Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mike

Cindy McCain, First Lady of Drift

Recommended Posts

09-12-2008 07:23 PM

cindymccain.png If you haven’t been following the giant mudslinging contest known as the 2008 presidential campaign, consider yourself smart, as banging one’s head against a wall repeatedly does tend to kill off brain cells. However, we at JNC feel that its our duty to keep you informed, and at least one important fact has emerged from the current political season that we’re sure will prove vital when it comes time to elect our next leader: Cindy McCain, wife of candidate John McCain, not only owns a Nissan 240SX - which is totally foxy in and of itself - but she also takes it to the track. To drift.

According to this ESPN article and video, the 54-year-old heiress of one of the largest Anheuser-Busch distributors in the US* was watching TV with her son six years ago when she saw some footage of the ancient Japanese tradition of dorifto. Instantly captivated by the art of throwing one’s car sideways in a controlled slide, she traveled to Japan to learn the skill from one of the craft’s masters (whom, the article does not name).

For the next two years, she and her son Jack traveled back and forth to Japan many times to hone her training, and even when she suffered a stroke upon returning from one of these trips, she didn’t let that stop her from getting behind the wheel. Six weeks later, she was in an executive protection driving course at the Bondurant School of High Performance Driving at Jack’s behest, learning how to perform 180s and evade hijackers. Then in 2005, she and Jack began building the 240SX with, as ESPN says, a “tricked out engine.”

So basically, what we have here is a potential First Lady of the United States that can clutch-kick an S13 around the White House Ellipse. Plus, she’s filthy rich and has access to an endless supply of beer? Forget the Black dude and the old guy, Cindy McCain for President!

[ESPN via Autoblog]

More...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God Bless America. Brings a tear to my eye.... :D

Edited by DeMoore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being an heiress married to a potential president living a playgirl's life drifting around at 54 years of age is an enviable position, even if your husband is John McCain.

At least between her and Palin it would keep interesting in the capitol, and entertainment value is really the only thing we should take into account in terms of politicians (I'd say that's why I voted Schwarzenegger, except that the same logic should have applied to me voting for Larry Flynt).

Knowing by default that no matter what they say their character is already broken, and that they're a product of society in the first place rather than a determinant or affector of it, I say vote simply for whoever promises the best antics. It worked with Clinton, but I suppose it may be disproved by the fact that endless Bushisms and a vice president who shoots people in the face didn't make anyone any happier (though I think the American public hardly expected any of that...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This woman looks like a stepford wife. She really is frightening.

With the direction the McCain campaign has gone, the fact that she knows how to race cars probably makes her experienced enough to run for president; with potential VP Palin, who can run a mean bake-sale for the PTA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, we could possibly have a car enthusiast as well as an avid hunter (Palin) in the white house. Those darn Republicans are so out of touch with the average American.

Steve

Edited by doradox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This woman looks like a stepford wife. She really is frightening.

With the direction the McCain campaign has gone, the fact that she knows how to race cars probably makes her experienced enough to run for president; with potential VP Palin, who can run a mean bake-sale for the PTA!

I disagree on this, I think for a 54 yr old lady, she looks kinda hot. Throw in her millions and I would hook up with her in a heartbeat :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, we could possibly have a car enthusiast as well as an avid hunter (Palin) in the white house. Those darn Republicans are so out of touch with the average American.

Steve

Well, I love cars and guns, and I am Republican - so they certainly aren't out of touch with me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I love cars and guns, and I am Republican - so they certainly aren't out of touch with me!

That's what I meant.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realistically I can't vote for McCain/Palin.

Because in my mind it will have been better to regret something I did than something I didn't do, even if Obama/whoever it was again? bombs.

I don't know about other places, but if we're going to talk about who compares to the common man/woman in SoCal, it's not anyone who's a republican (ok, MAYBE it is in the Inland Empire...)

And I have to say, I don't care for guns, I do care about the environment etc... my only concession to being a redneck is car love... And then they're Japanese LOL I'd vote for the correct Republican, in fact I'm registered as one. But McCain isn't it, though Obama isn't much closer (to someone I'd vote for, that is).

