Is Detroit fixable? How would you fix it?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:11:23 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)
  Is Detroit fixable? How would you fix it?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8
Author Topic: Is Detroit fixable? How would you fix it?  (Read 18498 times)
Wonkish1
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,203


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #150 on: November 23, 2011, 11:33:19 PM »

This article has the statistics from 2009, and even notes that "Three men squatting inside a vacant house where a fire was reported were arrested":

http://dailytribune.com/articles/2009/11/03/news/doc4aef43ca44335834433376.txt

Well I would certainly hope that the attempted arsons wouldn't start occurring in better homes as the really crappy ones get bulldozed. That wouldn't be a good result.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #151 on: November 26, 2011, 11:30:59 AM »

This article has the statistics from 2009, and even notes that "Three men squatting inside a vacant house where a fire was reported were arrested":

http://dailytribune.com/articles/2009/11/03/news/doc4aef43ca44335834433376.txt

Well I would certainly hope that the attempted arsons wouldn't start occurring in better homes as the really crappy ones get bulldozed. That wouldn't be a good result.

The number of arsons in occupied homes is much lower than unoccupied homes.  Plus, you'd have less areas to patrol, so you would have a better police presence.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #152 on: November 26, 2011, 03:31:02 PM »

What's larger than Detroit is the issue of American ghettos. Every city has them. Detroit's boundaries just happen to be such that the anchor city is largely coextensive with the metro's ghetto.  The whole metro is still quite a viable area and much wealthier than many others. It should be clear by now that "the market" will not fix ghettos. By definition, some markets, locations, and people fail the market test.  And our weak patchwork of anti-poverty programs haven't solved underlying issues either. And I suppose if you wanted to go all totalitarian, you could force everybody out, bulldoze the whole slum, but you still have poor people who need cheap housing.  And wherever they go, by definition, becomes the new ghetto because nobody with the means is going to want to live there.  You can't have America witghout the ghetto. The low wage jobs and the people who have them are integral parts of the nation. And you can send everybody to Harvard if you want to. All that will do is give you Harvard educated slum dwellers. On the other hand you could take radical steps to address inequality, but the political will is not even close to exisiting. And so we all live with Detroit or South Memphis or West Virginia or wherever.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #153 on: November 26, 2011, 03:34:36 PM »

...And so we all live with Detroit or South Memphis or West Virginia or wherever.

And coming soon the majority of us will live in Detroit or South Memphis or West Virginia, etc.  Actually I think that's happened already.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #154 on: November 26, 2011, 09:42:18 PM »

...And so we all live with Detroit or South Memphis or West Virginia or wherever.

And coming soon the majority of us will live in Detroit or South Memphis or West Virginia, etc.  Actually I think that's happened already.
That certainly seems to be the way the wind is blowing. The owners wouldn't have it any other way. They can always have walls built if they are needed.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #155 on: April 08, 2012, 12:41:51 AM »

Detroit appears to have avoided a direct state takeover -for now.

Say what you will of unelected panels, but I am thankful that a Republican Congress in 1995 appointed a financial control board to take control of the District of Columbia, thus rescuing that city from the corrupt clutches of Mayor Marion Barry and a dysfunctional city council. 
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #156 on: November 08, 2014, 01:05:47 PM »
« Edited: November 08, 2014, 01:11:29 PM by Frodo »

Detroit's bankruptcy plan has just been approved by a federal judge.

With the re-election of Gov. Rick Snyder (and the Republican-controlled legislature), is that better for Detroit's revival in the long-term?  
Logged
justfollowingtheelections
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,766


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #157 on: November 08, 2014, 01:53:16 PM »

The only solution for Detroit is to try and attract the film/television industry to the city.  The way Detroit looks, it would be ideal for most post-apocalyptic movies/tv series.
Logged
Dave from Michigan
9iron768
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #158 on: November 08, 2014, 02:41:41 PM »

What's larger than Detroit is the issue of American ghettos. Every city has them. Detroit's boundaries just happen to be such that the anchor city is largely coextensive with the metro's ghetto.  The whole metro is still quite a viable area and much wealthier than many others. It should be clear by now that "the market" will not fix ghettos. By definition, some markets, locations, and people fail the market test.  And our weak patchwork of anti-poverty programs haven't solved underlying issues either. And I suppose if you wanted to go all totalitarian, you could force everybody out, bulldoze the whole slum, but you still have poor people who need cheap housing.  And wherever they go, by definition, becomes the new ghetto because nobody with the means is going to want to live there.  You can't have America witghout the ghetto. The low wage jobs and the people who have them are integral parts of the nation. And you can send everybody to Harvard if you want to. All that will do is give you Harvard educated slum dwellers. On the other hand you could take radical steps to address inequality, but the political will is not even close to exisiting. And so we all live with Detroit or South Memphis or West Virginia or wherever.


