Comments

2

2 things about Kylie:

1 - her sisters aren't billionaires - Kylie is (apparently) twice as wealthy as Kim and Kanye COMBINED.

2 - Sure, she's born into money. But what is "self-made", and who qualifies? By the definition used, literally nobody on earth qualifies, which means it's a terrible measure. Is acknowledging success that hard to do?

3

"I'm not running, but I'm going to keep on working, and speaking, and standing up for what I believe."

God bless you Hillary - and thank you for your service as a First Lady, New York Senator, Secretary of State, and first woman presidential candidate! In the final analysis, history should treat her kindly.

4

"But what is "self-made", and who qualifies? By the definition used, literally nobody on earth qualifies"

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

5

There have been many women who have been presidential candidates, dumbass.

6

"It [new Bill] would ban all capital punishment aside from terrorism-related killings."
If they'll toss in serial Killers, I'm definitely onboard.

Head's up, Proud Bouys.

@5 -- have you learned Nothing?
Hillary's the only one who truly counts.

You can even ask Wall Street.

7

@2

3 - Her company's profit is made by basically not having any employees. The business has 7 full-time and 5 part-time staff. Manufacturing is outsourced to a firm that actually knows how to make cosmetics (and do it cheap). Retail and sales is a Shopify web site. Job creators!

4 - She can charge a premium for a cheap, unremarkable product because and only because she has inherited perpetual media coverage, the birthright of our celebrity aristocracy. Bootstraps!

8

@5

This is true, many, many women have run for the office. Hillary Clinton wasn't really the first at all, she was just the first woman to receive a majority of the popular vote in a US presidential election.

9

Further, Nathalie explicitly acknowledges Jenner's success with the line, "Yes, it's impressive that she's made this company into a billion-dollar empire..."

She just provided some additional context for said success, which seems perfectly fair.

10

@8

I would prefer you to affirm the part of my comment that follows the comma.

12

"What are the odds that she [that Jenner kid] has a team of experts around her
helping with these business decisions? I'd guess pretty fucking high."

Pardon me, but a minor quibble --
The odds aren't high. The chances are high. The odds are good. To excellent.

Always remember the ol' Alaska proverb re ratio-of-men-(TEN!)-to-women-(1):
'The Odds are good, but the Goods are odd.'

13

@5,@10: Had I correctly wrote 'nominee' instead of 'candidate' would you still have written an insult?

Smartass.

14

@10

Looks like you're out of luck then; to me Raindrop seems like a person with an intelligence within one standard deviation of the norm, who has trouble communicating clearly in writing.

If you give him a fairly generous bit of "read what I meant, not what I wrote" he doesn't seem at all different from any other blogs-commentor using the internet as a low-risk anger outlet.

15

“The spot in Arlington County in Northern Virginia is way more pro-Amazon than the New Yorkers in Long Island City.”

Where is your evidence for “the New Yorkers in Long Island City” not wanting Amazon’s HQ2? (Note: AOC’s District does not cover that part of Queens.)

16

@13,

Not trying to be a dick here, but would that still not be incorrect? You'd have to further qualify that you were speaking of a major party's nominee (and even THEN, I'm not sure whether the Greens could possibly qualify as a "major" party.)

17

@15

Part of the problem with the deal was that the entire city would have had to pay the Bezos Ransom in the form of lost tax revenues, but only a small part of one neighborhood would have seen any development.

It's easy to forget just how much larger New York is compared to Seattle; a development project that would transform Downtown Seattle can go up in the outer boroughs without most New Yorkers noticing it, or ever even seeing in person in their entire lives.

18

@16: That's not being a dick. Precision is cool.

19

I hope Amazon thrives in Virginia. They'll be right next to Washington, D.C. which is already chock full of assholes. They will fit right in and Virginia (and the greater metro D.C. area) TOTALLY deserve everything Amazon brings with them. I mean, Amazon paid $0 in federal income tax in 2018, probably just like every politician currently in congress and the resident in the White House.

https://itep.org/amazon-in-its-prime-doubles-profits-pays-0-in-federal-income-taxes/

And all the local working class people will grovel and cheer and suck Bezos' cock just the way he likes it to make sure Amazon doesn't end the deal like those big bad horrible mean old nasty New Yorkers did.

