Michigan Joins List Of Tesla-Hating States

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Michigan has just jumped on the "let's ban direct sales of Teslas in our state" bandwagon.

That amendment explicitly states that the dealership-only requirement applies to all car companies who sell, service, display or advertise vehicles in the state. This clarification effectively shuts the door on Tesla’s direct-sales approach in Michigan, meaning state residents will need to go out of state to buy one of the cars. That, or Tesla will need to make arrangements with franchised dealerships to sell their cars.
Click to expand...
 
Reminds me of a recent ruling of only allowing Uber to function in an area if they charged more than Taxi companies.
 
corporation might as well be law makers in this country... The bigger the CEO the more things get passed in their favor... blah cant stand our government. Big money must get out of our government for it to turn back into a democracy.
 
Stiletto said:
Unions have such a good influence in this country.
Click to expand...

This was pushed for by the Michigan Auto Dealers Association which I don't think I would classify as a union. A union is typically thought of as a group of employees. The MADA is a group of employers.
 
bdavis24 said:
corporation might as well be law makers in this country... The bigger the CEO the more things get passed in their favor... blah cant stand our government. Big money must get out of our government for it to turn back into a democracy.
Click to expand...

This is a collection of small businesses demanding this. The North American Dealer Association doesn't want ANY car makers to sell cars in their state without using a fellow dealer. Once you allow one, the rest will do the same and bypass dealers.

The dealerships are like a de facto Union and they see Tesla as a potential union buster.
 
GaryJohnson said:
This was pushed for by the Michigan Auto Dealers Association which I don't think I would classify as a union. A union is typically thought of as a group of employees.
Click to expand...

Right, and I'm sure the employees totally affect UAW's decisions. Like in Chattanooga.
 
bdavis24 said:
corporation might as well be law makers in this country... The bigger the CEO the more things get passed in their favor... blah cant stand our government. Big money must get out of our government for it to turn back into a democracy.
Click to expand...

Well, we can't go back to a non-wealthy operated democracy since the whole government was founded by rich old guys 200+ years ago. It's always been that way and as people grow up, they only kinda start to figure that out later so it seems like it's changed when it really hasn't. The only way you can fix that is by getting rid of capitalism and going like for a full communist economical model (which I'm all for as long as we do it peacefully and vote for our new King in a totally civilized way).

Draax said:
I find these types of comments curious, in a time when wealth inequality is at its highest level since the great depression.
Click to expand...

It's only unequal because people are dumb. The lower classes were all like, "Yay, let's buy a house and take out a huge loan to do it!" and the rich people were like, "I'll invest my money in interest-yeilding stocks and bonds." When the market crashed, everything lost value, but the real estate where people tied up most of the assets if they were poor, went down and stayed down. On the other hand, investments crashed and bounced a lot faster. That opened up this like bigger disparity because rich people had a bigger chunk of their worth in investments than real estate. They recovered faster and could then leverage their recovered money (think net present value stuff) sooner to put themselves in an even better financial position whereas most middle class and lower class people were too busy keeping up with the people next door and can't leverage their money to make more. The inequality increase is totally THEIR FAULT since anyone can figure out how to properly handle their money but they all decide not to so they can buy stuff on debt that loses value like houses or cars.
 
Stiletto said:
Unions have such a good influence in this country.
Click to expand...

Draax said:
I find these types of comments curious, in a time when wealth inequality is at its highest level since the great depression.
Click to expand...

Have you ever worked in a union run shop?

I have, and I will NEVER, EVER do it again.

1. The union "workers" are impossible to get rid of short of murder.
2. The union "workers" can refuse to do a job and then file a grievance against a non-union worker who is then forced to do their job for them, and the union "worker" will then get extra pay for the non-union worker doing their job
3. The union "workers" have a bad reputation for sabotaging equipment and products and do not get in trouble.
4. The union "workers" get a much higher pay and benefits then their "work" warrants. Just think... burger flipping skill required jobs getting higher pay than IT staff.
5. Union leaders are generally huge trouble makers and will do everything in their power to keep their power while hurting the business for their own gain
6. Union bosses couldn't care less about the workers or the health of the business. All they care about is lining their pockets with as much money as they can.