If the Republicans fielded a more socially just character who could also carry out a sensible economic agenda (McCain isn't, he's just being all politician about it)... Maybe Obama doesn't have the experience but... I think we owe it to ourselves to give him a try, or we'll regret what might have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The notion of someone voting for McCain because of the alternative hobbies of his wife & VP seem ludicrous. Whatever happened to the "issues" anyways?

Cindy McCain is rich as hell, but what has she done with her life and abundant financial resources? I'll tell you..........Jack $^!#. Just another super rich trust fund baby. I wonder how many of the members here can relate to the McCain family and their boatloads of money. I wasn't aware CZCC had so many well-to-do members.

Like most Americans, I feel the effect of high gas prices. I doubt John and Cindy are remotely phased when they pull up to the pump, and notice gas is $4.00 a gallon. I would be surprised if either of them even pump their own gas.

"Palin shoots" --- Yeah, all sorts of bears and wolves. I'm sure it would be lovely having someone in office that is all for pushing back protected polar bear habitat because she thinks they are "over breeding, and a nuisance". I don't know about you guys, but I certainly don't find to have anything in common with an extremist that gets off to killing wild animals, doesn't believe in "human impact on the environment", and wants to push back protected habitat for more oil drilling. Let me not even mention her whacked out position on women's rights and anti-choice.

I personally find that the Republican party harbor arse-backward views that I think this country needs to begin getting away from. The Republicans have been running this country over the past 8 years, and have put us in the "$^!#" we are now in. Americans just need to realize that it's time for change.

(PS: I'm not aiming to offend anyone, just sharing my views on the subject)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The notion of someone voting for McCain because of the alternative hobbies of his wife & VP seem ludicrous. Whatever happened to the "issues" anyways?

Cindy McCain is rich as hell, but what has she done with her life and abundant financial resources? I'll tell you..........Jack $^!#. Just another super rich trust fund baby. I wonder how many of the members here can relate to the McCain family and their boatloads of money. I wasn't aware CZCC had so many well-to-do members.

Like most Americans, I feel the effect of high gas prices. I doubt John and Cindy are remotely phased when they pull up to the pump, and notice gas is $4.00 a gallon. I would be surprised if either of them even pump their own gas.

"Palin shoots" --- Yeah, all sorts of bears and wolves. I'm sure it would be lovely having someone in office that is all for pushing back protected polar bear habitat because she thinks they are "over breeding, and a nuisance". I don't know about you guys, but I certainly don't find to have anything in common with an extremist that gets off to killing wild animals, doesn't believe in "human impact on the environment", and wants to push back protected habitat for more oil drilling. Let me not even mention her whacked out position on women's rights and anti-choice.

I personally find that the Republican party harbor arse-backward views that I think this country needs to begin getting away from. The Republicans have been running this country over the past 8 years, and have put us in the "$^!#" we are now in. Americans just need to realize that it's time for change.

(PS: I'm not aiming to offend anyone, just sharing my views on the subject)

Please do not take this the wrong way here guys I'm not trying to start a flame war but this is a classic example of a Democrat.

You want lower gas prices, but you don't want to drill for oil. What are we going to do give more money to the Arabs? Well that might do us good, air plains are expensive, maybe if we keep giving them more money they can develop better ways to attack us.

You don't want high gas prices but you don't want to drill for oil.How do you expect us to get it? Democrats don't know what they want so they bitch about everything.

You also complain about hunting, how do you think the animal population is controlled? I guess it will be controlled on the front of peoples cars and in the city streets. "unless you want to convince them to wear rubbers...

While I do not agree with the way this country is heading it is far from the republicans fault. It is all our fault for allowing our countries finances to be wasted on things like slavery retribution and welfare or food stamps. Or on this war that had it not been for the democrats bitching about people getting blown up would have been over a long time ago. Drop a nuke, kill em all. Drill the oil for ourselves. Problem solved.

I dare anyone to say they wouldn't do the same to us.

