|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Fuck no, I don't want to participate in this.
|
On September 08 2016 09:17 Aquanim wrote:@xDaunt: Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 07:53 kwizach wrote:... Now that we've cleared this up, there remains the information that a random individual named Charles Ortel believes the Clinton Foundation doesn't qualify as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and that he has yet to explain why that is the case. It seems like the government and private experts who've looked into the Foundation have never brought up this charge, so I would argue the reasonable thing to do would be to wait for him to actually release his analysis of why that would be the case, and see how it's assessed by experts. I would add that a two-minute look at his website should tell you all you need to know about how serious and unbiased you can expect his "analysis" to be, but what do I know  Kwizach did actually address the question of the Clinton Foundation's status as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, with the conclusion that "at this stage there isn't a good enough reason to believe it isn't". I'm going to ask you nicely to stop with the grandstanding, personal attacks and shitstirring now.
Sorry, but I don't take well to people misrepresenting my arguments and using those arguments to call me out. Particularly when my analysis is correct. And the funny part is that what you quoted above is further evidence of kwizach understands the point that I made and was just being an ass unnecessarily.
|
On September 08 2016 09:24 Ghostcom wrote:
Fuck no, I don't want to participate in this.
could you clarify? i'm not sure which "this" you're referring to.
|
On September 08 2016 09:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:20 oBlade wrote:On September 08 2016 09:09 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:07 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:01 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 08:58 biology]major wrote:
lmao cnn doing a bit on how trump supporters on college campuses get attacked. Most of them keep quiet about their beliefs because sjws can be insufferable. I suspect the polls are heavily skewed if done by phone simply because being a trump supporter openly is unwise unless you are in a very conservative area. PC culture folks I certainly don't advocate attacking Trump supporters, or indeed anyone, but if they're just afraid of being judged by people around them and are afraid of negative judgement from their peers then I suggest they proceed to their nearest safe space. There is a long, long history of conservatives being offended by the world and needing everyone to cater to their preferences. From needing homosexuals to keep quiet about their sexuality and not hold hands in public to getting triggered by Starbucks cups, it's not the left but the right that gets offended by everything. The difference is that a few people on the left want designated safe spaces on campus whereas the majority of the right demands that the entire nation be their safe space. Getting labeled as a racist when you are in college because you support trump is not something you should carry around with you. It affects your job prospects massively, you never know who says what on social media and nowadays all employers check facebook/twitter/instagram to get an idea of who you are. Atleast they do in medicine. It's the shaming tactics that bother me, each person has their own reason for supporting trump, but because of the labels you basically shut down any attempt at conversation. He's a racist candidate, the candidate of the racists who want him to carry out his stated racist policies. If you don't want people thinking you're a racist maybe don't support racist candidates. This isn't difficult shit here. It's like the members of the explicitly all white fraternities who get mad when people judge them. You don't have a right to not get judged for the shit that you do. But again, if you want to be able to say whatever you like without fear of criticism or social stigma please proceed to your local safe space. That's what they're there for. In other words, if you support the wrong candidate, find a safe space by leaving your universities, preserving them as safe spaces for progressives. You might want to reread what I wrote because it appears you may be struggling with it.
No, I got it, everyone's a racist.
|
I had made a post, posted it, realized I didn't want to participate in the thread and decided to edit it out again.
|
United States43505 Posts
I'm 110% behind bio major's "don't commit criminal acts on Trump supporters" stance, but I'm also a believer in "don't commit criminal acts on anyone". But I find it absolutely incredible that he's demanding that Trump supporter be a protected class that employers and other independent bodies are not allowed to discriminate against. Hell, people are still allowed to choose not to hang out with homosexuals, the disabled and other protected classes, bio major wants a revolutionary new level of anti-discrimination protection exclusively for the Trump supporters. It's a pretty incredible level of hypocrisy from the side that thinks refusing to bake a cake for gays is a fundamental freedom.
|
On September 08 2016 09:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:17 Aquanim wrote:@xDaunt: On September 08 2016 07:53 kwizach wrote:... Now that we've cleared this up, there remains the information that a random individual named Charles Ortel believes the Clinton Foundation doesn't qualify as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and that he has yet to explain why that is the case. It seems like the government and private experts who've looked into the Foundation have never brought up this charge, so I would argue the reasonable thing to do would be to wait for him to actually release his analysis of why that would be the case, and see how it's assessed by experts. I would add that a two-minute look at his website should tell you all you need to know about how serious and unbiased you can expect his "analysis" to be, but what do I know Kwizach did actually address the question of the Clinton Foundation's status as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, with the conclusion that "at this stage there isn't a good enough reason to believe it isn't". I'm going to ask you nicely to stop with the grandstanding, personal attacks and shitstirring now. Sorry, but I don't take well to people misrepresenting my arguments and using those arguments to call me out. Particularly when my analysis is correct. And the funny part is that what you quoted above is further evidence of kwizach understands the point that I made and was just being an ass unnecessarily.