Yeah I know this was from 3 years ago but wow what a great post.
Logged
MurrayBannerman
murraybannerman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 756


Political Matrix
E: 5.55, S: -2.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #159 on: November 10, 2014, 02:09:00 AM »

With about $2 billion.
Logged
Sol
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,058
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #160 on: November 10, 2014, 09:37:46 AM »

I guess I would annex the nearby suburbs, deliberately targeting the more affluent ones (Grosse Pointes, Ferndale, etc.) and use the subsequently increased tax revenue to buy up the abandoned buildings in the worst neighborhoods and replace them with livable housing. This would obviously have to move fairly slowly because there wouldn't be that much more revenue.

Obviously this would never happen.
Logged
ingemann
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,226


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #161 on: November 10, 2014, 11:53:52 AM »

I guess I would annex the nearby suburbs, deliberately targeting the more affluent ones (Grosse Pointes, Ferndale, etc.) and use the subsequently increased tax revenue to buy up the abandoned buildings in the worst neighborhoods and replace them with livable housing. This would obviously have to move fairly slowly because there wouldn't be that much more revenue.

Obviously this would never happen.

That seem a very bad idea, as it only will result in people (with money) leaving those suburbs and leaving Detroit to administrate new collapsing neighbourhoods.
From what I have read about Detroit, the bad blood between the sururbs and the city are so ugly, that it would be a disaster to unite them, and would only result in people further away.

In fact my suggestion would be the other way around, Detroit should become smaller, cut off depopulated areas from Detroit, and offer the remaning population to relocate to other neighbourhood. This would lower the public expenses for Detroit and make it easier for police and fire departments.
Afterward I would offer the now empty areas to developers more or less for free. The result could be new sururbs closer to the city.
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 #162 on: November 10, 2014, 01:35:04 PM »
« Edited: November 10, 2014, 01:37:36 PM by Governor Varavour »

I love Detroit. I've never actually been there, but I love it none the less. My ideas:

STOP TEARING DOWN BUILDINGS (certain ones, at least): seriously, why are they doing this? I've been following Detroit since the fourth grade, and every time I think this city has turned the corner, they go and tear down some new skyscraper. Seriously, they go and reject bids for development and tear these stuff down. The city even helps "developers" tear down buildings in defiance of courts (see the Madison-Lenox case in 2005- was it so long ago?1). The historic building stock is one of Downtown Detroit's strong suits, and it's a shame that it's being lost. It's shooting yourself in the foot. Tear down the rotting houses in the outer city! I'd place a moratorium on all demolitions in the city center.

URBAN FARMING? PAH!: One of the big ideas I hear these days is this "urban farming" on the "urban prairie", i.e., vacant lots. So, let me see, it's suggested that you have a half-deserted urban core, surrounded by farmland, surrounded by suburbia, surrounded by farmland again? You're only going to further the isolation of Downtown Detroit from the hinterland. Rather than farmland, why not extend the suburbia into the city? Southeast Michigan- ideally "Metro Detroit"- needs to be integrated further, and so I propose:

TAKE BACK THE CITY, ONE NEIGHBOURHOOD AT A TIME: Detroit will not repair itself overnight. We all know that. What needs to be done is to re-urbanize the city, ideally at a population of 1,500,000-2,000,000 people. This could be accomplished by focusing on certain neighborhoods and areas for development in stages- such as the New Center, Eastown, Brush Park and the areas south of Jefferson Ave. from Downtown to just past Belle Isle. Following the principles of New Urbanism, these regions could become fairly large "towns" themselves (well, the New Center would be a Jersey City-esque edge city2). Development would spread out radially from those areas, which would see particular investment in security, education, and general quality-of-life-improving services, until the city is generally covered.

A FEDERAL DETROIT: This new Detroit would be divided into wards with great deal of autonomy in regards to education, policing, and the like. This would allow the districts to redevelop at their own pace and not be dealt with misguided investment. It would also be helpful towards regional integration, which is sorely needed.

