...so more rural people favor lower taxes...farming and ranching are the primary occupation of rural dwellers, and those two occupations have one of the lowest return on investments of all occupations...an average farm/ranch operation makes only 3-4% on its yearly investment...so they favor lower taxes, b/c a higher tax could completely wipe out a profit.

Third - and on taxes again, the primary source of rural wealth is property, not cash - the democrats favor higher probate, or death taxes - rural dwellers want to will their property down to their children to continue the family farm or ranch...the democrats favor taxation at death making it very difficult and costly for the rural people to will down their property to continue the operation...it is more common than not today for the farm/ranch to be sold to someone else b/c the profit is not high enough for the children to be able to buy it, and willing it down will cost them 40-50% of the opeartion after taxes.

I do not think education has much to do with which way a person votes...though rural people tend to be less educated, if you spend time out there you will find that rural people are quite smart, just smart about other topics....I firmly believe that colleges and schools have become heavily liberal in the last 15 years and this is being taught and indocotrinated daily...this is a large reaosn for the college educated people to vote D....they have been taught for years that it is the way to vote, indoctrinated with the ideals...The democratic message is very appealing, more for everyone, with less sickness, less poverty, less homelessness, wars, traffic, pollution etc...everyone is better off. What they fail to teach is that not everyone will be better off - many, often the hardest working, most productive will be brought down several levels in order to bring the masses up a few. I think rural people being as independent as they are, do not wish to give away what they have worked generations to build up, so that somoeone else can have a chance to see if they can do better.

As to the isuse of race - I dont think it can even be argued that black voters did not overwhelmingly vote based on race alone. If I remember correctly 90 someodd percent of black voters voted Obama - you can pick any number of people and put them in a room and never get that kind of overwhelming agreement on any other topic...there may have been people who voted against him b/c he was black as well, but they do not come close in the numbers as those who voted for him because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the isuse of race - I dont think it can even be argued that black voters did not overwhelmingly vote based on race alone. If I remember correctly 90 someodd percent of black voters voted Obama - you can pick any number of people and put them in a room and never get that kind of overwhelming agreement on any other topic...there may have been people who voted against him b/c he was black as well, but they do not come close in the numbers as those who voted for him because of it.

Is this the first election you've ever paid attention to? Kerry won over 88% of the black vote. Gore won over 90%. Clinton won around 85%.

Blacks voted for Obama because he's a Democrat. Blacks have been moving to the Democratic Party since 1964.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made that same observation ina thread after the election and learning a lot from your answers here. But there's a word that has been absent, surprisingly to me, here - the media! Does the media factor in in the rural-urban divide?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this the first election you've ever paid attention to? Kerry won over 88% of the black vote. Gore won over 90%. Clinton won around 85%.

Blacks voted for Obama because he's a Democrat. Blacks have been moving to the Democratic Party since 1964.

Uh, this is the absolute truth because my family was divided between Obama and Clinton. And I know of MANY other Black people who supported Clinton. So if many of us were going to vote for Obama because he is black, we would have done it before the Obama/McCain race. In fact, if anyone recall the beginnings of the race, a huge amount of Blacks supported Clinton and eventually moved over to the Obama side. If Black people were going to blindly support him because he is black, the Obama team would not have had to WORK for the black vote.

KinkaidAlum, you are correct in stating Blacks voted for Obama because he was a Democrat.

I wonder how many whites who voted for McCain did so because he is white? I'm sure it had to be quite the bit....right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. What rights do you feel that city governments are taking away? "Rights" would be, according to Merriam-Webster 2a "the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled" - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rights

2. In the 1930s rural areas were major supporters of several of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Great Depression programs, such as the Rural Electrification Program.

3. There are some Blacks who voted on Obama for race alone, but I think many voted for him because he was in the Democratic Party, and many African-Americans do not trust the Republican Party. As noted above many Black people supported Clinton instead of Obama.

I think there are several reasons why Obama carried urban over rural. First, rural living folks tend to be more independent...they favor less intervention in their daily lives not more, less rules, less government intrusion...they tend to do things for themselves and not wait for the government or someone else to do it. Urban living people dont even know what independent life is...they have grown up with more rules than almost any rural dweller could handle..Urban areas, have noise restrictions, parking restrictions, deed restrictions,curfews, you name it....everything is restricted in the urban areas to make it more comfortable for the greater number of people. The Democratic party leans heavily toward more restrictions and doing everything for the person...Democrats want more intervention, more rules, less rights...I think this is a huge reason rural leans republican.

