MUH TARIFFS
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:39:46 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  MUH TARIFFS
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: MUH TARIFFS  (Read 8111 times)
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: July 16, 2014, 05:53:56 PM »

I think most people would support their state if it seceded for whatever reason. I don't endorse Florida leaving the Union and would vote "no" in a referendum on the subject for a variety of reasons, but if the "yes" campaign wins out and we do secede in this hypothetical situation, I'm going to be a citizen of the Republic of Florida.

This is also silly. I feel no particular feeling towards New Jersey and would leave the state if it were to secede. I might act differently if New York City were to secede but I'm certainly not becoming a citizen of the "Republic of New York" or anything like that. I mean this is decidedly un-patriotic, it's not expected from a conservative.
I have no ill will towards the Union and I hope it never, ever comes apart again. But we are the United States of America-a collection of fifty states with a variety of customs, traditions, and histories that are unique. We root for our local sports teams. Why should we not root for our state first and foremost?

I think most people would support their state if it seceded for whatever reason. I don't endorse Florida leaving the Union and would vote "no" in a referendum on the subject for a variety of reasons, but if the "yes" campaign wins out and we do secede in this hypothetical situation, I'm going to be a citizen of the Republic of Florida.

I agree with Del Tachi on the CSA being a world power if it left the Union in 2014, though I also have to give Cory credit-the CSA of the Civil War would not have survived, and had the south won the war, the slavery situation would have to be addressed by the 1880s, or a violent bloodbath could have broken out that would have made Reconstruction look good in comparison.
I agree with the first paragraph.

But honestly, the south seceding today would lose many important areas, and its economy would eventually go down the drain and probably be peacefully reannexed by the US.
The South today is already a major hub of sex slavery. The CSA would probably replace Russia as the world's human trafficing center.
I wonder what they would do with their stretch of the Texan border.
Actually defend it.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: July 16, 2014, 06:11:53 PM »

I think most people would support their state if it seceded for whatever reason. I don't endorse Florida leaving the Union and would vote "no" in a referendum on the subject for a variety of reasons, but if the "yes" campaign wins out and we do secede in this hypothetical situation, I'm going to be a citizen of the Republic of Florida.

This is also silly. I feel no particular feeling towards New Jersey and would leave the state if it were to secede. I might act differently if New York City were to secede but I'm certainly not becoming a citizen of the "Republic of New York" or anything like that. I mean this is decidedly un-patriotic, it's not expected from a conservative.

I have no ill will towards the Union and I hope it never, ever comes apart again. But we are the United States of America-a collection of fifty states with a variety of customs, traditions, and histories that are unique. We root for our local sports teams. Why should we not root for our state first and foremost?

Why should I feel any attachment to my state? Being born in Mobile as compared to New York would not have made all that much difference when compared to if I had been born in, say, Accra. And who says we all root for local teams? The silliness of that comparison aside (at least in terms of acting as if they are similar), it's untrue.


From whom? Child refugees? Central American job-seekers? I agree illegal immigration is not a good thing, which is uncontroversial, but the idea that undocumented immigrants pose some active menace to society from which we must defend ourselves is well, offensive.
Logged
PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald
Mr. Pollo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: July 16, 2014, 06:14:57 PM »

I think most people would support their state if it seceded for whatever reason. I don't endorse Florida leaving the Union and would vote "no" in a referendum on the subject for a variety of reasons, but if the "yes" campaign wins out and we do secede in this hypothetical situation, I'm going to be a citizen of the Republic of Florida.

I agree with Del Tachi on the CSA being a world power if it left the Union in 2014, though I also have to give Cory credit-the CSA of the Civil War would not have survived, and had the south won the war, the slavery situation would have to be addressed by the 1880s, or a violent bloodbath could have broken out that would have made Reconstruction look good in comparison.
I agree with the first paragraph.