20

15

Not Everyone loves Amazon's heavy-handed Extractive policies: From "The City That Refused Amazon Long Before New York Did"

"The richest man in the world, who heads one of the world’s largest and richest corporations, is also filthy rich in arrogance and pomposity.

Jeff Bezos of Amazon demanded that a city’s officials kowtow to him by handing billions of taxpayer dollars to his retail behemoth, essentially bribing him to locate an Amazon headquarters there. But — lo and behold — the city mustered its collective integrity and pride to say 'no' to his devil’s bargain.

The city I’m bragging on isn’t New York City, which recently made national news by rejecting Amazon’s attempt to fleece its taxpayers. Rather, I’m saluting San Antonio, Texas, which in 2017 simply refused to play Bezos’ con game when he first rolled it out.

San Antonio’s mayor and top county official sent a 'Dear Jeff' letter kissing him off. They said their city has much to offer, but any development deal 'has to be the right fit; not just for the company, but for the entire community,' adding that 'blindly giving away the farm isn’t our style.'"

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-city-that-refused-amazon-long-before-new-york-did/

21

@19 Jinx u owe me a coke

22

@21 you rule

23

Our current GOP supported president is right now working on a deal to give Saudi Arabia advanced nuclear technology. That's what the GOP stands for now: Wahabist Islam armed with nukes. United States is pathetic to an epic degree.

24

@22 tie

25

@17, @20: Neither of you even attempted to answer my question, yet you each referenced my comment as if you were adressing it. Perhaps you could purchase remedial reading aids from a Seattle-based online retailer?

“Part of the problem with the deal was that the entire city would have had to pay...”

Not relevant to my question, and worse, it implies the rest of the city had a problem with the deal:

“The Quinnipiac University poll found 57 percent of registered New York City voters approve of the controversial deal while 26 percent disapprove.”

(https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna944511)

Meanwhile, xina can continue to gloat about how grandstanding politicians who don’t represent Long Island City and self-appointed activists (unelected, and accountable to no one) helped deprive citizens of jobs they wanted. Perhaps xina could go to Long Island City and tell them how lucky they are? I’m sure I’d like the reception she’d get.

26

Sigh, did she not know these facts about Saudi Arabia's treatment of women when she moved there to teach, and got married?

I have a lot of sympathy for her child, and I feel very bad that I feel like she should have thought things through a bit more. Wasn't this the plot of several movies?

27

@25

If nobody had a problem with the deal, the deal would have gone through.

28

@24

Please, no BDSMing outside of a Dan Savage comment thread.

29

@25

You seem to think that when a large minority has strong concerns about an issue, those concerns ought to be dismissed, and the majority preference imposed upon all without compromise.

That is not how functioning pluralistic societies work.

It's a credit to Bezos (or someone on staff at any rate) that he realized a firm can't make enemies of over a quarter of its potential workforce and clientelle at the outset of an endeavor and still hope to have it succeed.

30

25

Oh wait, there's more:

"'The officials wrote that a key criterion for awarding any incentives was whether a company is 'a good corporate citizen.' Noting that Amazon almost certainly had already chosen its preferred location, they called the national 'search' a money-grubbing scam. 'This public process is, intentionally or not, creating a bidding war amongst states and cities,' they charged.

Why should public officials anywhere be throwing billions of scarce public dollars at a pompous corporate prince who neither needs nor deserves such tribute?

City and state officials everywhere need to follow the example of New York and San Antonio, agreeing to stop bidding against each other in the corporate bribe racket."
--Jim Hightower, former commissioner of the Texas Department of Agriculture

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-city-that-refused-amazon-long-before-new-york-did/

31

@25 a backroom deal was done by Cuomo, de Blasio, and Bezos. You can bleat on all you want with your bullshit about all the people who wanted Amazon there and how NYC will suffer with the loss of those jobs blah blah blah your opinion does not equal fact. If the deal had been done properly it would have been public, followed rules for how these deals are done (land use rules, zoning, representatives of LIC would have been involved, etc.) and there would not have been resistance to it happening. While men everywhere love to blame AOC for everything (it's amazing how she's the dumbest and worst yet simultaneously most powerful freshman member of congress ever), people other than AOC were against the deal and it is the resistance that made Bezos pack up his toys and go home.