...So when he addressed one part of your argument in one paragraph, and another part of your argument in a second paragraph, the fact that the first paragraph didn't address the argument covered in the second paragraph means that he was ignoring the second argument?
Kwisach was less polite than I'd like as well but I don't see how he misrepresented your argument.
|
On September 08 2016 09:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:13 biology]major wrote:
I defend people to be jerks, but in these situations people get hurt physically or get their shit stolen or hurt their future employment prospects. One of these is not like the others. We live in a country where it's still legal in many states to discriminate in employment based on sexuality but you're here complaining that people might not want to hire you just because you support the racist candidate and demanding that it be not allowed. This is the face of privilege right here. Sure, discriminate against the faggots, fuck those guys, but don't you dare judge me for that thing I said.
Oh, we went a few pages without sympathizing with gay people? Thanks for correcting that.
Let me make a parallel argument for you that gets thrown around all the time. 'Just because women in saudi arabia have it worse doesn't mean we shouldn't fix things in the US!'
Political views are heavily surpressed in the USA, and it will only continue to get massively worse. Kwark, I'm not white by the way, I'm POC and an immigrant. Maybe I'm even muslim? Hmm what other labels can I add to make you feel bad for me? Oh I might even be gay.
|
On September 08 2016 09:28 Ghostcom wrote:
I had made a post, posted it, realized I didn't want to participate in the thread and decided to edit it out again.
ah, I see. sorry the thread's taken a nasty turn then. only so much to be done.
|
On September 08 2016 09:28 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:25 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2016 09:17 Aquanim wrote:@xDaunt: On September 08 2016 07:53 kwizach wrote:... Now that we've cleared this up, there remains the information that a random individual named Charles Ortel believes the Clinton Foundation doesn't qualify as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and that he has yet to explain why that is the case. It seems like the government and private experts who've looked into the Foundation have never brought up this charge, so I would argue the reasonable thing to do would be to wait for him to actually release his analysis of why that would be the case, and see how it's assessed by experts. I would add that a two-minute look at his website should tell you all you need to know about how serious and unbiased you can expect his "analysis" to be, but what do I know Kwizach did actually address the question of the Clinton Foundation's status as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, with the conclusion that "at this stage there isn't a good enough reason to believe it isn't". I'm going to ask you nicely to stop with the grandstanding, personal attacks and shitstirring now. Sorry, but I don't take well to people misrepresenting my arguments and using those arguments to call me out. Particularly when my analysis is correct. And the funny part is that what you quoted above is further evidence of kwizach understands the point that I made and was just being an ass unnecessarily. ...So when he addressed one part of your argument in one paragraph, and another part of your argument in a second paragraph, the fact that the first paragraph didn't address the argument covered in the second paragraph means that he was ignoring the second argument? Kwisach was less polite than I'd like as well but I don't see how he misrepresented your argument.
He very clearly was making the point that I thought that the Clinton Foundation was a slush fund only because it spent a small fraction of its proceeds on direct aid.
|
United States43505 Posts
On September 08 2016 09:30 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:18 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:13 biology]major wrote:
I defend people to be jerks, but in these situations people get hurt physically or get their shit stolen or hurt their future employment prospects. One of these is not like the others. We live in a country where it's still legal in many states to discriminate in employment based on sexuality but you're here complaining that people might not want to hire you just because you support the racist candidate and demanding that it be not allowed. This is the face of privilege right here. Sure, discriminate against the faggots, fuck those guys, but don't you dare judge me for that thing I said. Oh, we went a few pages without sympathizing with gay people? Thanks for correcting that. Let me make a parallel argument for you that gets thrown around all the time. 'Just because women in saudi arabia have it worse doesn't mean we shouldn't fix things in the US!' Political views are heavily surpressed in the USA, and it will only continue to get massively worse. Kwark, I'm not white by the way, I'm POC and an immigrant. Maybe I'm even muslim? Hmm what other labels can I add to make you feel bad for me? Oh I might even be gay.
Way to completely miss the point. Trump supporter is not a protected class. Stop trying to cry discrimination whenever anyone judges you for it.
If I refuse to employ you because you're not white, or because you're gay, or because of your religion (assuming it doesn't interfere with the job), or because you're a man, or because you have a disability (again, assuming it doesn't interfere with the job), that'd be a problem. If I refuse to employ you because I think your values are shit and make you a shitty person, well, that's the invisible hand at work, can't argue with that.