But honestly, the south seceding today would lose many important areas, and its economy would eventually go down the drain and probably be peacefully reannexed by the US.
The South today is already a major hub of sex slavery. The CSA would probably replace Russia as the world's human trafficing center.
I wonder what they would do with their stretch of the Texan border.
If the kids fled into the CSA, I'd hate to know what would happen to them...
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: July 16, 2014, 06:21:19 PM »

I think most people would support their state if it seceded for whatever reason. I don't endorse Florida leaving the Union and would vote "no" in a referendum on the subject for a variety of reasons, but if the "yes" campaign wins out and we do secede in this hypothetical situation, I'm going to be a citizen of the Republic of Florida.

This is also silly. I feel no particular feeling towards New Jersey and would leave the state if it were to secede. I might act differently if New York City were to secede but I'm certainly not becoming a citizen of the "Republic of New York" or anything like that. I mean this is decidedly un-patriotic, it's not expected from a conservative.

I have no ill will towards the Union and I hope it never, ever comes apart again. But we are the United States of America-a collection of fifty states with a variety of customs, traditions, and histories that are unique. We root for our local sports teams. Why should we not root for our state first and foremost?

Why should I feel any attachment to my state? Being born in Mobile as compared to New York would not have made all that much difference when compared to if I had been born in, say, Accra. And who says we all root for local teams? The silliness of that comparison aside (at least in terms of acting as if they are similar), it's untrue.

I grew up in Florida, and I don't intend to leave it (South Florida, yes, but not Florida as a whole). I think this is just a difference of opinion.


From whom? Child refugees? Central American job-seekers? I agree illegal immigration is not a good thing, which is uncontroversial, but the idea that undocumented immigrants pose some active menace to society from which we must defend ourselves is well, offensive.
I have stated my opinions on the border crisis, so I won't get too far into it.

We agree that illegal immigration is not a good thing. In fact, it is a crime. What makes the average illegal immigrant differant from, say, the guy selling weed at the corner gas station near my house? In my ideal America, we would have our military on the border to arrest undocumented migrants, detain them, feed them, and give them a fair hearing for asylum, all of which is being done right now. Anyone with relatives in the country who are either citizens or are in general documented would be granted asylum. Those who don't will be deported in a timely manner.

Undocumented people aren't a threat as a collective, but if we allowed anyone in, how would we know who is here? 99.9% of illegal immigrants are decent people, but what about those who aren't? What about the civil war raging in Mexico? Surely the Cartels have their eyes on this situation. They want to gain a foothold in America's criminal underworld, and they already have.
Logged
Obama-Biden Democrat
Zyzz
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: July 16, 2014, 06:22:31 PM »

The party of Lincoln.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: July 16, 2014, 06:35:45 PM »

Whether or not Lincoln invaded the South to end slavery misses the point entirely.  The real motives behind secession were evident and secession was inevitable from Lincoln's election.  Tariffs couldn't have been an issue for the South considering the backers of the Tariff of 1857 were primarily from Southern and agricultural states.
Probably because the Tariff of 1857 was a major tariff reduction. Lincoln campaigned heavily on his support for the Morrill Tariff of 1861, at that time still in Congress, which dramatically raised the average tariff rate from about 15% to about 37%, and was also supported strongly by Northern manufacturing interests. In the words of the Republican steel magnate Henry Carey, "Without out it [the protective tariff], Mr. Lincoln's administration will be dead before the the day of inauguration."

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Hyperbolic is an understatement. Sorry, but that's just plain wrong and no historian will tell you any different. Tariffs, Federal land policy, corporate subsidies, internal improvement projects, and territorial expansions were all major issues. Just to be clear, I'm not denying that Southern politicians were racist slavery supporters. I'm simply arguing that Lincoln's intent in invading the South was not the abolition of slavery, but rather the enforcement of tariff laws.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Tariffs were most certainly not irrelevant. Like in almost all American wars of conquest, powerful monied interests were a driving force behind the invasion. Following the first wave of seceding States, many Northern newspapers and merchants called for peaceful coexistence, citing the threat that war would pose to trade between the North and Lower South. They quickly changed their tune when the Confederate Constitution was fully drafted in March 1861. It contained a clause forbidding the imposition of import tariffs, which would have forced the Union to lower tariff rates in order to compete with tariff-free Confederate ports. This prospect alarmed Northern manufacturing interests, and despite the multitude of Northern editorials advocating allowing the Lower South to secede, few if any of that nature can be found after March 1861. Powerful businessmen began writing letters to Lincoln extolling the necessity of preserving the Union, and most if not all Northern newspapers that had previously supported the Lower South's right of secession (such as the New York Times) quickly reversed their position.