PUB-PUB-PUBLIC TRANS-PORT-PORTATION: It might be as foreign to conservatives as is Uzbeki-beki-beki-stan-stan, but what Detroit needs is public transportation. Give the Big Three a monopoly on providing the transports, sure, but the Woodward Light Rail project not only needs to be built, but expanded. I want to see Hub-Hub service, and local services in the new "towns". And, for God's sake, fix up Michigan Central Station3. It just is really depressing to look at. I imagine a city full of young, crunchy types, who would love public transportation. I would to- as long as the trolley goes to Boston-Edison4.

KILL THEM ALL!: I'd lay off 80% of the city staff, and hire back half the amount. The city is full of patronage posts, the result of 30 years of cronyism (only stalled by Dennis Archer's term, and then resumed with a fury under Kilpatrick- ask my dad how much I despise that guy). Crack the unions' backs, fire the the illiterate DPS chief5 (let's gun for Michelle Rhee, or maybe just Betsy DeVos), and reorganize the whole thing.

[1] http://www.forgottendetroit.com/madlen/index.html
[2] http://www.newcenter.com/images/home/New_Center_night.jpg
[3] http://detroiturbex.com/content/downtown/mcs/index.html
[4] http://www.historicbostonedison.org/
[5] http://www.detnews.com/article/20100304/OPINION03/3040437/1409/Does-DPS-leader-s-writing-send-wrong-message?
Logged
Bigby
Mod_Libertarian_GOPer
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,164
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: 3.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #163 on: November 10, 2014, 11:37:15 PM »

Close the city down and start anew with another city named Detroit.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #164 on: November 10, 2014, 11:41:06 PM »

I do think just starting over might be better at this point.  Keep some of the historic downtown buildings... And start by dismantling the rennaisance center.  Nobody needs a ginormous round grain elevator representing American automobility.

But communities should be preserved so neighborhoods still,function even in new housing somewhere else inthe city.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #165 on: November 11, 2014, 08:46:59 AM »

1. Save Detroit's strong culture, including its artistic activity. Face it -- this is one place in which African-American culture blossomed. Play this up!

2. Save the buildings of great esthetic or historical value. Uniqueness ordinarily has merit. Insipid sprawl may provide a middle-class standard of comfort, but all in all it is ugly and banal. Uniqueness breaks boredom.

3. Clean up the environment. Detroit might be more livable if it isn't a zone of toxic waste dumps.

4. Raise educational standards. Detroit is not where I would relocate or establish a new high-tech business... but think of some of its potential attractiveness. "Silicon lakes"? Detroit at the least is a cheap place to live. With what one saves in housing costs alone in contrast to Silicon Valley one could afford to send the kids to private schools.

The Detroit Independent School District is a monstrosity. It gets huge amounts of money, but horrid results. It needs a thorough audit to take out the waste and fraud. I have heard of the numerous convention trips to Hawaii (that's the wrong place to go to see how education can work well -- try even rural Michigan instead. Do administrators want to enjoy fun in the sun or do they want to find out how to teach effectively? Do they really care about kids?)

Detroit pols got complacent when the automobile was the gravy train (pardon the pun!) to create good jobs and a solid tax base. It invested in highways that would take people out of the city to the suburbs instead of shoring up the educational system. Detroit needs to prepare itself for the next technological boom, and it needs to get some of the basics right so that some other place doesn't leave it behind again, as has been so for the last fifty years. 
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #166 on: November 11, 2014, 09:14:08 AM »

I guess I would annex the nearby suburbs, deliberately targeting the more affluent ones (Grosse Pointes, Ferndale, etc.) and use the subsequently increased tax revenue to buy up the abandoned buildings in the worst neighborhoods and replace them with livable housing. This would obviously have to move fairly slowly because there wouldn't be that much more revenue.

Obviously this would never happen.

That seem a very bad idea, as it only will result in people (with money) leaving those suburbs and leaving Detroit to administrate new collapsing neighbourhoods.
From what I have read about Detroit, the bad blood between the sururbs and the city are so ugly, that it would be a disaster to unite them, and would only result in people further away.

In fact my suggestion would be the other way around, Detroit should become smaller, cut off depopulated areas from Detroit, and offer the remaning population to relocate to other neighbourhood. This would lower the public expenses for Detroit and make it easier for police and fire departments.
Afterward I would offer the now empty areas to developers more or less for free. The result could be new sururbs closer to the city.