The area Amazon was going to take over for office space was earmarked for housing - housing that would potentially house 18,000 people. NYC is better off creating that housing begging Bezos to bring Amazon to NYC. Cuomo's pathetic "please come back they didn't mean it" shtik isn't going to work.

32

@25 You are overreaching. Although the poll shows (as of November) that most NYers wouldn't mind Amazon coming to town, it also shows that ~half the people disapproves of the $3 billion tax pay off to Amazon, i.e. there is no statistically significant majority in favor of the deal. If half were already opposed to the terms of the deal even before anything happened, and given Amazon’s huge positive name recognition to start with, one can just imagine how public opinion would line up once negative impacts become obvious.

33

@29: In case your math skills languish in the same dungeon of pitiable neglect with your reading-comprehension skills, registered voters in New York favored the deal by a better than 2:1 margin. Please do continue to lecture us on how “functioning, pluralistic” societies work best by when they deny the plainly-expressed desires of a large majority (note: not minority) in favor of arrogant diktats from an unelected and unaccountable claque of self-selected busybodies. (Our very own CM Sawant and her Socialist Alternative could use some friendly, agreeing voices right about now.)

I’ll also do you the immense favor of informing you that operating a business in New York can be quite an expensive proposition. Amazon can profitability go elsewhere, and the citizens of Long Island City may have to as well.

But no one here cares anything about that last group, now do you?

34

@32: "Pay off"?

I get the impression that you (and AOC) still don't understand what a tax incentive is. There is no pile of money that is given Amazon (or any other business) to "pay them off". The incentive is that Amazon gets to keep a higher percentage of revenue from being taxed IN THE FUTURE. NYC would'd be out ONE RED CENT if the deal had gone through, and will be forever POORER for doing so.

36

@34 Shhhhhhh! These cretins are still excitedly finding ways to spend their sudden $3 billion windfall! Bums or junkies? Windmills or tiny houses? The possibilities are endless.

BTW thanks to Amazon for their new single day delivery option. Brilliant idea from a brilliant company. Innovation and beyond.

37

@35 She was probably one of these morons who thinks the US is a horrible racist, oppressive, patriarchy and the hijab is liberating. Seattle is full of them.

38

@34 The public infrastructure needed to run a business like Amazon is already being paid by the taxpayer, it's not in the future. It's the same cost of doing business for everybody, not just for those big enough to not pay their share who happen to be ever closer to a retail monopoly. The people are already nice enough to ask for payment at the end of the tax year, rather than at the beginning so don't push your luck. Anyway, nobody should have to need corporate welfare in your free-marketeering utopia, right?

39

@38: The notion that a tax incentive is "corporate welfare" is invalid.

40

@39 for a rightwinger with his head up his ass, perhaps

42

@40: Cute retort, but refusing to understand tax policy and economics to keep your false narrative going is "really up your ass".

43

@41: Who's getting the free money? "Corporate welfare" is an idiom, it is not an economics term.

44

@37- Never met one in my life. Lots of women think this is an oppressive patriarchy (it kinda is) but I have never once heard a non-Muslim seattle women say the hijab is "liberating."

But don't worry - I am sure that our leading feminist, Ivanka, will have Jared will use his contacts with those super-friendly Saudis to get her home ASAP.

46

@42 you don't even understand that taxes are payment for services rendered (certainly not theft as wingnuts like to say) so what else are you going to teach us about tax policy?

47

41

"tax breaks and government subsidies are the definition of corporate welfare"

For The Win.

Corps MAY be people, too, Friendo
But Handouts should be given ONLY to
Non-human entities.* And NEVER to Real people.

*Relax.
It's. Just. Capitalism.

48

@38 To be sure, since I am not a free-marketeer, I am not opposed to corporate welfare as long as it is needed and provides a service needed by the public. Decades of successful mixed economies have shown that government plays a useful role in the economy. This particular Amazon deal, however, appears to fail on both counts and worse since it is a possible feedback on wealth consolidation and monopoly formation

49

@36 -- That you, Jeff?
Sorry your coercion efforts failed in NYC
and San Antonio. It's funny, your coercion
(eventually) succeded in Seattle; nevertheless
you're still gonna Bail. Q. Will you be taking your
Glass Balls with you?