That, combined with fact that Lincoln threatened invasion over the tariff issue specifically, should be proof enough that tariffs were hardly irrelevant. 

On top of all that, you've still yet to offer any evidence for your position: That Lincoln invaded the South with the intent of abolishing slavery. You need to at least do that much before you can attack my position as nonsense.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Nice one bro.

I'll amend what I said before in that the tariff was reason for further Southern irritation, but it was still peripheral to the dominating issue of slavery.  Incidentally, the Morrill Tariff passed the Senate after seven states seceded which turned control of the Senate over to Republicans.  Secession is what allowed that tariff to pass.  It's also worth mentioning that northern political interests were not uniform in supporting the tariff (the Chamber of Commerce of New York petitioned the Senate not to adopt the tariff) and the issue was far more complex than "north versus south."  Even so, secession was not the only solution available to the tariff's opponents, especially since the tariff hadn't even been in effect yet, even though it makes for hell of a cover-up to Confederate sympathizers.

And, once again, Lincoln's own intentions for war has nothing to do with my point and I never tried to argue that he sought war for the purpose of abolishing slavery.  Lincoln's top priority was preserving the Union.  That doesn't mean the primal motive behind Southern rebellion wasn't slavery and that tensions would have been just as severe absent the slavery issue.

If you still insist on placing literally everything else above the slavery issue, you're wagering on faith.

I will leave you with this.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,711
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: July 16, 2014, 06:45:02 PM »

I'm not sure as to why the south would have to live in fear of northern revanchism in a hypothetical scenario where the CSA survived. First and foremost, I'm not really sure as to what incentives the US would have to invade the CS; whereas during the civil war it was a question of maintaining the credibility of the United States, should the US lose that war, that credibility will be out of the window anyway. Without that incentive, what incentives remain. To fight another bloody war (with the possible threat of foreign intervention, given that the Uk would certainly have recognised a victorious Confederacy), leading to further deaths and disruption, in exchange for what, governance of a large, rebellious tract of land (probably wracked by prolonged guerilla warfare), which would by then have an even more entrenched sense of its own nationality. Furthermore, there would probably be a very influential peace lobby in Union politics post-war, since a defeat (especially one in the early days of the war, a more likely scenario) would severely discredit the war lobby. I can imagine a situation developing that would be similar to the one between Britain and the Republic of Ireland; the British government fought hard to keep Ireland under control, but when we realised the game was up, independence came for the south and though hostility persisted, this never boiled over into actual war. Why? Because there was no clear cut incentive to do so, and I can imagine the same happening in the case of a Confederate victory.


Yeah, for sure.  I've always been under the impression that a Confederate victory in the 1860s would have to be achieved rather quickly, as the United States' industrial capabilities made it a heavy favorite in the case of a long war.  A Confederate victory at Sharpsburg is probably enough to flip the table because it 1) prompts pro-Southern elements in MD and DE to become more vocal, 2) leaves Lincoln with no capital to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, and 3) the war is now being fought on Union soil.  This is more than enough to make the war deeply unpopular and wreck Lincoln and the Republicans' credibility.  Industrial elements in the northern cities call for concession, and Lincoln eventually caves.  He's booted form office in 1864, and Copperheads are swept into Congress.   
Logged
beaver2.0
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,769


Political Matrix
E: -2.45, S: -0.52

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: July 16, 2014, 06:52:09 PM »

I think most people would support their state if it seceded for whatever reason. I don't endorse Florida leaving the Union and would vote "no" in a referendum on the subject for a variety of reasons, but if the "yes" campaign wins out and we do secede in this hypothetical situation, I'm going to be a citizen of the Republic of Florida.