Also rural areas have much lower income than urban areas...so more rural people favor lower taxes...farming and ranching are the primary occupation of rural dwellers, and those two occupations have one of the lowest return on investments of all occupations...an average farm/ranch operation makes only 3-4% on its yearly investment...so they favor lower taxes, b/c a higher tax could completely wipe out a profit.

Third - and on taxes again, the primary source of rural wealth is property, not cash - the democrats favor higher probate, or death taxes - rural dwellers want to will their property down to their children to continue the family farm or ranch...the democrats favor taxation at death making it very difficult and costly for the rural people to will down their property to continue the operation...it is more common than not today for the farm/ranch to be sold to someone else b/c the profit is not high enough for the children to be able to buy it, and willing it down will cost them 40-50% of the opeartion after taxes.

I do not think education has much to do with which way a person votes...though rural people tend to be less educated, if you spend time out there you will find that rural people are quite smart, just smart about other topics....I firmly believe that colleges and schools have become heavily liberal in the last 15 years and this is being taught and indocotrinated daily...this is a large reaosn for the college educated people to vote D....they have been taught for years that it is the way to vote, indoctrinated with the ideals...The democratic message is very appealing, more for everyone, with less sickness, less poverty, less homelessness, wars, traffic, pollution etc...everyone is better off. What they fail to teach is that not everyone will be better off - many, often the hardest working, most productive will be brought down several levels in order to bring the masses up a few. I think rural people being as independent as they are, do not wish to give away what they have worked generations to build up, so that somoeone else can have a chance to see if they can do better.

As to the isuse of race - I dont think it can even be argued that black voters did not overwhelmingly vote based on race alone. If I remember correctly 90 someodd percent of black voters voted Obama - you can pick any number of people and put them in a room and never get that kind of overwhelming agreement on any other topic...there may have been people who voted against him b/c he was black as well, but they do not come close in the numbers as those who voted for him because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myth 3: Many small, family-owned farms and businesses must be liquidated to pay estate taxes.Reality: The number of small, family-owned farms and businesses that owe any estate tax at all is tiny, and virtually no such farms and businesses have to be liquidated to pay the tax. The estate of only 0.24 percent of all people who die in 2009 (i.e., the estates of between two and three of every 1,000 people who die) are expected to owe any estate tax, according to the Tax Policy Center.2And only about 1.3 percent of the few estates that still are taxable are small business or farm estates.3TPC estimates that only 80 small business and farm estates nationwide will owe any estate tax in 2009. This figure represents only 0.003 percent of all estates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On social issues such as civil rights and stuff like that, urban areas are more liberal b/c urban areas are more diverse. This allows people to be exposed to different cultures, lifestyles, ethnicities, etc. People in rural areas are generally more sheltered, close-minded, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myth 3: Many small, family-owned farms and businesses must be liquidated to pay estate taxes.Reality: The number of small, family-owned farms and businesses that owe any estate tax at all is tiny, and virtually no such farms and businesses have to be liquidated to pay the tax. The estate of only 0.24 percent of all people who die in 2009 (i.e., the estates of between two and three of every 1,000 people who die) are expected to owe any estate tax, according to the Tax Policy Center.2And only about 1.3 percent of the few estates that still are taxable are small business or farm estates.3TPC estimates that only 80 small business and farm estates nationwide will owe any estate tax in 2009. This figure represents only 0.003 percent of all estates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also to say that rural dwellers are more close minded, is just an insult to anyone in the country - they have a different set of values and beliefs that does not mesh with many of those in the city...they may not be as progressive, but that does not make a person close minded. Just because a person has a firm set of beliefs does not make them close minded. So many "progressives" think that if you are anti gay marriage, or anti their beliefs you are close minded...but that is just rediculous....having a firm set of beliefs of what a family should be, and what is and is not immoral, is not close minded...they recognize your morals, and your lifestyle, and they disagree with it....thats their opinion and their right, its not close minded.

Very well said.

Although I am sure the usual "enlightened ones" will dispute this statement as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite the belief of a good number of republican fratboys to the contrary, supervising Mexicans who cut brush on one's deer lease is not, technically, 'ranching'. Actually not even close, but why deny them their fun, eh?

ROFLMAO! :lol: That's definitely a keeper for the quote file.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite the belief of a good number of republican fratboys to the contrary, supervising Mexicans who cut brush on one's deer lease is not, technically, 'ranching'. Actually not even close, but why deny them their fun, eh?