50

Speaking of Corporate Welfare

Health"care" insurance Corps -- skimmers of precious Healthcare Dollars --
are about to feel the Sea Change that is We, the People, Citizens, standing up for themselves. We have the HIGHEST Medical Costs on the Planet -- with the shittiest Outcomes. THIRTY MILLION UN-insured. THIRTY MORE UNDER-insured.

Anyone else sick and tired of Health"care" Corporate Death Panels? Where happening to be female is a Pre-Existing Condition, and will probably (soon, if Corps keep getting their way) disqualify you from getting Life-Saving Treatment?

Sorry, CEOs, making $100,000,000.00 every year -- from denying people care.
Sorry Big phucking Pharma -- Medicare will no longer pay EIGHTY PERCENT MORE for prescription drugs than the Veterans Association does -- because bigphuckingpharma spent $100,000,000.00 lobbying Congress (and that's fucking Legal) to disallow Medicare from Negotiating Prices.

We're about to see the far far so-called Right's collective heads explode.
Good thing they all have their Solid Gold Coverage, eh?

Check this out: "Rep. Pramila Jayapal: Medicare for All Will Lower Costs & Expand Healthcare Coverage to Everyone"

https://www.democracynow.org/2019/3/6/rep_pramila_jayapal_medicare_for_all

51

Amazon was free money for the taxpayers of New York City. Instead they're stuck with a crumbling neighborhood that even the most rapacious convo developers refuse to rehabilitate. The land will random effectively fallow and after this experience, where some lady from Westchester can get her Twitter army to cancel a project, no private money will appear to turn this into productive land in a city strapped for it. It's a missed opportunity and no one benefits except for out-of-district politicians.

52

@45: Explain to me how a tax incentive is "unfair" when it provides increased revenue for the city that otherwise would not have been achieved had the city and business engaged in the fist place.

53

@52 Omg -- Amazon was fisting NYC?
Why was I not told this before now?!
This changes everything.

54

Oh, sorry -- typo.
My bad.

55

LOL kristofarian

56

@8
We hate to break it to you but Hillary did not get a majority of the vote.

57

@52 Really? Just look at Walmart. Textbook example. Get tax breaks, submit fraudulent traffic report for permitting stating new store would have no effect on traffic flow. Get approval, construct new store, traffic is fucked, sue city to install lights and construct new traffic lanes (Walmart should have done this as part of constructing the new store), close store after tax breaks run out and move to the next town, repeat. At least your town has a new Halloween superstore 2 months out of the year now.
This all sounds fair to me because I took microeconomics and you can clearly see that these two lines meet on a graph.

58

@32: Thank you for pointing out there was no majority in favor of scuttling the deal which had already been made by elected, accountable officials. Also, as raindrop noted, your use of the term “pay off” is inaccurate and misleading.

@45: Would Amazon have paid less in taxes? Yes. Would that be “fair”? Depends on who you ask. Governments subsidize businesses all of the time. As this thread suggests, the deal wasn’t scuttled because a majority of those affected decided it was a bad deal; it was scuttled because a self-appointed gang of unelected and unaccountable opportunistic loudmouths shouted everyone else down. That’s neither good business nor good public policy, and only embittered haters of Amazon (hi, xina!) are likely to believe otherwise.

60

" SF is currently looking to assess whether the tax break we gave to twitter is producing the dividends we were promised"

How, by counting the number of human turds down on Market Street?

61

@29: “...a firm can't make enemies of over a quarter of its potential workforce and clientelle...”

What rubbish. Amazon has “made enemies” of a few embittered losers like xina. The data I cited showed 26 per cent “disapproved” of the deal. That’s a very poor justification for calling them “enemies” of Amazon itself.

It’s hilarious - you just got finished giving a patronizing lecture on how large New York City is, then you turn right around and say Amazon couldn’t “succeed” there — even with a majority in favor of their deal! (What would a lack of “success” in siting a corporate backup HQ even look like, anyway?)

Finally, I’d like to know just how small that dissenting minority can become before you admit they should not have veto power over the majority on a policy question. I’m guessing it’s “a tiny fraction of one per cent, so long as I agree with them.”