I agree with Del Tachi on the CSA being a world power if it left the Union in 2014, though I also have to give Cory credit-the CSA of the Civil War would not have survived, and had the south won the war, the slavery situation would have to be addressed by the 1880s, or a violent bloodbath could have broken out that would have made Reconstruction look good in comparison.
I agree with the first paragraph.

But honestly, the south seceding today would lose many important areas, and its economy would eventually go down the drain and probably be peacefully reannexed by the US.
The South today is already a major hub of sex slavery. The CSA would probably replace Russia as the world's human trafficing center.
I wonder what they would do with their stretch of the Texan border.
If the kids fled into the CSA, I'd hate to know what would happen to them...
There probably would be a wall.  The real problem would be people fleeing the CSA.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: July 16, 2014, 06:52:21 PM »

The logic of these Confederate apologists is so deliciously stupid.  Essentially, it's the war didn't start because of slavery, it started because the North wanted to keep the Southern states in the Union.

Fine, that sort of makes sense from the historical perspective of after the South had succeeded in 1860.  But, that's basically taking an arbitrary point in history and pretending that nothing preceded 1860.  That's like saying trying to carjack someone and saying you got in a fight because they wouldn't let you drive their car away.  What was going on before 1860?  The Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Fugitive Slave Law, the Dred Scott case, the international abolitionist movement gaining steam, the list goes on.  The South was desperately trying to preserve slavery at every opportunity.  The North wasn't 100% abolitionist and it certainly wasn't willing to start a war over abolition yet, obviously.  But, the reason the South succeeded was slavery and succession was the key proximate cause of the war.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: July 16, 2014, 07:41:46 PM »

Where's Oldiesfreak when you need him?
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: July 16, 2014, 09:14:40 PM »

It is a miracle that some of you people graduated high school.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: July 17, 2014, 06:02:57 AM »


It is accurate, at least.

What a cancer.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: July 17, 2014, 06:27:47 AM »

I love it when libertarians embrace the rhetoric of copperhead Democrats because it confirms all my suspicions about libertarians. The fact that libertarians frequently loathe Lincoln is not proof that libertarians are ignorant of history. It's proof that their ideology does not care about the reality of social institutions but about abstractions like "freedom" and the "constitution" and "free trade".
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: July 17, 2014, 08:25:42 AM »

Slavery is only a reason for the war as it was the reason for the initial secession of the first six states (SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA). It is worth noting though that the vote for secession in even a number of these Deep South states were extremely close (see Georgia and Alabama in particular), and of course the vote failed outright in the Upper South. It was only after Lincoln decided to invade the South that the 'moderates' came around to secession in order to help defend their fellow southern states.

Look at a map of Tennessee in it's vote on secession for a good example. In February it failed, but after Lincoln called up troops, it passed with a pretty heavy vote (except in East Tennessee).



Also, it is near impossible to speculate on the economy of a victorious Confederacy for obvious reasons.

It's rather unfortunate that the state of East Tennessee (State of Franklin?) wasn't created during/after the war a la West Virginia. The butterflies/differences would have been fascinating.

Also lol at the Neo-Confederates in this thread. 
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: July 17, 2014, 11:22:42 AM »

Also lol at the Neo-Confederates in this thread. 

They're so brave, aren't they?
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: July 17, 2014, 11:27:54 AM »

I love it when libertarians embrace the rhetoric of copperhead Democrats because it confirms all my suspicions about libertarians. The fact that libertarians frequently loathe Lincoln is not proof that libertarians are ignorant of history. It's proof that their ideology does not care about the reality of social institutions but about abstractions like "freedom" and the "constitution" and "free trade".

Libertarians do not actually care about freedom or well-being, only preventing state intervention in any matter. #GOPswagg obviously reaffirms his position as one of the worst posters on the forum.

Also lol at the Neo-Confederates in this thread. 

They're so brave, aren't they?

Slavery was bad and all, but nothing compared to high tarrifs!
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: July 17, 2014, 11:41:35 AM »

Also lol at the Neo-Confederates in this thread. 

They're so brave, aren't they?

Slavery was bad and all, but nothing compared to high tariffs!