Edited by Fun_in_my_z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think gas prices SHOULD go up, to encourage the development of alternative transportation... We can't stick on oil forever. For many liberals, that's what is seen before anything. Then we won't have to drill for oil, and oil prices should go down ;)

(Yes, I'd be fine with adapting an electric engine to my Z)

IMO things like welfare and the government aiding the poor aren't the policies that have weakened the American economy... Those are simply things necessary on a humanitarian level. Does everyone who receives the benefits of those programs deserve them? Do some? Who's to judge?

The government's interventions into economy and industry in general have been far more negative in the long run, in terms of screwing the country up. In a way perhaps, that's the most right wing thing that could possibly be said, but lately it seems that trying to come up with zany ways to "protect" American industries, consumers, whatever have been the domains of the Republicans just as much as the Democrats. And none of those things is ever good in the short, let alone long run.

I can't trust the opinions, on an equal humanitarian level, of someone with the "kill em all" mentality. The notion that all money going to the middle east sponsors terrorism is a bit iffy... Worst case scenario, the Arabs have enough money to buy up US industry and control us. So what? At that point, we can threaten a freeze on their assets, and then where will they be. Our economic influence is and has been our greatest weapon. It got rid of the Soviets after all.

Is the Republican party out to use scare tactics that make people think that we have to cut programs for the social good, elect McCain, and bomb the hell out of the middle east, or suffer some horrible fate? And ok, if we did that... would we still have honor? There are more logical ways to envision an efficient economy, though perhaps the spectrum of changes that must take place are too much for some.

As for "rich" people on this forum... My last car was a Lotus Esprit, so you can imagine the incomes of people there (though mine is nowhere near the level of some of those people... yet ROFL) and it was more liberal than this. Someone add commentary.

While I do not agree with the way this country is heading it is far from the republicans fault. It is all our fault for allowing our countries finances to be wasted on things like slavery retribution and welfare or food stamps. Or on this war that had it not been for the democrats bitching about people getting blown up would have been over a long time ago. Drop a nuke, kill em all. Drill the oil for ourselves. Problem solved.

I dare anyone to say they wouldn't do the same to us.

Edited by Danglybanger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally I think gas prices SHOULD go up, to encourage the development of alternative transportation... We can't stick on oil forever. For many liberals, that's what is seen before anything. Then we won't have to drill for oil, and oil prices should go down ;)

(Yes, I'd be fine with adapting an electric engine to my Z)

Why wait? Set a good example and do it now.

And it's interesting that you think fuel prices should go up. Little or no effect on those that can afford it (the rich), devastating to those who can't (the poor). Oh wait, another opportunity to buy votes by taxing those who actually create the wealth in this country and giving it to those who don't.

IMO things like welfare and the government aiding the poor aren't the policies that have weakened the American economy... Those are simply things necessary on a humanitarian level. Does everyone who receives the benefits of those programs deserve them? Do some? Who's to judge?

Who's to judge? Those who pay for it. The 50% of tax payers that pay 95% of the taxes. When you have two classes, those who receive from the government and those who have their income confiscated by the government you have a problem.

There are more logical ways to envision an efficient economy, though perhaps the spectrum of changes that must take place are too much for some.

I really hope those changes you speak of involve less government and lower taxes because that is the logical way to increase the efficiency of our economy. I'm not sure, but I think Senator Obama isn't leaning in that direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, did this thread take a severe turn! Politics can be such a slippery slope on a website (or anywhere else). And, as they say, I ain't goin there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drilling for Oil isn't going to solve our energy problems. Oil drilling has always been seen as a last resort, and I am genuinely shocked that Americans are actually considering it as a real problem-solver. The oil companies have tons of land that hasn't even been tapped yet, and now their saying they need more?