61

@59: What an appalling question:

"The more salient question for Amazon is why does a company led by the richest man on earth need more tax breaks?"

Just because someone is rich does not negate eligibility for the tax incentive or the city's opportunity to reap the revenue from said business's investment in the community (that would otherwise never occurred).

We clearly see the source of your arguments blip are not not economic. It's all your own selfish class envy and jealousy, with no regard to the economic fortunes of the people that live there.

62

@60

I think I'd be all in favor of corporate-welfare deals where the senior executives of the business benefitting from the deal have to do weekly community service cleaning the neighborhood streets, at least until the promised level of development materializes.

@33

Jesus Christ man, don't lose your shit like that in public, it's embarrassing. If you really loathe pluralistic societies so much, it's probably best to just calm down and ignore the provocation instead of going all red-faced and spittle-flecked.

63

@59 I work next to Twitter HQ. there aren't empty storefronts in that area because Twitter employees aren't spending enough locally. That area is experiencing revival and there's more business and foot traffic in mid market than ever.

66

@64: I admit I get heated in these threads and I'll try more to keep that in check. Unless the city is spending more to accommodate the business than it receives from increased tax revenue, it should be a net positive.

67

@52 -- Sure, no problem.

1) It costs the local government extra money to provide for the added employees in that area.
2) The land that Amazon was going to use will likely eventually be used by another company (a company without a lucrative tax break).
3) It sets a bad precedent. Other companies might demand a tax break. If you are going to pay Amazon a bunch of money to move there, then it is quite likely that you will end up paying other companies to stay there.
4) Amazon may still expand there, eventually reaching employment levels they were planning anyway. It is quite likely that Amazon really didn't need the tax breaks, but it was used as further leverage for other cities (i. e. "You don't want to end up like New York"). The same sort of thing is why the Sonics were allowed to move from one of the biggest markets to one of the smallest (so that other owners could force cities to buy fancy arenas).

To actually determine whether or not this would have cost or saved the region money would take a lot of detailed analysis, along with some speculation. But it is quite likely that the city will be better off having rejected the deal. Another location (e. g. Detroit) would be a different story.

68

@61 Bezos packed up and left NYC. Bezos ended it. Bezos didn't like the dissent. Bezos wanted New York City to greet him like Seattle does, on their knees and willing to do anything for him. You and I obviously disagree on this situation 100%, but there is one FACT that neither of us can deny (we all get our own opinion, but no one gets their own facts). Bezos pulled the plug, Bezos ended the plan, Bezos killed the deal. Period. So, ultimately, no matter who ayone would like to blame for it happening it happened SOLELY because Bezos changed his mind. And yet not one person has blamed Bezos. Fascinating.

69

"Self-made" is just a sloppy way of saying "didn't directly inherit". All the other young billionaires just got their fortunes from their parents. It is a judgement call, of course, but unless you are suggesting her mom did everything (and Kylie is just the face of the company) the phrase has some logic behind it.

70

Islamic shitholes oppress women? Who knew? Shocker! Pffft.

71

Heather Anderson (AKA Amish) is not only the first woman to complete the triple crown in one calendar year, but she also broke the unsupported records for finishing the Pacific Crest Trail and Appalachian trail. This means that she walked from Mexico to Canada without any help, and did so faster than any man or woman, ever. https://www.outsideonline.com/2026731/how-personal-trainer-claimed-records-and-pct

72

@68: Yes, Bezos changed his mind. To great celebration as I recall, from you and others, as if NYC dodged a bullet. Now you're fascinated why no-one is blaming Bezos as if not feeling welcome is not a good enough reason.

You're the one that's fascinating.

@67: Thanks.

73

@62: So, I “loathe pluralistic societies” because I noted how a survey of New York City’s registered voters showed — by a substantial margin — their approval of the deal their elected leaders had made?

I don’t think I’m the one here who needs to “calm down.”

74

@58 not only did I acknowledge the poll showed a majority were for Amazon coming to NY but i also noted there were no statistically significant majority in favor of the terms of the deal ($3 billion pay off to Amazon), fact that you promptly ignored to continue falsely arguing that a majority were for the deal. In addition to taking these kind of disingenuous shortcuts, you then pretend to claim that a pay off couldn't consist of forgiving incurred cost (for using infrastructure in this case) for no reason mentioned except your good word. Not very convincing if you ask me.