Also your parallel reads "just because gays are still discriminated against in employment doesn't mean we shouldn't address employment discrimination against Trump supporters". And you're right, it doesn't. The fact that being a Trump supporter and being a homosexual are in no way comparable is what means we shouldn't address employment discrimination against Trump supporters. The fact that you're demanding Trump supporters be a protected class is just funny in the light of the refusal to make other groups that actually face real discrimination a protected class.
|
On September 08 2016 08:38 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 08:37 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 08:13 Yoav wrote:On September 08 2016 03:11 KwarK wrote:
You know I might quite like a Trump presidency. It'd be hilarious and I could probably convert all my hoarded pre-tax dollars to post-tax at 0% in his term. If it got too bad I could fuck off back to Europe and take advantage of the weak pound to set myself up pretty nicely. Political satire would be of the highest quality and the first of the great meme wars would emerge between the alt-right and the old conservatives. We'd all get to say Merry Christmas on every holiday without fail and we wouldn't have to bake cakes for anyone. Is this where I point out that being able to say such a thing is what white privilege looks like? It's absolutely white privilege. Nobody anywhere wants to persecute people who look like me. Although I may get deported. And then we will build a wall to stop all the UK immigrants. a big wall, and the UK will pay for it.
We will have a purity test based on if they spell words with a c instead of a z and ou instead of an o.
|
On September 08 2016 09:30 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:18 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:13 biology]major wrote:
I defend people to be jerks, but in these situations people get hurt physically or get their shit stolen or hurt their future employment prospects. One of these is not like the others. We live in a country where it's still legal in many states to discriminate in employment based on sexuality but you're here complaining that people might not want to hire you just because you support the racist candidate and demanding that it be not allowed. This is the face of privilege right here. Sure, discriminate against the faggots, fuck those guys, but don't you dare judge me for that thing I said. Oh, we went a few pages without sympathizing with gay people? Thanks for correcting that. Let me make a parallel argument for you that gets thrown around all the time. 'Just because women in saudi arabia have it worse doesn't mean we shouldn't fix things in the US!' Political views are heavily surpressed in the USA, and it will only continue to get massively worse. Kwark, I'm not white by the way, I'm POC and an immigrant. Maybe I'm even muslim? Hmm what other labels can I add to make you feel bad for me? Oh I might even be gay.
You're not speaking legally, right, that's why you said "PC culture," you're talking about a cultural reversal where people stop Scientology-disconnecting peers with the wrong politics?
|
On September 08 2016 09:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:17 Aquanim wrote:@xDaunt: On September 08 2016 07:53 kwizach wrote:... Now that we've cleared this up, there remains the information that a random individual named Charles Ortel believes the Clinton Foundation doesn't qualify as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, and that he has yet to explain why that is the case. It seems like the government and private experts who've looked into the Foundation have never brought up this charge, so I would argue the reasonable thing to do would be to wait for him to actually release his analysis of why that would be the case, and see how it's assessed by experts. I would add that a two-minute look at his website should tell you all you need to know about how serious and unbiased you can expect his "analysis" to be, but what do I know Kwizach did actually address the question of the Clinton Foundation's status as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, with the conclusion that "at this stage there isn't a good enough reason to believe it isn't". I'm going to ask you nicely to stop with the grandstanding, personal attacks and shitstirring now. Sorry, but I don't take well to people misrepresenting my arguments and using those arguments to call me out. Particularly when my analysis is correct. And the funny part is that what you quoted above is further evidence of kwizach understands the point that I made and was just being an ass unnecessarily.
Maybe if you relied on facts instead of lies people wouldn't so confused by your brilliant arguments. You say: "For example, in 2013, the Clinton Foundation took in $140 million in grants and pledges, but spent just $9 million on direct aid, with the vast majority of the funds being spent on "administration, travel, salaries, and bonuses."
That is totally false and makes the rest of your arguments worthless. See your $140 million and $9 million below.
Asked for backup, the CARLY for America super PAC noted that the Clinton Foundation’s latest IRS Form 990 shows total revenue of nearly $149 million in 2013, and total charitable grant disbursements of nearly $9 million (see page 10). That comes to roughly 6 percent of the budget going to grants. And besides those grants, the super PAC said, “there really isn’t anything that can be categorized as charitable.”
That just isn’t so. The Clinton Foundation does most of its charitable work itself.
Katherina Rosqueta, the founding executive director of the Center for High Impact Philanthropy at the University of Pennsylvania, described the Clinton Foundation as an “operating foundation.”
“There is an important distinction between an operating foundation vs. a non-operating foundation,” Rosqueta told us via email. “An operating foundation implements programs so money it raises is not designed to be used exclusively for grant-making purposes. When most people hear ‘foundation’, they think exclusively of a grant-making entity. In either case, the key is to understand how well the foundation uses money — whether to implement programs or to grant out to nonprofits — [to achieve] the intended social impact (e.g., improving education, creating livelihoods, improving health, etc.).”
