gc70
Member
Agreed, but money is the differentiating factor. If you attend a prestigious university and later make a few million dollars in donations, you can be sure that the university will bend over backwards to allow your children to attend.
questions: minorities and the 2A have come up a lot lately.
- Thread starter ryan in maine
- Start date
- Status
Agreed, but money is the differentiating factor. If you attend a prestigious university and later make a few million dollars in donations, you can be sure that the university will bend over backwards to allow your children to attend.
If you read it as 'all conservatives feel this way' then I'm sorry, that wasn't my intention.
But it is the way some conservatives feel, and it isn't enough of an issue to others to drive others away. You don't think people of color notice that?
Take the lefty kook-du-jour, Cynthia McKinney. Complete waste, as far as I'm concerned - and she got thrown out in the Dem primary after her anti-Semitic remarks and looking like a fool. That tells me that Democrats in general and her constituents in particular, aren't believers in her personal philosophy.
But Jesse Helms was never taken to task and remains something of a hero. Reagan is certainly a hero. Neither ever had to repudiate the racism they had engaged with in order to get elected.
Doesn't seem to bother conservatives and Republicans.
But it is the way some conservatives feel, and it isn't enough of an issue to others to drive others away. You don't think people of color notice that?
Take the lefty kook-du-jour, Cynthia McKinney. Complete waste, as far as I'm concerned - and she got thrown out in the Dem primary after her anti-Semitic remarks and looking like a fool. That tells me that Democrats in general and her constituents in particular, aren't believers in her personal philosophy.
But Jesse Helms was never taken to task and remains something of a hero. Reagan is certainly a hero. Neither ever had to repudiate the racism they had engaged with in order to get elected.
You don't think they appealed to his voters? Why did he use them? Why did he get elected over and over? Why didn't the national Republican party (or conservatives) throw him overboard?
But that's the problem. Reagan's argument about these cheaters (who are a statistical anomaly) was a complete and utter fabrication with racist overtones.
Doesn't seem to bother conservatives and Republicans.
Beagle-zebub
Member
If you are wondering how Jesse Helms (or Strom Thurmond, or Robert Byrd) managed to get re-elected without completely representing his constituencies, just think about why the American public votes the way it does in any other federal election: the two-party and primary systems essentially force them to choose between the lesser of two evils. Then consider the added incentive for re-electing an incumbent, turd or not, to the state he represents.
No, that's not how the legacy clauses work. You just get selective preference if your parents were alumni. It doesn't matter if they did or didn't donate to the U. Money can also be a factor. You can buy your kid into a univeristy. Donate a new library to Harvard in exchange for getting your D student kid in. But that's not the legacy clause I'm talking about.
Ha, so he actually developed the same impression and in the same place I was? He really should've come over to the western side of the state. The people there are so much friendlier, it's like night and day. He may be a conservative now, but he'll probably convert like us when he sees how much better people in liberal seattle area treat you compared to the conservatives out east. It's hard for a minority to stay conservative when you see how the people from liberal areas greet you with smiles, and the people from conservative rural areas won't even look you in the eye.
innerpiece
Member
****... Im glad I only read 2 pages of this thread....
IGNORANCE IS BLISS...
fortunately imo, some of the most ignorant outlooks in this thread will have no influance beyond their own offspring...
and fortunately we all have a right to our opinion, weather it makes a difference or NOT..lol
and fortunately....
we have intelligent folks with whom we can :banghead: 's with over our opinins and thoughts...
one thing for certian.. when/if, our leaders are EVER to a degree that is fair to people of our country..ALL people, of our country.. Ill be glad to spend more time talking about polotics...
Till then.. Ill concern myself with the simple things thay dont have controll of..like what I eat, when me n the wife ruffle sheets, and how I think..
ip.
IGNORANCE IS BLISS...
fortunately imo, some of the most ignorant outlooks in this thread will have no influance beyond their own offspring...
and fortunately we all have a right to our opinion, weather it makes a difference or NOT..lol
and fortunately....
we have intelligent folks with whom we can :banghead: 's with over our opinins and thoughts...
one thing for certian.. when/if, our leaders are EVER to a degree that is fair to people of our country..ALL people, of our country.. Ill be glad to spend more time talking about polotics...