Yes, this.  The level of vitriol between the city and the suburbs means that any proposal that involves Detroit annexing more land will go very, very badly indeed.  Although seeing the Pointes swallowed up by Detroit would be pretty funny for a short time.  The Pointes have existed from the very beginning to keep the "riff-raff" out... imagine the reaction when they become the riff-raff!
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #167 on: November 11, 2014, 10:59:36 AM »

I guess I would annex the nearby suburbs, deliberately targeting the more affluent ones (Grosse Pointes, Ferndale, etc.) and use the subsequently increased tax revenue to buy up the abandoned buildings in the worst neighborhoods and replace them with livable housing. This would obviously have to move fairly slowly because there wouldn't be that much more revenue.

Obviously this would never happen.

That seem a very bad idea, as it only will result in people (with money) leaving those suburbs and leaving Detroit to administrate new collapsing neighbourhoods.
From what I have read about Detroit, the bad blood between the sururbs and the city are so ugly, that it would be a disaster to unite them, and would only result in people further away.

In fact my suggestion would be the other way around, Detroit should become smaller, cut off depopulated areas from Detroit, and offer the remaning population to relocate to other neighbourhood. This would lower the public expenses for Detroit and make it easier for police and fire departments.
Afterward I would offer the now empty areas to developers more or less for free. The result could be new sururbs closer to the city.

Yes, this.  The level of vitriol between the city and the suburbs means that any proposal that involves Detroit annexing more land will go very, very badly indeed.  Although seeing the Pointes swallowed up by Detroit would be pretty funny for a short time.  The Pointes have existed from the very beginning to keep the "riff-raff" out... imagine the reaction when they become the riff-raff!

Columbus (OH), Dallas, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, New York (to some extent), and Phoenix saved themselves from being like Detroit by annexing would-be suburbs. Contrast St. Louis. 
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,952


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #168 on: November 11, 2014, 11:34:43 AM »

One of the things they need to do first is repeal Michigan's "right-to-work" law.
Logged
Citizen Hats
lol-i-wear-hats
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 680
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #169 on: November 11, 2014, 12:29:36 PM »

One of the things they need to do first is repeal Michigan's "right-to-work" law.

care to explain your reasoning for us non-leftists?
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #170 on: November 11, 2014, 12:57:55 PM »

I guess I would annex the nearby suburbs, deliberately targeting the more affluent ones (Grosse Pointes, Ferndale, etc.) and use the subsequently increased tax revenue to buy up the abandoned buildings in the worst neighborhoods and replace them with livable housing. This would obviously have to move fairly slowly because there wouldn't be that much more revenue.

Obviously this would never happen.

That seem a very bad idea, as it only will result in people (with money) leaving those suburbs and leaving Detroit to administrate new collapsing neighbourhoods.
From what I have read about Detroit, the bad blood between the sururbs and the city are so ugly, that it would be a disaster to unite them, and would only result in people further away.

In fact my suggestion would be the other way around, Detroit should become smaller, cut off depopulated areas from Detroit, and offer the remaning population to relocate to other neighbourhood. This would lower the public expenses for Detroit and make it easier for police and fire departments.
Afterward I would offer the now empty areas to developers more or less for free. The result could be new sururbs closer to the city.

Yes, this.  The level of vitriol between the city and the suburbs means that any proposal that involves Detroit annexing more land will go very, very badly indeed.  Although seeing the Pointes swallowed up by Detroit would be pretty funny for a short time.  The Pointes have existed from the very beginning to keep the "riff-raff" out... imagine the reaction when they become the riff-raff!

Columbus (OH), Dallas, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, New York (to some extent), and Phoenix saved themselves from being like Detroit by annexing would-be suburbs. Contrast St. Louis. 

But that's the past tense, you see - they annexed suburbs as or before cities spiraled out in the 60s-80s.  The damage that not working with the suburbs caused (cf. Minneapolis, which didn't annex land but became a part of the Met Council) has already been done in Detroit, and now the suburbs and the urban core, despite their interdependence, mutually despise each other.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #171 on: November 11, 2014, 02:44:20 PM »

One of the things they need to do first is repeal Michigan's "right-to-work" law.

care to explain your reasoning for us non-leftists?

"Right-to-Work" laws are derided by unions as "Right-to-Work-for-much-less", They are intended to eviscerate the power of unions to collect union dues that allow one of the best protections that workers have against management: collective bargaining.