And that pretty much sums up the UAW and pretty much all unions IMO.
 
Draax said:
I find these types of comments curious, in a time when wealth inequality is at its highest level since the great depression.
Click to expand...
When unions drive companies out of the country there are job losses. When skilled laborers must take unskilled positions or go on welfare there is income loss. When it is cheaper to ship raw materials across an ocean to china and then ship finished products back across the ocean to sell, instead of manufacturing those goods locally, it is time to cut corporate taxes and reduce the power of unions to a level where they are helping workers instead of hurting them.
 
Stiletto said:
Right, and I'm sure the employees totally affect UAW's decisions. Like in Chattanooga.
Click to expand...
These types of laws were brought about to prevent car makers from strong-arming independent dealers in the early 20th-century. How, exactly, do the people assembling cars affect the business relationship between the auto corporations and their dealer networks?

MADA is a trade association that represents the business interests of new-car dealerships in the state of Michigan. The UAW is a worker union that represents and protects the rights of workers who assemble cars. Forgive me, but I don't see the comparison here...
 
Armenius said:
How, exactly, do the people assembling cars affect the business relationship between the auto corporations and their dealer networks?
Click to expand...

They don't. The UAW does because they're officially a union, but in reality a lobbying group whose primary goal is to prevent competition in the American auto industry.
 
cyclone3d said:
Have you ever worked in a union run shop?
Click to expand...
I have worked in both the public and private sector. IMO the nepotism, and taking advantage of employees, which runs rampant in non-union environments, is disgusting and intolerable.
 
thejokker said:
When unions drive companies out of the country there are job losses. When skilled laborers must take unskilled positions or go on welfare there is income loss. When it is cheaper to ship raw materials across an ocean to china and then ship finished products back across the ocean to sell, instead of manufacturing those goods locally, it is time to cut corporate taxes and reduce the power of unions to a level where they are helping workers instead of hurting them.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this logic? Are North American companies really trying to compete with 3rd world manufacturing? What is the end game? Should we lower wages, benefits, and safety standards, to that of these 3rd world sweatshops, in order to compete?

Cut corporate taxes? You aren't really pushing the failed trickle down economic theory ... are you? How many more examples do we need of corporations getting tax breaks and NOT hiring additional workers.
 
Draax said:
So you believe that the root cause of record wealth inequality is that poor people are dumb .... it is really that simple is it? lol hilarious.
Click to expand...

Yah, pretty much. I think that's what it all boils down to most of the time. When people are entering the workforce and are just starting, there's a period of non-wealth, but being smarter about money management lets you overcome that pretty quickly even in lower wage situations. Yet some people spend a lifetime wasting money on stuff and never ultimately add up to anything but a giant mound of debt.
 
How is any of this legal? An organization bri...lobbying state governments to ban sales of a competitor's product just because they use a different sales model? You'd think this is a blatant violation of anti-competitive business practices.
 
bdavis24 said:
corporation might as well be law makers in this country... The bigger the CEO the more things get passed in their favor... blah cant stand our government. Big money must get out of our government for it to turn back into a democracy.
Click to expand...

Jesus tapdancing christ bdavis, seriously?!?!?
How about turning it back into a REPUBLIC???

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

The differences between a Republic and a Democracy are not only dissimilar but antithetical!

Because of the fact the distinguishing characteristic of a Democracy is the unlimited power of the majority rule over the individual there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority

The defining purpose of a Republic, on the other hand, is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people; primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Individual, The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
It's only unequal because people are dumb. The lower classes were all like, "Yay, let's buy a house and take out a huge loan to do it!" and the rich people were like, "I'll invest my money in interest-yeilding stocks and bonds." When the market crashed, everything lost value, but the real estate where people tied up most of the assets if they were poor, went down and stayed down. On the other hand, investments crashed and bounced a lot faster. That opened up this like bigger disparity because rich people had a bigger chunk of their worth in investments than real estate. They recovered faster and could then leverage their recovered money (think net present value stuff) sooner to put themselves in an even better financial position whereas most middle class and lower class people were too busy keeping up with the people next door and can't leverage their money to make more. The inequality increase is totally THEIR FAULT since anyone can figure out how to properly handle their money but they all decide not to so they can buy stuff on debt that loses value like houses or cars.
Click to expand...