Till then.. Ill concern myself with the simple things thay dont have controll of..like what I eat, when me n the wife ruffle sheets, and how I think..
ip.
gc70
Member
If you prefer to believe that legacy clauses are racially motivated, explain why they existed when the prestigious schools were lilly-white.
ryan in maine
Member
well folks, thanks for giving me a whole lot of information to work with and thanks for keeping things from getting heated (please continue to do so). I'd like to reply right away and to everyone, but, being honest, it's kind of beyond my realm of current knowledge (and time). this is a good start tho. this will probly keep me busy researching for weeks.
and I realize this has been off topic @ times, but I don't think we should worry about that so much in this particular discussion. it would appear that in this case and the related off-shoots from my original post, that one must truly factor in everything to get an understanding of minorities current political positions in general and this directly ties to the 2A.
it seems to me that the key points are largely based on past events (understandable and somewhat inescapable to this day), and bad conservative icons who are quite extremist and negatively effect conservatism in the long run, compared to the members of THR, who are some of the most impressive lateral thinkers I've come across (and also, I could be wrong on this, buuut, it would seem that liberals are no longer liberal and conservatives are no longer conservative in the public eye today, and in effect, policy tends to clash more than ever could have been imagined).
the one conclusion I feel confident in making with my current understanding of things? it's us who have to be understanding of the past and encourage minorities to support the 2A. the members of THR and the folks who we hold in high regard. if there will never be a candidate who can properly unite conservatives and liberals (and if it happens would said candidate qualify as an alchemist?), then it's up to us to become a large, living and breathing entity to take the place of the ghost candidate. it seems it's about time we all make a conscious effort to reach out. as of now, almost every minority (especially black folks) that I know are ready and raring to vote for Obama.
a question for the minority members of THR who have replied in this discussion tho... what are you folks doing to encourage your friends and relatives to support the 2A? do you make an effort to get them to recognize it as a major civil liberty, and one that they should support in line with their social and economic liberties?
and I realize this has been off topic @ times, but I don't think we should worry about that so much in this particular discussion. it would appear that in this case and the related off-shoots from my original post, that one must truly factor in everything to get an understanding of minorities current political positions in general and this directly ties to the 2A.
it seems to me that the key points are largely based on past events (understandable and somewhat inescapable to this day), and bad conservative icons who are quite extremist and negatively effect conservatism in the long run, compared to the members of THR, who are some of the most impressive lateral thinkers I've come across (and also, I could be wrong on this, buuut, it would seem that liberals are no longer liberal and conservatives are no longer conservative in the public eye today, and in effect, policy tends to clash more than ever could have been imagined).
the one conclusion I feel confident in making with my current understanding of things? it's us who have to be understanding of the past and encourage minorities to support the 2A. the members of THR and the folks who we hold in high regard. if there will never be a candidate who can properly unite conservatives and liberals (and if it happens would said candidate qualify as an alchemist?), then it's up to us to become a large, living and breathing entity to take the place of the ghost candidate. it seems it's about time we all make a conscious effort to reach out. as of now, almost every minority (especially black folks) that I know are ready and raring to vote for Obama.
a question for the minority members of THR who have replied in this discussion tho... what are you folks doing to encourage your friends and relatives to support the 2A? do you make an effort to get them to recognize it as a major civil liberty, and one that they should support in line with their social and economic liberties?
I didn't say that. When did I ever say they're racially motivated? They're not racially motivated. They just ended up giving whites a preference, specifically because they existed when the prestigious schools were lily white. Do you not understand this concept? They were basically completely white due to racially motivated selection back then, and the since the legacy clauses give a severe kick forward for the white children of those white alumni, and this continues onwards and onwards, it benefits them and the coming white generations of those alumni. Only more modern times had minorities started breaking in as racial discrimination decreased, and as new wave blood they have to go against those lineages of alumni who have an advantage.
Last edited:
miconoakisland
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2006
- Messages
- 66
Micro-socionomics
People want either more money given to them from the government or less money taken from them from the government.
Democrats give more to the poorer, taken from the wealthy (monetary redistribution).
Republicans take less from the wealthy so that more jobs are created for the poor.
Over-simplified, but basically true.
The basic feeling is that republicans are a bunch of wealthy padding their own pockets at the expense of others' toil. Democrats pander to feelings to exploit personal power at the expense of constituents, which they feel are beneath them.