Once the oil IS tapped, where do you think it goes? Straight into Americans' gas tanks? Nope! These oil companies might be American based companies, but they do business on the international level. The oil will go to the highest bidder, most likely CHINA. So all drilling for oil in the U.S will do is add more to counter the global demand; maybe the government should come out and speak the truth, instead of spinning it in a way where if we drill we'll have cheap gasoline again...NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

We Americans have had it easy, and still do when it comes to gasoline (even though it's going up). Compare our costs to Europe and you'll know what i'm talking about. Unfortunately, we're too damn stupid to have taken preventive measures for reliance on a diminishing fossil fuel, in hopes that it will be cheap forever. You reap what you sow, and in this case; our ignorance is starting to take effect and we're all starting to pay for it. Instead of remaining dependant on OIL, start throwing some real money into alternative energy and give government kick-backs and incentive for the citizens to buy such things. You know how expensive SOLAR Panels are? Why can't the government start a program to produce these for cheap, or at least to make them tax deductible?! We need to make incentives for being green, because right now it's just TOO expensive; something that can be fixed!

It's easy to bitch about food stamps and welfare, when it's the war that has thrown this country into massive debt; not our local domestic policies to deal with the poorest of the poor. If you are ever in the situation where you need government assistance, I really hope you get it. I'm sick of how rich people bitch about welfare; I guess they can't understand what it's like to be a single mom with kids and a deadbeat father...or to have disability and be unable to get work. Republicans forget about these people and generalize welfare-receivers to a bunch of people who are taking advantage and abusing the system.

If we didn't spend all of our money on the wars in the Middle east; welfare wouldn't even be an issue. I'm still waiting for the day a republican will admit the fact that the wars are the real cause of this country's financial problems. Everytime Bush goes to congress and asks for another 40 - 50 billion dollars for the war, it puts us farther and farther into debt: and diminishes any hope of that spending going into the problems that in fact DO effect all Americans, such as domestic spending on issues that hit us here at home.

If you are interested about our war-costs - Read this: http://zfacts.com/p/447.html (funnily enough the site is called Z-FACTS: I thought it was relative)

Motorsport: You fail to remember the surplus this country had when Clinton left office. Whatever happened to that budget and money was no ones fault but Bush and his administration. He took surplus and and turned it into massive debt. You cannot blame the "failed national spending" on our economic situation.

Drop a nuke, kill em all. Drill the oil for ourselves. Problem solved.

Why am I not surprised?

Edited by mikewags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drilling for Oil isn't going to solve our energy problems. Oil drilling has always been seen as a last resort, and I am genuinely shocked that Americans are actually considering it as a real problem-solver. The oil companies have tons of land that hasn't even been tapped yet, and now their saying they need more?

Once the oil IS tapped, where do you think it goes? Straight into Americans' gas tanks? Nope! These oil companies might be American based companies, but they do business on the international level. The oil will go to the highest bidder, most likely CHINA. So all drilling for oil in the U.S will do is add more to counter the global demand; maybe the government should come out and speak the truth, instead of spinning it in a way where if we drill we'll have cheap gasoline again...NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

Simple supply and demand. If we don't drill demand will continue to increase and supply will shrink regardless of who buys "our" oil. Prices WILL go up. At best we can bring online more supply to help slow that trend. That will keep prices lower than if we do nothing. Even the idea that we would start drilling will make speculators a little more cautious. Meanwhile oil prices are high enough to drive investment into oil replacements and efficiency increases. The fact is that we need energy NOW. Our economy, you know, that thing that invests in research to find oil alternatives, needs that energy to stay healthy. I agree that drilling won't give us cheap gas. I might keep prices stable and at the very least will reduce the rate of increase. That's not a bad thing. Long term the world needs off the oil and to stop the only source of income to our "friends" in the Middle East and others like Chavez.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mikewags/doradox

I believe you are both allowing yourself to be mislead by the political propaganda from both parties. Exchanging political talking points and slogans really won't get any of us anywhere.

mikewags has a good point about the current global market for oil, but his conclusions/solutions are in my opinion misdirected. I'd suggest that there are other solutions - that neither political party has any incentive to discuss nor address.

1. Oil has indeed become a global commodity now controlled by global corporations, without any serious competition, nor allegiance to any Country. It hasn't always been that way, nor is there any reason for it to stay that way, other than US voter ignorance / apathy.

There is no reason that U.S. Oil Companies could not be again chartered to extract oil within the U.S. and confined to selling it here. The great oil monopolies of the 1920's were broken up and competition within our free markets was assured by the proper legislation. Over the past 20 years we have allowed the major oil companies to merge again, and again establish a strangle hold on our markets. If both political parties were not bought and paid for by them - we could turn that situation around again.

The idea that there is not enough oil - is pure political BS according to all the experts that testified before Congressional committees, under oath. The only disagreement was on the number of years of supply we have domestically - and that was between 75 and 150 years of oil, natural gas and coal. (watch the live testimony on CSPAN, then compare what you heard to what the media reports, or what the political parties profess - you'll be astounded).

So before we allow any additional drilling - we need to insist that the drilling be done by US Corporations restricted to selling that oil within the US. We need to insist that the companies extracting that oil, are prohibited from refining it, and distributing the refined products. Competition has to be assured at every level, and every level has to be restricted to operations within the level. Oil companies will have to compete for customers among the oil refiners, oil refiners will have to compete for customers among the gasoline distributors, and the distributors will have to compete for customers among the gasoline retailers. None would be allowed to grow huge and powerful - all could be operated profitably. Gasoline could easily be brought back down to $0.75 per gallon..

However - we would have to allow more refineries to be spread around the country, closer to the end customers. We would have to stop taxing all medium and small businesses - out of business.

The National Debt

I suggest you both take some time to actually look at our National Budget. Arguing about welfare/food stamps or even the amount spent on the war in Iraq shows that neither of you really comprehend the national debt, nor the future national budget problems. The items that will bankrupt the US are the costs of the entitlement programs, that both parties have used to buy your votes. Social Security, Medicare and the interest on the National Debt they both racked up by unchecked political spending.

We are still afloat today, only because the SSI and Medicare are presently running huge surpluses (which are not being saved to pay out obligations in the future as originally promised in the 1940's when people were given a Social Security Trust Account Number) but rather being spent to pay current operating expenses in the general fund. This is the practice that will bankrupt GM/Ford pretty soon ie... promising to pay future benefits out of future revenue. Also the practice that bankrupt several of the old airlines already.

When the largest part of the US population - the baby boomers retire and quite paying into these socialists systems, then start drawing out the promised benefits - the rest of the working population will not be able to sustain the tax burden. The next generation of American's will find themselves in about the same situation that the average Russian did in 1990. Having been taxed so heavily for so long, they had no savings of their own. Having worked for the Government, they had no job. Having no private property they had no home... Socialistic systems are great for the first people to draw benefits - but they bankrupt all governments that have tried them, and they leave all succeeding generations in poverty. (just look at recent world history).

Make no mistake - a government that can give you everything, can also take everything from you. They always do.

If you care about the most needy among us, then take care of them at the local level. Your church, your city. There they are known. At the Federal level they are mostly fraud of unbelievable levels. (can you say katerina/New Orleans without saying fraud, massive fraud!).

FWIW,

Carl B.

The solution - throw the incumbents out of office no matter their Party. Do that for three or four election cycles - and the Government would start representing the American People again. Big Money would have no effect and big money would drop out - real issues would take center stage.

Do not allow anyone to become a professional politican - enforce term limits by voting them out. Make them come home and live under the laws they passed, beside their neighbors again.

Keep believing that you are a Red Shirt or a Blue Shirt - and they will continue taking the shirt off your back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DISCLAIMER:

Once again, we are just debating here, and if this is better left for another forums, just say so. I assume that only those interested in this subject would check this post, perhaps it should be moved to a seperate thread since the original post was hijacked long ago (and partially thanks to me). I really don't want to offend anyone's personal beliefs, and would think it best for the open-minded to engage in conversation like this. I am personally curious what the majority is (McCain/Obama) here at CZCC, but I don't know if it is appropriate.

***

Well said Carl. While I personally have some discrepancies with some of your opinions, I think some of what you say about OIL production is valid. I think just because some things are possible, and reasonable; it doesn't mean the politicians in Washington will go the route to see them done in that fashion (in terms of Oil distribution/sale). I don't think gasoline will ever come back down to $0.75 - or $1.50 for that matter. Perhaps only when alternative energies dominate the market, will oil drop in price because it is not as in high of a demand, as well as deemed a "dirty energy".