A fan of Herrnstein and Murray, I see! Pip pip!
 
jpm100 said:
This is a collection of small businesses demanding this. The North American Dealer Association doesn't want ANY car makers to sell cars in their state without using a fellow dealer. Once you allow one, the rest will do the same and bypass dealers.

The dealerships are like a de facto Union and they see Tesla as a potential union buster.
Click to expand...

So it sounds like this dealership association plays a role similar to that of the RIAA and the dealerships are like publishing companies such as Capital, Sony, BMG, EMI, etc. All music must go through them. The internet is their greatest fear because it allows artists to sell directly to the consumers. Thus making the RIAA and publishers obsolete. These dealerships fear the same thing. If Tesla can sell directly to the consumer, then other car manufacturers will follow and this make dealerships obsolete.

Once again, big business using government lobbying to protect a long standing marketing model and prevent a new model than could harm the status quo.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Yah, pretty much. I think that's what it all boils down to most of the time. When people are entering the workforce and are just starting, there's a period of non-wealth, but being smarter about money management lets you overcome that pretty quickly even in lower wage situations. Yet some people spend a lifetime wasting money on stuff and never ultimately add up to anything but a giant mound of debt.
Click to expand...

Wait a gosh darn minute... are you trying to say this is NOT a communist country where every job pays the exact same???
Life really is like a video game?
So, instead of wasting time on video games all day and night long grinding out cash/gold/levels/etc... in order to "pwn newbs"
They could be doing it in "real life" saving money in the bank instead of getting more credit cards to dig deeper into debt?
Lies... :rolleyes:
 
Stiletto said:
Unions have such a good influence in this country.
Click to expand...

You can't blame the unions for this one at all. These dealership protection laws were put in place to protect the DEALERS from the manufacturers selling directly to the public and bypassing them.
 
I wonder how many states or cities are currently anti-direct sales/anti-Tesla right now.
I am going to try to look it up.
 
States that will not allow Tesla to sell cars directly to consumers:
  1. Michigan
  2. Texas
  3. New Jersey
  4. Arizona
  5. Maryland

States that will not allow informational Tesla viewing galleries:
  1. Michigan

Source
 
Draax said:
I find these types of comments curious, in a time when wealth inequality is at its highest level since the great depression.
Click to expand...

True unless you have a union job...I've seen first hand how unions have collapsed an entire paper industry.
 
NeghVar said:
Once again, big business using government lobbying to protect a long standing marketing model and prevent a new model than could harm the status quo.
Click to expand...

This pretty much sums it up.

If we had this kind of company/government collusion a long time ago, and if the horse & buggy lobby had enough money, they would have banned cars.
 
FiveFig said:
The differences between a Republic and a Democracy are not only dissimilar but antithetical!

Because of the fact the distinguishing characteristic of a Democracy is the unlimited power of the majority rule over the individual there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority

The defining purpose of a Republic, on the other hand, is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people; primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Individual, The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general.
Click to expand...

A pure democracy is nothing more than mob rule.
For example, 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.....
 
cyclone3d said:
Have you ever worked in a union run shop?

I have, and I will NEVER, EVER do it again.

1. The union "workers" are impossible to get rid of short of murder.
2. The union "workers" can refuse to do a job and then file a grievance against a non-union worker who is then forced to do their job for them, and the union "worker" will then get extra pay for the non-union worker doing their job
3. The union "workers" have a bad reputation for sabotaging equipment and products and do not get in trouble.
4. The union "workers" get a much higher pay and benefits then their "work" warrants. Just think... burger flipping skill required jobs getting higher pay than IT staff.
5. Union leaders are generally huge trouble makers and will do everything in their power to keep their power while hurting the business for their own gain
6. Union bosses couldn't care less about the workers or the health of the business. All they care about is lining their pockets with as much money as they can.

And that pretty much sums up the UAW and pretty much all unions IMO.
Click to expand...