My basic beef is that the two-party system is outdated and in dire need of reform to preserve the confidence and trust in the republic.
I would like to see a viable third or fourth party.
This could be accomplished by instituting equal city, county, state and federal campaign monies to other parties. It wouldn't change politics overnight, but throughout the years/decades, more and more third party candidates would be elected and have the needed exposure.
Minorities vote so that they may recieve more free state or federal benefits such as welfare, subsidies, medicaid. They don't care about the long term effects of this system, as long as they "get what's their's". This backwards thinking results in generational government dependence (the Democratic goal). With no time to spend on actually earning a living, time is spent in defrauding and seeking un-recordable methods (drugs, prostitution) of increasing their standard of living. By providing incentives to increase benefits by pro-creating irresponsibly, the cycle continues unabated.
Republicans are "big-money" motivated. Screw the masses for the benefit of the few large contributors. CEO attrocities, big-money lawsuit defenses, exploit the "lesser man" mentality, and .gov intrusion in the name of security is just as bad as the scare, "epidemic", "the sky is falling", "government will solve all your problems" tactics of the Democratic party.
To have faith in the system of our government, one must have faith in the one of the two parties. Those disenfranchised with the two parties, but with a deep love for our country, are left out of the process due to common sense and bleeding foreheads from beating our heads against brick walls!:banghead:
In most government/standardized tests we are given four choices, in choices of government, only two.
Go figure.
People want either more money given to them from the government or less money taken from them from the government.
Democrats give more to the poorer, taken from the wealthy (monetary redistribution).
Republicans take less from the wealthy so that more jobs are created for the poor.
Over-simplified, but basically true.
The basic feeling is that republicans are a bunch of wealthy padding their own pockets at the expense of others' toil. Democrats pander to feelings to exploit personal power at the expense of constituents, which they feel are beneath them.
My basic beef is that the two-party system is outdated and in dire need of reform to preserve the confidence and trust in the republic.
I would like to see a viable third or fourth party.
This could be accomplished by instituting equal city, county, state and federal campaign monies to other parties. It wouldn't change politics overnight, but throughout the years/decades, more and more third party candidates would be elected and have the needed exposure.
Minorities vote so that they may recieve more free state or federal benefits such as welfare, subsidies, medicaid. They don't care about the long term effects of this system, as long as they "get what's their's". This backwards thinking results in generational government dependence (the Democratic goal). With no time to spend on actually earning a living, time is spent in defrauding and seeking un-recordable methods (drugs, prostitution) of increasing their standard of living. By providing incentives to increase benefits by pro-creating irresponsibly, the cycle continues unabated.
Republicans are "big-money" motivated. Screw the masses for the benefit of the few large contributors. CEO attrocities, big-money lawsuit defenses, exploit the "lesser man" mentality, and .gov intrusion in the name of security is just as bad as the scare, "epidemic", "the sky is falling", "government will solve all your problems" tactics of the Democratic party.
To have faith in the system of our government, one must have faith in the one of the two parties. Those disenfranchised with the two parties, but with a deep love for our country, are left out of the process due to common sense and bleeding foreheads from beating our heads against brick walls!:banghead:
In most government/standardized tests we are given four choices, in choices of government, only two.
Go figure.
The subject is FAR more complicated than this, and I don't agree with these perceptions overall(so don't start blasting me) ...but A lot of minorities (and lower income people of all races) see conservatives as people who:
1) Have no money for urban youth programs -unless that program is to send them overseas to kill other poor non-white people.
2) Control and profit from the world's resources, by using poor people to fight and die for them (post Korea).
2) Are against abortion and even birth control (in the past) -yet offer no assistance in defraying expenses associated with unplanned children.
3) Have money for the war on some drugs and lots of prisons- but no money for education and job training.
4) Have no problem with Seagrams, Busch, and Ely Lily making billions off of their products, while sending young black men to prison for selling a pound of pot.
5) Use the War on some drugs to violate just about every other civil liberty they have.
6) See every black person with a gun as a threat...so why not make everyone give them up?
1) Have no money for urban youth programs -unless that program is to send them overseas to kill other poor non-white people.
2) Control and profit from the world's resources, by using poor people to fight and die for them (post Korea).