Big Business would prefer to negotiate 'individually with workers on their merits', but that in practice means seeking the bargaining weakness of the employee. When one considers that large employers can often spy upon workers to see how they live and find out what is going on in personal lives, such implies that a husband whose wife just had a baby may be told:

"Congratulations on the baby! Of course, now that you have the baby you might recognize the merit of taking a voluntary pay cut so that your job can be more secure".     

If that ever happened one would need a union.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #172 on: November 11, 2014, 02:50:00 PM »

I guess I would annex the nearby suburbs, deliberately targeting the more affluent ones (Grosse Pointes, Ferndale, etc.) and use the subsequently increased tax revenue to buy up the abandoned buildings in the worst neighborhoods and replace them with livable housing. This would obviously have to move fairly slowly because there wouldn't be that much more revenue.

Obviously this would never happen.

That seem a very bad idea, as it only will result in people (with money) leaving those suburbs and leaving Detroit to administrate new collapsing neighbourhoods.
From what I have read about Detroit, the bad blood between the sururbs and the city are so ugly, that it would be a disaster to unite them, and would only result in people further away.

In fact my suggestion would be the other way around, Detroit should become smaller, cut off depopulated areas from Detroit, and offer the remaning population to relocate to other neighbourhood. This would lower the public expenses for Detroit and make it easier for police and fire departments.
Afterward I would offer the now empty areas to developers more or less for free. The result could be new sururbs closer to the city.

Yes, this.  The level of vitriol between the city and the suburbs means that any proposal that involves Detroit annexing more land will go very, very badly indeed.  Although seeing the Pointes swallowed up by Detroit would be pretty funny for a short time.  The Pointes have existed from the very beginning to keep the "riff-raff" out... imagine the reaction when they become the riff-raff!

Columbus (OH), Dallas, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, New York (to some extent), and Phoenix saved themselves from being like Detroit by annexing would-be suburbs. Contrast St. Louis. 

But that's the past tense, you see - they annexed suburbs as or before cities spiraled out in the 60s-80s.  The damage that not working with the suburbs caused (cf. Minneapolis, which didn't annex land but became a part of the Met Council) has already been done in Detroit, and now the suburbs and the urban core, despite their interdependence, mutually despise each other.

But they need each other. A stronger economy in Detroit strengthens any Detroit suburb. Besides, suburbanites are much of the 'market' for the theater, sports teams, symphony, opera, museums, etc.

Detroit suburbs have not been doing particularly well, either. It's often easy to see that the urban fringe of the 1960s is still the urban fringe. Contrast Chicago or Cleveland -- or for that matter, Lansing.
Logged
Citizen Hats
lol-i-wear-hats
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 680
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #173 on: November 11, 2014, 07:41:53 PM »

One of the things they need to do first is repeal Michigan's "right-to-work" law.

care to explain your reasoning for us non-leftists?

"Right-to-Work" laws are derided by unions as "Right-to-Work-for-much-less", They are intended to eviscerate the power of unions to collect union dues that allow one of the best protections that workers have against management: collective bargaining.

Big Business would prefer to negotiate 'individually with workers on their merits', but that in practice means seeking the bargaining weakness of the employee. When one considers that large employers can often spy upon workers to see how they live and find out what is going on in personal lives, such implies that a husband whose wife just had a baby may be told:

"Congratulations on the baby! Of course, now that you have the baby you might recognize the merit of taking a voluntary pay cut so that your job can be more secure".     

If that ever happened one would need a union.

While that's nice, it still doesn't explain why Band3t posited an end to Right-to-work as a solution to Detroit's problems
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #174 on: November 11, 2014, 08:01:10 PM »

One of the things they need to do first is repeal Michigan's "right-to-work" law.

care to explain your reasoning for us non-leftists?

"Right-to-Work" laws are derided by unions as "Right-to-Work-for-much-less", They are intended to eviscerate the power of unions to collect union dues that allow one of the best protections that workers have against management: collective bargaining.

Big Business would prefer to negotiate 'individually with workers on their merits', but that in practice means seeking the bargaining weakness of the employee. When one considers that large employers can often spy upon workers to see how they live and find out what is going on in personal lives, such implies that a husband whose wife just had a baby may be told:

"Congratulations on the baby! Of course, now that you have the baby you might recognize the merit of taking a voluntary pay cut so that your job can be more secure".     

If that ever happened one would need a union.

While that's nice, it still doesn't explain why Band3t posited an end to Right-to-work as a solution to Detroit's problems
It wouldn't solve Detroit's problems.

Bandit just wants to repeal that law.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8  
« 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 0.072 seconds with 12 queries.