75

@72 my being happy about Bezos pulling out of NYC doesn't affect the situation in any way. I wasn't in NY fighting the deal, I am just someone on the internet with a strong opinion about the matter. Key word being OPINION. Bezos could have ignored the (small amount, depending on who you talk to) of dissent and plowed ahead with his plans and everyone who is happy about him leaving NYC would be disappointed. Since when does Bezos give a shit about not feeling welcome? Especially (as tensor drives home in all of his comments that SO MANY PEOPLE, THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, WANTED THIS SO BAD)! Isn't it a little disingenuous to blame people who were against the deal when supposedly MOST people wanted this (and some, like Cuomo, who is begging Bezos to come back, still do)? Is Bezos a snowflake? Is he so incapable of dealing with anyone who doesn't like him that he'd rather pull up stakes and go somewhere else because his tiny little feelings got hurt? Please. Pretending "not feeling welcome is reason enough" when it comes to NYC given Amazon's and it's practices worldwide is laughable.

76

*its practices

77

@74: I ignored your claim because you haven’t provided any evidence for it. I provided the quote and citation (url) for my claim. Your repeated false equation of your nothing with my something is disingenuous and unconvincing.

As for “pay off,” It’s not actually my fault you used sloppy (and loaded?) language. “Incentives” — is that really such a big word to you?

@75: “Isn't it a little disingenuous to blame people who were against the deal...”

Please take that up with our own CM Sawant:

“We know the power of getting organized in the face of big business and a political establishment. In New York, the hubris of politicians trying to coddle up to Amazon with a $3 billion corporate handout was roundly defeated by resistance from below by working people.”

(https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2019/03/01/39378962/why-i-oppose-mayor-durkans-choice-for-human-services-director)

By “working,” she really seems to mean “shouting,” but I didn’t write it...

78

@77 In other words, you haven't seen the info I mentioned before because not only you haven't read the article you refer to @25 but you haven't even seen the poll either, which is entirely consistent with the disingenuous shortcuts already mentioned but shows you grandstanding about a topic you have hardly visited. No more excuses, you'll have to find some other spin.

"incentive" is a completely sanitized term that doesn't describe accurately at all the actions of a mega-corporation headed by the wealthiest man in the world making the rounds of North Amercian cities to extract the best pay off it can get.

79

@78: I haven’t seen the info you mentioned before because you haven’t provided it. It’s not actually my job to go seek the information upon which your argument entirely relies.

(Shorter: “Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”)

If I let you pay less for something as part of trade, are you going to agree with my lavish self-praise for the great generosity with which I have treated you?

80

@79 I only told you twice the poll showed that nearly half didn't agree with the terms of the deal. Information that is contained in the very press article you cited and that you are supposed to have read so that you actually understand the poll you are discussing

"Although the poll shows (as of November) that most NYers wouldn't mind Amazon coming to town, it also shows that ~half the people disapproves of the $3 billion tax pay off to Amazon, i.e. there is no statistically significant majority in favor of the deal." anon @32

"not only did I acknowledge the poll showed a majority were for Amazon coming to NY but i also noted there were no statistically significant majority in favor of the terms of the deal ($3 billion pay off to Amazon)," anon@74

whatever man

81

@65 are you in viz Valley? I'm on market every single day. There are more and higher end business there now than when I came here five years ago. There's no possible way you're giving an informed opinion here.

82

@80: Quoting yourself doesn’t count. Whatever, man.

Furthermore, even if what you wrote is true — which I allowed, for the sake of argument — you didn’t answer my point. If the elected officials have made a deal, and there’s no consensus one way or the other across their constituencies, then why scuttle the deal? Why should unelected, self-appointed “activist” loudmouths decide the issue?

Long Island City got denied a large economic opportunity. I’m sure all those people Sawant admires will step in and provide good-paying jobs there, right?

83

@82 You have the intellectual integrity of a sewer

84

@83: Are you going to quote you on that?

Also, O Great Arbiter of All Things Integral — you didn’t answer my question @82, the premise of which generously assumes that your multiple assertions do indeed have adequate basis in reality.

(But that wouldn’t be the first time you couldn’t answer one of my questions, now would it?)


Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.