2) Are against abortion and even birth control (in the past) -yet offer no assistance in defraying expenses associated with unplanned children.
3) Have money for the war on some drugs and lots of prisons- but no money for education and job training.
4) Have no problem with Seagrams, Busch, and Ely Lily making billions off of their products, while sending young black men to prison for selling a pound of pot.
5) Use the War on some drugs to violate just about every other civil liberty they have.
6) See every black person with a gun as a threat...so why not make everyone give them up?
gc70
Member
Ah! A different perspective. Thanks.
Oops, left out a word during the editing. But I think you got what it meant... I think. Only in more modern times has racial discrimination declined to the point where minorities are able apply to the universities, but very few of them had a prior family history of attendence at the school. They have a disadvantage in that the white family lineages of the old lily white alumni established by racially selective process, get preference simply for being born in their family.
Autolycus
Member
To be able to see how conservatives view others one only has to look up the word Muslim on here or on Glocktalk. I cant begin to count how many times I have read posts implying that Muslims are all terrorists or that we should not be surprised that a killer was Muslim.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=255248 For a good example just read the thread. Many forget that www.thehighroad.org exists because of a Muslim man's generosity. Would anyone of the posters please tell him to go stick it and call him a terrorist?
How many times have I read posters making fun of the way black people talk with poor grammar only to see horrible spelling and grammar on here. Lots of self righteousness there.
Calling Mexicans vermin is pretty low and I have seen a lot of this. We only need to look at history to see evidence of Whites illegally entering other countries.
I have read a few posts on different gun forums stating that immigrants were not wanted. I have heard a lot of generalizations about immigrants, blacks and hispanics, and other religious followers that really sicken me. Its hard to stomach this.
Many of you who are complaining about illegal immigrants suggest mining the border and killing all the illegals who try to enter. Lets think about that for a second...
what if the Native Americans killed the Pilgrims? What about the Irish and Italians who came here in uncontrolled waves? Should we have gunned them down when they came off the boat?
I keep hearing about the illegals taking jobs and welfare yet I have seen no evidence or statistics. Just a bunch of people complaining and scapegoating someone. Lots of chest thumping going as well and it really sickens me. Nothing like wanting to kill people who are desperate to find a better means to support their family.
The attitudes some posters display towards others and the way some people support people who are not Politically Correct disgust me. Do you think black people like to be called *******? Or Mexicans like to be called spics? Or Irish like to be called Mic?
Those words were meant to hurt others and you have no right to use them. I am sure the first thing I will hear in response is black people call each other that all the time. Or that black people use the word cracker and whitey. I am sure a few anecdotes from some of you will start with "...I was shocked at how racist black people are. They called me a cracker and I did not do anything..." well there is a reason for that. Before I jump into that realize that it is not right for them to do it and their is a double standard. However two wrongs do not make a right.
The reason being that it is a term of endearment in a sense. It becomes a less powerful and meaningful word as they use it. However it can lose its meaning if they allow it to. However when someone of the same dominant group, in the case of the word ****** which was whites calling blacks, it brings back a lot of negative images and ideas.
And before some of you start posting how blacks/mexicans are killing themselves in the gangs and urban areas realize that before the civil rights movement and WW II many blacks and mexicans lived in rural areas. And the whites were primarily in the gangs. They were killing themselves and their enemies just as often as today. Al Capone and his guys went against other gangs for control of Chicagos streets. So dont blame it on minorities or other problems. It is a social problem that will exist in urban areas and is not a problem with liberals and minorities.
Look at the crime rates? There are experiments where blacks were followed around deparment stores while whites were not. If I remember correctly there was a recent story about a Virginia Beach Nightclub discriminating against blacks using the dress code while whites who wore matching close were given a pass.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=255248 For a good example just read the thread. Many forget that www.thehighroad.org exists because of a Muslim man's generosity. Would anyone of the posters please tell him to go stick it and call him a terrorist?
How many times have I read posters making fun of the way black people talk with poor grammar only to see horrible spelling and grammar on here. Lots of self righteousness there.
Calling Mexicans vermin is pretty low and I have seen a lot of this. We only need to look at history to see evidence of Whites illegally entering other countries.
I have read a few posts on different gun forums stating that immigrants were not wanted. I have heard a lot of generalizations about immigrants, blacks and hispanics, and other religious followers that really sicken me. Its hard to stomach this.