If it hadn't been for those high tariffs, then some humane slaveowners could have afforded freeing some of their slaves. Wink
Logged
H. Ross Peron
General Mung Beans
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,406
Korea, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: July 17, 2014, 12:14:44 PM »

I love it when libertarians embrace the rhetoric of copperhead Democrats because it confirms all my suspicions about libertarians. The fact that libertarians frequently loathe Lincoln is not proof that libertarians are ignorant of history. It's proof that their ideology does not care about the reality of social institutions but about abstractions like "freedom" and the "constitution" and "free trade".

Quite a few libertarians (though obviously not all of them) are really States' rights fetishists.
Logged
Del Tachi
Republican95
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,711
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.46

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: July 17, 2014, 12:55:01 PM »

Libertarians do not actually care about freedom or well-being, only preventing state intervention in any matter. #GOPswagg obviously reaffirms his position as one of the worst posters on the forum.


I shall wear your disdain as a badge of honor, and if this isn't the pot calling the kettle black... Roll Eyes

Even though, in this case it ceases to be relevant as I'm probably one of the most anti-libertarian posters on the Forum. 
Logged
Clarko95 📚💰📈
Clarko95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,590
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -5.61, S: -1.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: July 17, 2014, 01:06:29 PM »

Didn't every (or almost every) CSA state specifically enshrine slavery in their new state constitutions after succession?


The Civil War was about a huge host of issues (states' rights, tariffs that stemmed from the different economies of the North and South, role of federal government in the expansion of slavery) of which slavery was the connecting/underlying issue.

Just like WW1 was immediately about Balkan nationalism, the decline of the Ottoman Empire, the assassination of the Archduke, but at its very core it was about imperialism/the desire to be the top dog.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: July 17, 2014, 03:46:04 PM »

To be clear, I'm not trying to argue that the 1850's/60's South was some sort of virtuous paradise where friendly slaveowners treated their beloved African children with kindness and respect. Most if not all Southern politicians (like Alexander Stephens) were wealthy slaveholders who wanted a white supremacist society (the latter could also be said of most Northern politicians, but that's beside the point). The original point I was trying to make was in response to Alfred saying that anyone who would've sided with the Confederacy to defend their home against invading Union forces is an automatic HP who supports slavery. That's why I brought up the fact that Lincoln was NOT invading to abolish or interfere with slavery. How does it make sense to say that defending one's home against an army that is invading with the stated intent of enforcing tariff laws, as well as the stated intent of NOT abolishing slavery, makes one a defender of slavery?

And Bedstuy, the mere fact of secession was not the issue. The right of secession (as well as that of nullification) had been championed and nearly invoked by Northerners for decades prior to the Civil War.  Prior to the drafting of the tariff-prohibiting Confederate Constitution, it was a popular and widely held view that the Lower South should be allowed to secede. You really think the sudden reversal of Northern newspapers and merchants after March 1861 was just a sudden coincidence?

And, just to reiterate: I'm NOT defending 1850's/60's Southern society. My point is just that the invading Union forces were hardly on any sort of anti-slavery crusade, so it makes little sense to say that anyone who would choose to defend his home against them is automatically a defender of slavery.
Logged
Storebought
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,326
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: July 17, 2014, 04:13:43 PM »

Also lol at the Neo-Confederates in this thread. 

They're so brave, aren't they?

Slavery was bad and all, but nothing compared to high tariffs!

If it hadn't been for those high tariffs, then some humane slaveowners could have afforded freeing some of their slaves. Wink

The joke doesn't work because Southern states made manumission practically impossible.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: July 17, 2014, 04:21:51 PM »

Also lol at the Neo-Confederates in this thread. 

They're so brave, aren't they?

Slavery was bad and all, but nothing compared to high tariffs!

If it hadn't been for those high tariffs, then some humane slaveowners could have afforded freeing some of their slaves. Wink

The joke doesn't work because Southern states made manumission practically impossible.

Why are you trying to bring reality into this thread?
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: July 17, 2014, 05:43:25 PM »

What the hell is this?
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: July 17, 2014, 05:51:37 PM »

The Confederate States seceded in order to preserve slavery. This is an established historical fact. Now everyone shut the f**k up.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.08 seconds with 12 queries.