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest that the political differences are attributable to the diversity found in cities versus rural areas. In encountering the enlightenment and challenges of cultural and social differences - race, religion, nationality, sexuality, to name a few - a more progressive attitude and approach develops.

That's definitely one reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to repealing the estate tax, the 2001 Act changed the treatment of unrealized gains at death, effective with estate tax repeal. Under current law, the basis (which is the value used to determine gain or loss) of assets acquired from a decedent is stepped up to the estate's fair market value at the date of death. This "step-up in basis rule" essentially eliminates the recognition of income on the appreciation of the property that occurred prior to the property owner's death.

Just a clarification: Step-up existed long before 2001. In fact, under the current law, it disappears next year, because without a taxable event at the death of a grantor, there is no step-up.

The result of this equation is that very few real farmers primary source of income is farming. What most people dont know is that most farmers have other jobs, that provide more cash than farming does....if the off farm job earns more than the farm, the estate tax prevents the farmer from qualifying for many of these deductions.

Since 2000, farm equity has more than doubled, primarily due to the increased value of farm real estate. As a result, under current law, it is estimated that as many as 1 of every 10 farm estates would owe estate tax in 2011. Total payment amounts that year could increase to about $2.55 billion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much of the south voted democrat prior to the 80's. I think some of it could just be the post-civil war legacy where the Republican party was seen as 'northern'. Regardless, the Democrats had such a lock on the south that I recall my father saying he was a registered Democrat because otherwise he really couldn't vote in any elections, particularly local ones, since the Republicans weren't really a factor. In those days, elections in Texas and elsewhere in the south were mostly determined in the Democratic primaries.

People use the term "Registered Democrat" or "Registered Republican", but in reality, you only have to "register to vote" in the state of Texas. One can vote in any party primary that he wants to. You do not have to claim allegiance to one or the other. The only time you are not allowed to vote in a party election is if it is a "run-off" and you happened to vote in the opposing party's primary election. That of course would not be fair. It is legal though, to sit out the primary elections and then vote in a party "run off" if you choose to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a clarification: Step-up existed long before 2001. In fact, under the current law, it disappears next year, because without a taxable event at the death of a grantor, there is no step-up.

Only about 1% of family farms are likely to be subject to estate tax in 2009. (source: Economic Research Service/ USDA). Efforts like HR 436, which President Obama has already indicated his support, would freeze the current exemption, instead of allowing the $1 million exemption reinstate in 2011 as it would under the current, 2001 legislation. Coupled with the Special Use Valuations, the payment option previously referenced by Red, and the potential easment exclusions available, your forecast is incorrect.

Freezing it at 2009 levels would be good if it happened....definitely an improvement over allowing it to expire. However, in case you missed it......the special use valuation, and payment options are only available to people whose primary occupation is farming...primary occupation is defined by a percentage of income, I believe (not sure exactly) that it is 60% of your gross income. For farmers who have off the farm jobs, those two options are of very little significance.

Furthermore the easement exclusions are questionable at best. If you have marginal property that is wetlands, prior converted wetlands, or farmed wetlands, then a conservation easement, or a development easement may be a good idea. However if your property is a very good rich upland farmland with no flooding, or other issues, these easements can destroy the value of your property. Yes, you are guaranteeing that nothing will ever be built there for generations to come, but should urban life come your way, and you are preventing from farming in a profitable way because of this; then you have destroyed the value of your property for nothing.

That cant happen you say....well it happens all the time. It has been talked about in farm magazines for some time now, with the primary example, being that to keep the cost down farmer A sells his development rights...he is now prohibited from developing the property, for commercial or residential purposes...then urban life moves in, and he is surrounded. All of a sudden complaints are piling up about the smell from the manure piles, the pesticide/herbicide he was using is not safe around young children, he cant spray chemicals, spread fertilizer, and conduct his normal business any longer b/c nusiance laws still apply. He also cant sell his supposedly valuable land to development b/c he does not own the development rights anymore...he gave that away so he would be able to pass the farm down to the kids...

Unfortunately for Farmer A - even though the city came to the Farm, and the Farm didnt change a thing, the Farm loses...now he has a nice big chunk of land that cant be sold to anyone for anything, other than farming. It happens, and there is tort law to back it up.

These things happen - and for your information my facts came from the usda (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/WellBeing/FederalTaxes.htm)

Also from personal experience...having spent alot of time on the farm, and seen the effects of the death tax on 2 of my 3 neighbors, it happens, and these people are not "rich" at least not until they sell their farm off to someone who really is rich enough to be able to afford it now. The sad part is, many family members would rather have the farm than the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...