Many of you who are complaining about illegal immigrants suggest mining the border and killing all the illegals who try to enter. Lets think about that for a second...
what if the Native Americans killed the Pilgrims? What about the Irish and Italians who came here in uncontrolled waves? Should we have gunned them down when they came off the boat?
I keep hearing about the illegals taking jobs and welfare yet I have seen no evidence or statistics. Just a bunch of people complaining and scapegoating someone. Lots of chest thumping going as well and it really sickens me. Nothing like wanting to kill people who are desperate to find a better means to support their family.
The attitudes some posters display towards others and the way some people support people who are not Politically Correct disgust me. Do you think black people like to be called *******? Or Mexicans like to be called spics? Or Irish like to be called Mic?
Those words were meant to hurt others and you have no right to use them. I am sure the first thing I will hear in response is black people call each other that all the time. Or that black people use the word cracker and whitey. I am sure a few anecdotes from some of you will start with "...I was shocked at how racist black people are. They called me a cracker and I did not do anything..." well there is a reason for that. Before I jump into that realize that it is not right for them to do it and their is a double standard. However two wrongs do not make a right.
The reason being that it is a term of endearment in a sense. It becomes a less powerful and meaningful word as they use it. However it can lose its meaning if they allow it to. However when someone of the same dominant group, in the case of the word ****** which was whites calling blacks, it brings back a lot of negative images and ideas.
And before some of you start posting how blacks/mexicans are killing themselves in the gangs and urban areas realize that before the civil rights movement and WW II many blacks and mexicans lived in rural areas. And the whites were primarily in the gangs. They were killing themselves and their enemies just as often as today. Al Capone and his guys went against other gangs for control of Chicagos streets. So dont blame it on minorities or other problems. It is a social problem that will exist in urban areas and is not a problem with liberals and minorities.
Look at the crime rates? There are experiments where blacks were followed around deparment stores while whites were not. If I remember correctly there was a recent story about a Virginia Beach Nightclub discriminating against blacks using the dress code while whites who wore matching close were given a pass.
PinoyInFL
Member
Boy, I realize there's a lot I didn't understand...
A lot of minorities (and lower income people of all races) see conservatives as people who:
1) Have no money for urban youth programs -unless that program is to send them overseas to kill other poor non-white people."
Is it mandated in the constitution that goverment MUST provide urban youth programs?
2) Control and profit from the world's resources, by using poor people to fight and die for them (post Korea).
What resources did America get from Vietnam, Bosnia, Korea? Are they also rich in oil? Also, how much free oil did Saudi Arabia allow the US to steal / control from them when the US military deployed there?
2) Are against abortion and even birth control (in the past) -yet offer no assistance in defraying expenses associated with unplanned children.
A person who can't control his urges conceives a child. Now as a conservative, it is my responsiblity to find a solution? What happened to personal responsibility? Oh yeah right, we're all victims and therefore not responsible for our actions (unless you're a conservative of course - then you're to blame and are held responsible not only for your own actions but also for others).
3) Have money for the war on some drugs and lots of prisons- but no money for education and job training.
All the while I thought that it was a good thing to keep drug dealers away from our young vulnerable children. No money for education? I wonder where the public school teachers get their salaries from? And AFAIK, the education budget has grown big time under Bush.
4) Have no problem with Seagrams, Busch, and Ely Lily making billions off of their products, while sending young black men to prison for selling a pound of pot.
So selling pot to children and irresponsible adults is a good thing? Eli Lily makes pot?
6) See every black person with a gun as a threat...so why not make everyone give them up?
I'm conservative, but I don't feel threatened when I see a policeman who's African American wearing his sidearm. On the other hand, I do feel threatened when I see suspicious, disorderly, or aggressive behavior regardless of skin color, even if I don't see firearms. Am I an exception?
A lot of minorities (and lower income people of all races) see conservatives as people who:
1) Have no money for urban youth programs -unless that program is to send them overseas to kill other poor non-white people."
Is it mandated in the constitution that goverment MUST provide urban youth programs?
2) Control and profit from the world's resources, by using poor people to fight and die for them (post Korea).
What resources did America get from Vietnam, Bosnia, Korea? Are they also rich in oil? Also, how much free oil did Saudi Arabia allow the US to steal / control from them when the US military deployed there?