The reason I don't support Republicans is because I cannot identify with the candidates they run for office. I cannot relate to John McCain. From what I know about him, he has a very militant mindset, and the way he talks about International relations, going to war, and his general demeanor about America's place in the world --- to me, is both arrogant and close minded. He also doesn't feel like a politician of the new generation, more of the older ways; and I think it's important that we have leadership that can evolve with the ever changing world.

As for WAR:

I am not for having our troops in WAR overseas for long periods of time unless it's absolutely necessary and the last resort. Our current occupation in Iraq to me is a joke; we the tax-payers are watching our dollars go to this "War on Terror". The war on terror is like a "war on crime", or a "war on poverty"; the two will always exist. It is a ideological war that can go on forever. The war against terrorism should be a global task, not one left for one of the major superpowers to handle by ourselves. If we want to remain a superpower, we need to be weary of the kinds of things that can make our economy vulnerable as well as our country as a whole. I personally believe that just because something might be for the right cause, you still need to weigh the risks associated with trying to carry out that particular task.

If war was to be the the necessary action, where we should have been from day 1 is Afghanistan. 9/11 justified a war on Al-Qaeda and the country of Afghanistan; not Iraq. Attacking Iraq proved to the world our ignorance when it came to differentiating the people of the middle east. If the defense is that Iraq was loaded with terrorists and Al-Qaeda, who's to say we cannot occupy other countries when we decide to "clean house"? Saddam Hussein was one evil mother, I will not disagree with that --- and world is probably a better place now that he is 6 feet under; but there was one thing that him and his regime were successful at; that is ruling these people with an iron fist and keeping terrorism low in Iraq. This Islamic extremism might of been better handled by Saddam, and extremist himself.

Perhaps the Iraqi and it's people are just not ready for a Democracy, has anyone ever thought of that?

Edited by mikewags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mikewags/doradox

None would be allowed to grow huge and powerful - all could be operated profitably. Gasoline could easily be brought back down to $0.75 per gallon..

However - we would have to allow more refineries to be spread around the country, closer to the end customers. We would have to stop taxing all medium and small businesses - out of business.

Easily brought down to $0.75 a gallon? You're smoking crack. With 35-40 cents per gallon in tax that leaves at best 40 cents per gallon. 5-10 cents for the retailer and you are down to 30-35 cents a gallon left for drilling, refining, distribution. At $10 a barrel, ( an order of magnitude less than the current price) raw material would cost 24 cents a gallon assuming all 42 gallons of could be made into gas. More like 25-30 at best. So now you've got between 0 and 11 cents a gallon to refine and distribute. I can see a future where investors are lining up around the block for a chance at that kind of money.

If oil were free, unlimited in supply, and magically appeared in the pipelines 75 cents/gallon could be a reality. Did I actually say reality?

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Will Rodgers said " politician are like diapers, they need to be changed often and for the same reason. Politics and Z cars don't mix. On the other hand, blonds, beer, $$$ and Z cars do.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Easily brought down to $0.75 a gallon? You're smoking crack.

Ok - make it $1.25 if you like. Heck make it $1.50...

I don't think it advances a logical discussion of the main subject (our overall energy policy, supply/demand, alternatives to consider etc) to allow ourselves to get side tracked debating the project price per gallon.

The real question is - Is it feasible to regain control of our own government, and once again make it responsive to the needs/desires of its citizens, rather than being driven by greed, money and power. (aka... freeing the capitalists to pillage the Global Market as they see fit)

I think the secondary question is - what can we actually expect to do, in a reasonably short (3-5 years) period of time to keep ourselves and our economy above water, as it related to the US's energy needs.

There are so many serious issues and problems facing every alternative source of energy - that we the people really need far more complete information than we are getting. I seriously doubt that we will get it from the current batch of politicians, nor the current media.

FWIW,

Carl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 96 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.