Good job spitting out republican propaganda and union stereotypes. Most of my family including cousins are union electricians or truck drivers.

1. Union workers are hard to get rid of because they are hard working and stick up for each other. Would you rather they disband so corporations can lower wages and further push our country's working conditions toward that of China?

2. Union workers can't refuse to do a job. What they can do is strike due to poor working conditions and reduction of benefits and safety. CEO's of course publicly say that the workers are asking for something they aren't due, but you don't see the CEO's band together and stick up for each other when someone is trying to take away their livelihood. They take what they can and run. That is obviously better for a company than skilled, happy laborers.

3. Where did you come up with this one? Union workers don't sabotage equipment, bad employees do. A bad union employee can be fired, contrary to popular belief. Being in a union doesn't exempt you from criminal liability.

4. The union workers are paid too much argument. This is of course fed by CEO's and shareholders who really just want an excuse to reap more profit. The fact is that union workers all tend to go through Apprenticeships and schooling to learn how to do their job. They are skilled laborers who should be paid for their skill and hard work. CEO's get benefits packages when a company is doing well. What is wrong with laborers negotiating for a piece of the profit when the money is made off the backs of these same laborers. Too often we reward CEO's, with higher salaries and bonuses, but shit on the employees. Unions help to restore a needed balance. It is no coincidence that the wealth disparity has grown between the rich and poor as unions have lost power.

5. "CEO's are generally huge trouble makers and will do everything in their power to keep their power while hurting the business for their own gain." - fixed

6. "CEO's couldn't care less about the workers or the health of the business. All they care about is lining their pockets with as much money as they can." - fixed. You actually believe that unions who rely on a healthy company for their pay are more likely to screw a company over than the guy at the top who is only interested in short term profit. Quit drinking the cool-aid dude.
 
GaryJohnson said:
This was pushed for by the Michigan Auto Dealers Association which I don't think I would classify as a union.
Click to expand...

But the Telsa factory is non-union while Michigan is know for having a large number of unionized auto workers in the state. I'm sure Michigan politicians and the UAW lobbyists paying them off considered that.
 
Stiletto said:
A fan of Herrnstein and Murray, I see! Pip pip!
Click to expand...

I dunno what you're talking about, but if they're advocating people get more smarterer about investing their money wisely earlier in their lives instead of wasting it on stupid stuff, then yah, I'll cheer for them.
 
Got to love how easy it is for those with lots of money to buy politicians and use them to ban their competition.... *sigh*
 
frelled said:
2. Union workers can't refuse to do a job. What they can do is strike due to poor working conditions and reduction of benefits and safety. CEO's of course publicly say that the
Click to expand...

Sure they can. Some unions have very strict rules are who can do what job. If your union job title is heavy equipment operator your job description might state you are only to operate heavy equipment. You might not be allowed to dig with a shovel because that is in someone else's job description. My understanding is that part of the reason this is done is to keep more union workers employed.

Did you know that some unions won't allow union members to do volunteer work in the trade they work at? Friend of mine was a union electrician and he was not allowed to volunteer his time to an organization as an electrician. The union looks at it as taking away work from a fellow union member. In this case, the union donated money to pay a union electrical contractor to do the work. The trouble was the union contractor rarely ever showed up and took weeks to do the work that a volunteer would have done in a weekend or two.

Some unions also won't allow union members to ply their trade after they retire and are getting a pension. You could lose your pension if you do any work in your trade after you retire. I know a retired union guy who does side jobs, but cash only and he makes sure the people he works for aren't union to report him to the union.
 
frelled said:
Good job spitting out republican propaganda and union stereotypes. Most of my family including cousins are union electricians or truck drivers.

1. Union workers are hard to get rid of because they are hard working and stick up for each other. Would you rather they disband so corporations can lower wages and further push our country's working conditions toward that of China?

HAHAHAHAHAHA. maybe some are, but a good number of them where I worked were not.

2. Union workers can't refuse to do a job. What they can do is strike due to poor working conditions and reduction of benefits and safety. CEO's of course publicly say that the workers are asking for something they aren't due, but you don't see the CEO's band together and stick up for each other when someone is trying to take away their livelihood. They take what they can and run. That is obviously better for a company than skilled, happy laborers.

Oh yes they can. I saw it first hand. From refusing to misleading that they were a backup.

3. Where did you come up with this one? Union workers don't sabotage equipment, bad employees do. A bad union employee can be fired, contrary to popular belief. Being in a union doesn't exempt you from criminal liability.

Yes they do. Everything from cutting wires to removing parts of equipment to putting chicken bones inside of product.

4. The union workers are paid too much argument. This is of course fed by CEO's and shareholders who really just want an excuse to reap more profit. The fact is that union workers all tend to go through Apprenticeships and schooling to learn how to do their job. They are skilled laborers who should be paid for their skill and hard work. CEO's get benefits packages when a company is doing well. What is wrong with laborers negotiating for a piece of the profit when the money is made off the backs of these same laborers. Too often we reward CEO's, with higher salaries and bonuses, but shit on the employees. Unions help to restore a needed balance. It is no coincidence that the wealth disparity has grown between the rich and poor as unions have lost power.

Nope, not true.My knowledge is first hand.

5. "CEO's are generally huge trouble makers and will do everything in their power to keep their power while hurting the business for their own gain." - fixed

HAHAHAHAHA. You apparently know nobody high up in the UAW.

6. "CEO's couldn't care less about the workers or the health of the business. All they care about is lining their pockets with as much money as they can." - fixed. You actually believe that unions who rely on a healthy company for their pay are more likely to screw a company over than the guy at the top who is only interested in short term profit. Quit drinking the cool-aid dude.
Click to expand...

Nope, I have personally seen the UAW put a large company out of business. See reasons 1-5.

I am not spitting out "republican propaganda".

Everything listed is what I personally saw when working in a union shop.
 
NeghVar said:
How is any of this legal? An organization bri...lobbying state governments to ban sales of a competitor's product just because they use a different sales model? You'd think this is a blatant violation of anti-competitive business practices.
Click to expand...

Sales of Tesla cars have not been banned. Direct sales to consumers of Telsa cars has been banned. Tesla is free to set up a franchised dealer network in Michigan and other states to sell their cars.
 
frelled said:
Good job spitting out republican propaganda and union stereotypes. Most of my family including cousins are union electricians or truck drivers.

1. Union workers are hard to get rid of because they are hard working and stick up for each other. Would you rather they disband so corporations can lower wages and further push our country's working conditions toward that of China?

2. Union workers can't refuse to do a job. What they can do is strike due to poor working conditions and reduction of benefits and safety. CEO's of course publicly say that the workers are asking for something they aren't due, but you don't see the CEO's band together and stick up for each other when someone is trying to take away their livelihood. They take what they can and run. That is obviously better for a company than skilled, happy laborers.

3. Where did you come up with this one? Union workers don't sabotage equipment, bad employees do. A bad union employee can be fired, contrary to popular belief. Being in a union doesn't exempt you from criminal liability.

4. The union workers are paid too much argument. This is of course fed by CEO's and shareholders who really just want an excuse to reap more profit. The fact is that union workers all tend to go through Apprenticeships and schooling to learn how to do their job. They are skilled laborers who should be paid for their skill and hard work. CEO's get benefits packages when a company is doing well. What is wrong with laborers negotiating for a piece of the profit when the money is made off the backs of these same laborers. Too often we reward CEO's, with higher salaries and bonuses, but shit on the employees. Unions help to restore a needed balance. It is no coincidence that the wealth disparity has grown between the rich and poor as unions have lost power.

5. "CEO's are generally huge trouble makers and will do everything in their power to keep their power while hurting the business for their own gain." - fixed

6. "CEO's couldn't care less about the workers or the health of the business. All they care about is lining their pockets with as much money as they can." - fixed. You actually believe that unions who rely on a healthy company for their pay are more likely to screw a company over than the guy at the top who is only interested in short term profit. Quit drinking the cool-aid dude.
Click to expand...

Good job spelling out liberal propaganda :D
 
frelled said:
Good job spitting out republican propaganda and union stereotypes. Most of my family including cousins are union electricians or truck drivers.

1. Union workers are hard to get rid of because they are hard working and stick up for each other. Would you rather they disband so corporations can lower wages and further push our country's working conditions toward that of China?

2. Union workers can't refuse to do a job. What they can do is strike due to poor working conditions and reduction of benefits and safety. CEO's of course publicly say that the workers are asking for something they aren't due, but you don't see the CEO's band together and stick up for each other when someone is trying to take away their livelihood. They take what they can and run. That is obviously better for a company than skilled, happy laborers.

3. Where did you come up with this one? Union workers don't sabotage equipment, bad employees do. A bad union employee can be fired, contrary to popular belief. Being in a union doesn't exempt you from criminal liability.

4. The union workers are paid too much argument. This is of course fed by CEO's and shareholders who really just want an excuse to reap more profit. The fact is that union workers all tend to go through Apprenticeships and schooling to learn how to do their job. They are skilled laborers who should be paid for their skill and hard work. CEO's get benefits packages when a company is doing well. What is wrong with laborers negotiating for a piece of the profit when the money is made off the backs of these same laborers. Too often we reward CEO's, with higher salaries and bonuses, but shit on the employees. Unions help to restore a needed balance. It is no coincidence that the wealth disparity has grown between the rich and poor as unions have lost power.

5. "CEO's are generally huge trouble makers and will do everything in their power to keep their power while hurting the business for their own gain." - fixed

6. "CEO's couldn't care less about the workers or the health of the business. All they care about is lining their pockets with as much money as they can." - fixed. You actually believe that unions who rely on a healthy company for their pay are more likely to screw a company over than the guy at the top who is only interested in short term profit. Quit drinking the cool-aid dude.
Click to expand...


Having worked in a union shop, I'd have to say that there is more than just republican propaganda to the anti-union sentiments.

When I as an engineer (and non union member) I had constant problems with the union.

If I accidentally walked on to the production floor holding a screwdriver, I got a grievance.

Only specified "material handlers" were allowed to move material, and they had no sense of urgency. If I was on a delayed project to get something on to the production floor, I had to wait for them to slowly walk it to me on their cart, when they got around to it. If it made it halfway down the hall and it was suddenly lunch or break time, the cart stopped exactly where it was, and the guy left, leaving 4 engineers who needed to work on the item waiting...

There were times when we spent 3 days waiting for material that was already in the building to get to where it needed to be. If I were in a non union shop, it would have taken me 2 minutes to walk to the store room, sign for it, put it on a cart and push it there myself.

On some projects we lost millions in delays and fines by our customers because we were unable to miss dates due to the ridiculous inefficiency of dealing with the unions.

We also had several completely useless employees, who never got their work done either to inability or just not doing it. Manufacturing managers were exasperated trying to move them around to places they did the least harm, cause there was absolutely no way they could fire them.

Then there was the time when I worked in a department store when I was in college. I was told it was a union shop, and that I was required to pay union dues if I wanted to work there. I complained, citing that I had no interest, and needed that money. They used some BS line about how everyone benefits from the union, and its not right for some not to pay their share.

When I asked how I benefited from the union, being at minimum wage ($5.25/hr at the time) and being a part time employee without benefits, those useless turds couldn't come up with an answer.

Don't get me wrong though. Unions have been very VERY important for all working people, even professionals. We can historically thank them for such things as the weekend and the 40 hour work week (which granted many professionals don't have) as well as many important work safety improvements, and reduction of workplace harassment and abuse, many things which after unions took them on, became law.

My personal experience with unions - however - has been 100% negative, both from the member side and from the non-member side.

I feel like in many places the unions have just gone too far. They have turned from organizations that originally fought for fairness and not abusing employees, to organizations that defend the lazy and incompetent, kill flexibility and all around just drag a company down.

I wish there were a middle ground, where a good union could provide that help and protection for its workers, without abusing its power.

Unfortunately, the concept of power being a corrupting influence applies to Unions just as it does to anything else, and when you give Unions a legally protected right to exercise monopoly on labor, they have A LOT of power.

I would like to see legislation limiting what they can and can't do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top