2) Are against abortion and even birth control (in the past) -yet offer no assistance in defraying expenses associated with unplanned children.
A person who can't control his urges conceives a child. Now as a conservative, it is my responsiblity to find a solution? What happened to personal responsibility? Oh yeah right, we're all victims and therefore not responsible for our actions (unless you're a conservative of course - then you're to blame and are held responsible not only for your own actions but also for others).
3) Have money for the war on some drugs and lots of prisons- but no money for education and job training.
All the while I thought that it was a good thing to keep drug dealers away from our young vulnerable children. No money for education? I wonder where the public school teachers get their salaries from? And AFAIK, the education budget has grown big time under Bush.
4) Have no problem with Seagrams, Busch, and Ely Lily making billions off of their products, while sending young black men to prison for selling a pound of pot.
So selling pot to children and irresponsible adults is a good thing? Eli Lily makes pot?
6) See every black person with a gun as a threat...so why not make everyone give them up?
I'm conservative, but I don't feel threatened when I see a policeman who's African American wearing his sidearm. On the other hand, I do feel threatened when I see suspicious, disorderly, or aggressive behavior regardless of skin color, even if I don't see firearms. Am I an exception?
Just_a_dude_with_a_gun
Member
Minorities suffer most at their own hands from gun violence. Blaming the gun as a scapegoat is easy denial. "Personal responsibility" is not as hot a topic as "reparations" with the minority crowd, particularly in cities.
PinoyInFL
Member
Drug dealers don't sell to children. Children don't have money.
I guess those teen agers who get admitted to drug rehab programs get their fix from their fairy god-mothers, or they somehow found plenty of lamps with genies in them.
I guess those teen agers who get admitted to drug rehab programs get their fix from their fairy god-mothers, or they somehow found plenty of lamps with genies in them.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
atticus, you're taking only one part of what was said. The actual meaning requires the totality, including, "On the other hand, I do feel threatened when I see suspicious, disorderly, or aggressive behavior regardless of skin color, even if I don't see firearms."
That people take edit and take statements out of context in order to twist a meaning is why I won't do taped TV interviews.
Art
That people take edit and take statements out of context in order to twist a meaning is why I won't do taped TV interviews.
Art
crazed_ss
Member
and people wonder why...
gc70
Member
from the original post:
Conservatives generally favor the status quo and do not want change. Liberals either actively favor change or do not object to change.
People do not want change if they are comfortable with things the way they are now. A large section of the middle class and moderately affluent are happy with things the way they are and don't want changes that might upset their comfortable lives.
People want change if their current situation is not satisfactory. Poor people certainly do not want things to stay the same - they want changes that give them a chance for better lives.
Here are a few money facts. In 2005, the median household income for whites was $48,554 and the largest percentage (18.9%) of whites were in the $50,000-$74,999 income category. The median household income for blacks was $30,858 and the largest percentage (16.1%) of blacks were in the $15,000-$24,999 income category.
If you are at the lower end of the income spectrum, you just might be a liberal and ready for some change. If you are at the middle or upper end of the income spectrum, you just might be a conservative and want to keep things the way they are.
I know there is a lot more to being conservative or liberal than simply money, but I do think that self-interest plays a big part in determining a person's views.
Here is a little different twist on conservatives, liberals, and minorities.
Conservatives generally favor the status quo and do not want change. Liberals either actively favor change or do not object to change.
People do not want change if they are comfortable with things the way they are now. A large section of the middle class and moderately affluent are happy with things the way they are and don't want changes that might upset their comfortable lives.
People want change if their current situation is not satisfactory. Poor people certainly do not want things to stay the same - they want changes that give them a chance for better lives.
Here are a few money facts. In 2005, the median household income for whites was $48,554 and the largest percentage (18.9%) of whites were in the $50,000-$74,999 income category. The median household income for blacks was $30,858 and the largest percentage (16.1%) of blacks were in the $15,000-$24,999 income category.
If you are at the lower end of the income spectrum, you just might be a liberal and ready for some change. If you are at the middle or upper end of the income spectrum, you just might be a conservative and want to keep things the way they are.
I know there is a lot more to being conservative or liberal than simply money, but I do think that self-interest plays a big part in determining a person's views.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked