In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options

I have a pen and a thumb!

Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,512 ✭✭✭✭
edited May 2017 in Politics
I guess turn about is fair play, but as Obama did with immigration enforcement legislation, Trump is doing with tax-exempt politicking legislation.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/04/trump-marks-national-day-prayer-signs-executive-order-on-religious-freedom.html

Not only does his tax 'reform' proposal continue the needless exemption for charitable donations, he is now instructing the Justice department to look the other way if possible when tax exempt organization engage in political speech.

I would hope that those of you who were bothered when Obama legislated from the Oval Office, are just as bothered when Trump does it, though I suspect that I would be wrong in most cases.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

Brad Steele

Comments

  • Options
    bigoutsidebigoutside Member Posts: 19,443
    edited November -1
    Yes. You would be wrong.

    I wish you wouldn't be wrong. But you would.
  • Options
    DPHMINDPHMIN Member Posts: 913 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Actually, Trump isn't legislating from the Oval Office - he's merely reversing Obama's policies to what the always were intended to be.
  • Options
    Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,512 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by DPHMIN
    Actually, Trump isn't legislating from the Oval Office - he's merely reversing Obama's policies to what the always were intended to be.


    In some cases, yes.

    In this case he is instructing the Justice Department to selectively enforce a restriction passed by Congress in the 1950's.

    Does this pesky little fact change your thinking?

    If the change to a 60+ year old law is warranted, should it not be encacted by Congress and not decreed from the White House?

    That was the argument for the past 8 years. Is it no longer valid?

    Edit for iPhone thumb.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Options
    woodhogwoodhog Member Posts: 13,115 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Hey whatsamatterforU? This is GunBroker, everything one side does is good, the other side bad. Saves on the thinking...
  • Options
    Smitty500magSmitty500mag Member Posts: 13,603 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    For those that don't like how the majority of GB members think there's a little X up there at the top right hand corner of the page you can click on. [:p]
  • Options
    Dads3040Dads3040 Member Posts: 13,552 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:In this case he is instructing the Justice Department to selectively enforce a restriction passed by Congress in the 1950's.
    There are more facets to this issue than the EO, or the existing IRS rules.

    There have been many churches that have openly defied the IRS restrictions for years, and have faced no penalty. So the selective enforcement has been ongoing, yet there has been no outcry. Mostly because the churches violating their tax-exempt status are part of a victim class that have been treated with kid gloves for many years.

    From a certain perspective, it can be argued that the EO is simply leveling the playing field, and allowing all churches to do what many have been with impunity.

    Selective Enforcement. Selective Outrage. Two sides of the same coin.
  • Options
    sxsnufsxsnuf Member Posts: 2,945 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    While some of the more forgiving might say DJT's reign has included some "missteps" early on, others will maintain he's just another in a very long line of buffoons to occupy the oval office.

    "Draining the swamp"?
    How does that square with tasking one of the slimiest of swamp creatures (Paul Ryan) with "repeal and replace", then bemoaning that bill's failure in the house?
    Now, the house has narrowly passed a health care bill, that (just like BO care) few have read and fewer still understand the future impact of.

    "DJT spoke at the NRA convention so is a proven friend of the 2nd amendment."
    Ronny Reagan also spoke at the NRA convention.
    Was that before, or after, he signed a permanent import ban on select firearms?

    With control of both houses of congress and the white house, the republicrats could only pass a temporary "resolution" in lieu of a budget, that contributes virtually nothing to fulfill DJT's campaign promises.

    Freedom loving Americans and the dying middle class will be screwed in the end, but hopefully, will not have to endure the "*" that surely would have come from billary.

    "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN"?

    Seems less likely with each passing day.

    JMHO
    Arrivederci gigi
  • Options
    sxsnufsxsnuf Member Posts: 2,945 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Did somebody say "selective enforcement"?
    Can always tell when you step on someone's tender sensibilities!
    Arrivederci gigi
  • Options
    Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,512 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Dads3040
    quote:In this case he is instructing the Justice Department to selectively enforce a restriction passed by Congress in the 1950's.
    There are more facets to this issue than the EO, or the existing IRS rules.

    There have been many churches that have openly defied the IRS restrictions for years, and have faced no penalty. So the selective enforcement has been ongoing, yet there has been no outcry. Mostly because the churches violating their tax-exempt status are part of a victim class that have been treated with kid gloves for many years.

    From a certain perspective, it can be argued that the EO is simply leveling the playing field, and allowing all churches to do what many have been with impunity.

    Selective Enforcement. Selective Outrage. Two sides of the same coin.


    More reason, IMO, to eliminate the entire 501c3 section from the IRS code.

    https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-section-501-c-3-organizations

    Exemption Requirements - 501(c)(3) Organizations

    To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

    Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

    The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

    Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.



    I have no problem with churches, labor unions or any other group being as politically active they wish to be. Not a fan, however, of the effective increase in my tax burden that supports their existence and their advocacy.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Options
    Dads3040Dads3040 Member Posts: 13,552 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I am in agreement about the 501(c)(3) section, but would actually go you one better and suggest that most of the 501(c) section ought to be gone. The (c) section has almost 30 subsections IIRC.

    Some are probably justifiable, such as cemetery maintenance organizations (not funeral homes).

    But most are tax dodges for advocacy groups and favored constituencies.
  • Options
    Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member, Moderator Posts: 66,372 ******
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    I guess turn about is fair play, but as Obama did with immigration enforcement legislation, Trump is doing with tax-exempt politicking legislation.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/04/trump-marks-national-day-prayer-signs-executive-order-on-religious-freedom.html

    Not only does his tax 'reform' proposal continue the needless exemption for charitable donations, he is now instructing the Justice department to look the other way if possible when tax exempt organization engage in political speech.

    I would hope that those of you who were bothered when Obama legislated from the Oval Office, are just as bothered when Trump does it, though I suspect that I would be wrong in most cases.
    Considering that tax monies are used exactly like a charitable donation, I think the exemption makes perfect sense. Don't you agree it makes sense that a person should be able to choose whether their charitable donation goes to the government to do with as they see fit, or to another organization of the person's choosing? More freedom that way, if you ask me. And considering that the tax rate I pay impacts my ability to be otherwise charitable, I can't see one reason why those donations should be taxed.
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    And fiery auto crashes
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    While sifting through my ashes
    Some will fall in love with life
    And drink it from a fountain
    That is pouring like an avalanche
    Coming down the mountain
  • Options
    mag00mag00 Member Posts: 4,719 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    I guess turn about is fair play, but as Obama did with immigration enforcement legislation, Trump is doing with tax-exempt politicking legislation.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/04/trump-marks-national-day-prayer-signs-executive-order-on-religious-freedom.html

    Not only does his tax 'reform' proposal continue the needless exemption for charitable donations, he is now instructing the Justice department to look the other way if possible when tax exempt organization engage in political speech.

    I would hope that those of you who were bothered when Obama legislated from the Oval Office, are just as bothered when Trump does it, though I suspect that I would be wrong in most cases.
    Considering that tax monies are used exactly like a charitable donation, I think the exemption makes perfect sense. Don't you agree it makes sense that a person should be able to choose whether their charitable donation goes to the government to do with as they see fit, or to another organization of the person's choosing? More freedom that way, if you ask me. And considering that the tax rate I pay impacts my ability to be otherwise charitable, I can't see one reason why those donations should be taxed.


    That is correct and in direct violation of the constitution. Since charity is a function of Church, the government is mandating a church tenet, which is the EXACT reason for the The first amendment:

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    AND, right in amendment it says churches are to be FREE!
  • Options
    Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member, Moderator Posts: 66,372 ******
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by mag00
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    I guess turn about is fair play, but as Obama did with immigration enforcement legislation, Trump is doing with tax-exempt politicking legislation.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/04/trump-marks-national-day-prayer-signs-executive-order-on-religious-freedom.html

    Not only does his tax 'reform' proposal continue the needless exemption for charitable donations, he is now instructing the Justice department to look the other way if possible when tax exempt organization engage in political speech.

    I would hope that those of you who were bothered when Obama legislated from the Oval Office, are just as bothered when Trump does it, though I suspect that I would be wrong in most cases.
    Considering that tax monies are used exactly like a charitable donation, I think the exemption makes perfect sense. Don't you agree it makes sense that a person should be able to choose whether their charitable donation goes to the government to do with as they see fit, or to another organization of the person's choosing? More freedom that way, if you ask me. And considering that the tax rate I pay impacts my ability to be otherwise charitable, I can't see one reason why those donations should be taxed.


    That is correct and in direct violation of the constitution. Since charity is a function of Church, the government is mandating a church tenet, which is the EXACT reason for the The first amendment:

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    AND, right in amendment it says churches are to be FREE!
    WTH are you talking about?
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    And fiery auto crashes
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    While sifting through my ashes
    Some will fall in love with life
    And drink it from a fountain
    That is pouring like an avalanche
    Coming down the mountain
  • Options
    mag00mag00 Member Posts: 4,719 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
    quote:Originally posted by mag00
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    I guess turn about is fair play, but as Obama did with immigration enforcement legislation, Trump is doing with tax-exempt politicking legislation.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/04/trump-marks-national-day-prayer-signs-executive-order-on-religious-freedom.html

    Not only does his tax 'reform' proposal continue the needless exemption for charitable donations, he is now instructing the Justice department to look the other way if possible when tax exempt organization engage in political speech.

    I would hope that those of you who were bothered when Obama legislated from the Oval Office, are just as bothered when Trump does it, though I suspect that I would be wrong in most cases.
    Considering that tax monies are used exactly like a charitable donation, I think the exemption makes perfect sense. Don't you agree it makes sense that a person should be able to choose whether their charitable donation goes to the government to do with as they see fit, or to another organization of the person's choosing? More freedom that way, if you ask me. And considering that the tax rate I pay impacts my ability to be otherwise charitable, I can't see one reason why those donations should be taxed.


    That is correct and in direct violation of the constitution. Since charity is a function of Church, the government is mandating a church tenet, which is the EXACT reason for the The first amendment:

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    AND, right in amendment it says churches are to be FREE!
    WTH are you talking about?


    I just wrote what I am talking about. Is there something in particular you would like clarification on?
  • Options
    Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,512 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    I guess turn about is fair play, but as Obama did with immigration enforcement legislation, Trump is doing with tax-exempt politicking legislation.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/04/trump-marks-national-day-prayer-signs-executive-order-on-religious-freedom.html

    Not only does his tax 'reform' proposal continue the needless exemption for charitable donations, he is now instructing the Justice department to look the other way if possible when tax exempt organization engage in political speech.

    I would hope that those of you who were bothered when Obama legislated from the Oval Office, are just as bothered when Trump does it, though I suspect that I would be wrong in most cases.
    Considering that tax monies are used exactly like a charitable donation, I think the exemption makes perfect sense. Don't you agree it makes sense that a person should be able to choose whether their charitable donation goes to the government to do with as they see fit, or to another organization of the person's choosing? More freedom that way, if you ask me. And considering that the tax rate I pay impacts my ability to be otherwise charitable, I can't see one reason why those donations should be taxed.


    How about the freedom to donate to whomever you wish without getting approval or sanction from government, and without having to report each and every donation to that government.

    Better to reduce the tax rate and eliminate the deduction, thus ending any restrictions upon these organizations and institutions. Effectively, the deductions raise the overall tax rate, forcing all to eventually pay for the individual choices of a few. Government has no business directing and manipulating charity via the tax code.

    If the cause is just, we will give anonymously and without regard to government sanction.

    Many of us do already.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Options
    Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member, Moderator Posts: 66,372 ******
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by mag00
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
    quote:Originally posted by mag00
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    I guess turn about is fair play, but as Obama did with immigration enforcement legislation, Trump is doing with tax-exempt politicking legislation.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/04/trump-marks-national-day-prayer-signs-executive-order-on-religious-freedom.html

    Not only does his tax 'reform' proposal continue the needless exemption for charitable donations, he is now instructing the Justice department to look the other way if possible when tax exempt organization engage in political speech.

    I would hope that those of you who were bothered when Obama legislated from the Oval Office, are just as bothered when Trump does it, though I suspect that I would be wrong in most cases.
    Considering that tax monies are used exactly like a charitable donation, I think the exemption makes perfect sense. Don't you agree it makes sense that a person should be able to choose whether their charitable donation goes to the government to do with as they see fit, or to another organization of the person's choosing? More freedom that way, if you ask me. And considering that the tax rate I pay impacts my ability to be otherwise charitable, I can't see one reason why those donations should be taxed.


    That is correct and in direct violation of the constitution. Since charity is a function of Church, the government is mandating a church tenet, which is the EXACT reason for the The first amendment:

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    AND, right in amendment it says churches are to be FREE!
    WTH are you talking about?


    I just wrote what I am talking about. Is there something in particular you would like clarification on?
    Certainly. What truck do you have with logic?
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    And fiery auto crashes
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    While sifting through my ashes
    Some will fall in love with life
    And drink it from a fountain
    That is pouring like an avalanche
    Coming down the mountain
  • Options
    Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member, Moderator Posts: 66,372 ******
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    I guess turn about is fair play, but as Obama did with immigration enforcement legislation, Trump is doing with tax-exempt politicking legislation.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/04/trump-marks-national-day-prayer-signs-executive-order-on-religious-freedom.html

    Not only does his tax 'reform' proposal continue the needless exemption for charitable donations, he is now instructing the Justice department to look the other way if possible when tax exempt organization engage in political speech.

    I would hope that those of you who were bothered when Obama legislated from the Oval Office, are just as bothered when Trump does it, though I suspect that I would be wrong in most cases.
    Considering that tax monies are used exactly like a charitable donation, I think the exemption makes perfect sense. Don't you agree it makes sense that a person should be able to choose whether their charitable donation goes to the government to do with as they see fit, or to another organization of the person's choosing? More freedom that way, if you ask me. And considering that the tax rate I pay impacts my ability to be otherwise charitable, I can't see one reason why those donations should be taxed.


    How about the freedom to donate to whomever you wish without getting approval or sanction from government, and without having to report each and every donation to that government.

    Better to reduce the tax rate and eliminate the deduction, thus ending any restrictions upon these organizations and institutions. Effectively, the deductions raise the overall tax rate, forcing all to eventually pay for the individual choices of a few. Government has no business directing and manipulating charity via the tax code.

    If the cause is just, we will give anonymously and without regard to government sanction.

    Many of us do already.
    That assumes the monies that would otherwise be slated for taxes can't appropriately be repurposed without overburdening another. If the monies paid in as taxes are used for charitable purposes via the government, I would contend that by my instead putting that money into a more efficient mechanism for achieving the same goal actually REDUCES the tax required of others by drawing down the need for additional funding. NOT taking the deduction is actually increasing the tax burden of others, because you have effectively reduced the amount you could have given to a more efficient means of achieving the same goal.
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    And fiery auto crashes
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    While sifting through my ashes
    Some will fall in love with life
    And drink it from a fountain
    That is pouring like an avalanche
    Coming down the mountain
  • Options
    mag00mag00 Member Posts: 4,719 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    I guess turn about is fair play, but as Obama did with immigration enforcement legislation, Trump is doing with tax-exempt politicking legislation.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/04/trump-marks-national-day-prayer-signs-executive-order-on-religious-freedom.html

    Not only does his tax 'reform' proposal continue the needless exemption for charitable donations, he is now instructing the Justice department to look the other way if possible when tax exempt organization engage in political speech.

    I would hope that those of you who were bothered when Obama legislated from the Oval Office, are just as bothered when Trump does it, though I suspect that I would be wrong in most cases.
    Considering that tax monies are used exactly like a charitable donation, I think the exemption makes perfect sense. Don't you agree it makes sense that a person should be able to choose whether their charitable donation goes to the government to do with as they see fit, or to another organization of the person's choosing? More freedom that way, if you ask me. And considering that the tax rate I pay impacts my ability to be otherwise charitable, I can't see one reason why those donations should be taxed.


    How about the freedom to donate to whomever you wish without getting approval or sanction from government, and without having to report each and every donation to that government.

    Better to reduce the tax rate and eliminate the deduction, thus ending any restrictions upon these organizations and institutions. Effectively, the deductions raise the overall tax rate, forcing all to eventually pay for the individual choices of a few. Government has no business directing and manipulating charity via the tax code.

    If the cause is just, we will give anonymously and without regard to government sanction.

    Many of us do already.


    Don, that goes for tax money going to charities, directly at the hands of the government in response to special interests. I have no control over who gets it. It was my money, now given to somebody else who did not earn it. I am giving anonymously by govt sanction and distribution, without my permission to do so.

    If I want to donate to farmers, or pbs or planned parenthood, I will do so. But the government is taking our money and giving it out as a charity, which in essence is acting like a religion.

    The difference is the charities I choose to give to are ones that use the money in a way that I feel helps. Since the government taxes me, and thus stretching my budget so I cannot afford to give as much to my preferred charities, they are denying me my charitable good feelings.

    In a more simplified form, the government is taking the seeds for next years crops and feeding the pigeons. The pigeons really love the gubment, but crap all over my stuff.
  • Options
    Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,512 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Everyone wants a simplified tax code with lower rates, but wants their sacred cow preserved.

    Apparently we want the IRS to not only vet and sanction our charities, we want to pay the IRS to do it.

    We want to pay the IRS to not only vet the organization, but for the increased time and effort required in the evaluation of itemized returns.

    Less than 25% of tax returns itemize, and probably fewer than that need to do so.

    I don't know if you folks are speaking from actual experience or theoretically, but you must be extremely generous with your giving if you actually come out ahead enough by itemizing charitable deductions.

    If you are actually impacted, I guess I applaud you.

    At some point, however, if you actually believe in smaller government, you will have to recognize that it really means smaller government. A smaller IRS. A smaller DOD, EPA, and a DOA DOE.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • Options
    Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member, Moderator Posts: 66,372 ******
    edited November -1
    Don, it's not a sacred cow I want preserved in the least. If I thought for one moment that my tax burden would be eased, and that government reduction implemented, by simply not taking a deduction for charitable giving, I'd do it in a heartbeat. But you know and I know that isn't going to happen.

    No one is a bigger proponent for a simplified tax code than me. I have frequently proposed a straight federal sales tax. If anyone was ever serious about proposing it, they could even introduce exemptions for bread, milk, and similar staples.

    That is what I want to see.


    In the mean time, government thinks it's a charitable organization doing charitable work, so I'm going to withhold from it as much as I can and put that money into other actual charities, because it (government) is the least efficient means of charity one could imagine. I urge you to do what you deem best. [:)]
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    And fiery auto crashes
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    While sifting through my ashes
    Some will fall in love with life
    And drink it from a fountain
    That is pouring like an avalanche
    Coming down the mountain
  • Options
    Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,512 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    ????

    It is obvious that an individual not taking a deduction will change nothing. The point is that we were promised a simplification of the tax code and a reduction of tax rates. (This is an old promise that we probably should not have expected to be kept, but one can hope.) Maintaining government oversight and manipulation of charitable giving and the housing market keeps the problem in place.

    The action noted in the OP suggests that this administration is going to kick the door open for political involvement by charities. While I encourage anyone who wants to give to a political movement to do so, there is no logical or practical reason that others should be burdened by the action.

    Your point about the federal government acting like a charity is well taken. Social Security and Medicare are paying out more than they are taking in. The DOD budget is twisted through Congress so as to placate Congress members and parcel jobs and money for votes.

    Trump's thumb and pen have committed to increasing spending in all these areas, yet he expands the number of organizations that can legally be called charities.

    I have attempted to find how much money was deducted via 501(c) contributions, but thus far have not been able. I would propose that the solution is to calculate what percentage this is of Federal Revenue, reduce each tax bracket by that percentage and eliminate the deduction.

    Carving out additional nooks and crannies by executive fiat deepens rather than drains the swamp.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
Sign In or Register to comment.