Craig Minassian, chief communications officer for the Clinton Foundation, said the Clinton Foundation is “an implementer.”
“We operate programs on the ground, around the world, that are making a difference on issues ranging from poverty and global health to climate change and women’s and girls’ participation,” Minassian told us via email. “Many large foundations actually provide grants to the Clinton Foundation so that our staff can implement the work.”
Asked for some examples of the work it performs itself, the Clinton Foundation listed these:
Clinton Development Initiative staff in Africa train rural farmers and help them get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops.
Clinton Climate Initiative staff help governments in Africa and the Caribbean region with reforestation efforts, and in island nations to help develop renewable energy projects.
Staff at the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent, affiliated entity, work in dozens of nations to lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine, scale up pediatric AIDS treatment and promote treatment of diarrhea through life-saving Zinc/ORS treatment.
Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
|
On September 08 2016 09:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:30 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:18 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:13 biology]major wrote:
I defend people to be jerks, but in these situations people get hurt physically or get their shit stolen or hurt their future employment prospects. One of these is not like the others. We live in a country where it's still legal in many states to discriminate in employment based on sexuality but you're here complaining that people might not want to hire you just because you support the racist candidate and demanding that it be not allowed. This is the face of privilege right here. Sure, discriminate against the faggots, fuck those guys, but don't you dare judge me for that thing I said. Oh, we went a few pages without sympathizing with gay people? Thanks for correcting that. Let me make a parallel argument for you that gets thrown around all the time. 'Just because women in saudi arabia have it worse doesn't mean we shouldn't fix things in the US!' Political views are heavily surpressed in the USA, and it will only continue to get massively worse. Kwark, I'm not white by the way, I'm POC and an immigrant. Maybe I'm even muslim? Hmm what other labels can I add to make you feel bad for me? Oh I might even be gay. Way to completely miss the point. Trump supporter is not a protected class. Stop trying to cry discrimination whenever anyone judges you for it.
As long as people don't steal my shit or try to jump me, I don't care. Social media combined with sjws has ruined peoples lives over saying the most minute shit and it's only going to get worse.
|
trump is pretty bad at this forum.
|
People are allowed to not employee assholes. Assholes are not a protected class. If someone things you are an asshole because you support Trump, you don't get special protection.
|
On September 08 2016 09:39 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:33 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:30 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:18 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:13 biology]major wrote:
I defend people to be jerks, but in these situations people get hurt physically or get their shit stolen or hurt their future employment prospects. One of these is not like the others. We live in a country where it's still legal in many states to discriminate in employment based on sexuality but you're here complaining that people might not want to hire you just because you support the racist candidate and demanding that it be not allowed. This is the face of privilege right here. Sure, discriminate against the faggots, fuck those guys, but don't you dare judge me for that thing I said. Oh, we went a few pages without sympathizing with gay people? Thanks for correcting that. Let me make a parallel argument for you that gets thrown around all the time. 'Just because women in saudi arabia have it worse doesn't mean we shouldn't fix things in the US!' Political views are heavily surpressed in the USA, and it will only continue to get massively worse. Kwark, I'm not white by the way, I'm POC and an immigrant. Maybe I'm even muslim? Hmm what other labels can I add to make you feel bad for me? Oh I might even be gay. Way to completely miss the point. Trump supporter is not a protected class. Stop trying to cry discrimination whenever anyone judges you for it. As long as people don't steal my shit or try to jump me, I don't care. Social media combined with sjws has ruined peoples lives over saying the most minute shit and it's only going to get worse.
I don't think it's going to get worse overall; considering the history of violence both physical and social in the US and around the world.
|
United States43505 Posts
On September 08 2016 09:39 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:33 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:30 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:18 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:13 biology]major wrote:
I defend people to be jerks, but in these situations people get hurt physically or get their shit stolen or hurt their future employment prospects. One of these is not like the others. We live in a country where it's still legal in many states to discriminate in employment based on sexuality but you're here complaining that people might not want to hire you just because you support the racist candidate and demanding that it be not allowed. This is the face of privilege right here. Sure, discriminate against the faggots, fuck those guys, but don't you dare judge me for that thing I said. Oh, we went a few pages without sympathizing with gay people? Thanks for correcting that. Let me make a parallel argument for you that gets thrown around all the time. 'Just because women in saudi arabia have it worse doesn't mean we shouldn't fix things in the US!' Political views are heavily surpressed in the USA, and it will only continue to get massively worse. Kwark, I'm not white by the way, I'm POC and an immigrant. Maybe I'm even muslim? Hmm what other labels can I add to make you feel bad for me? Oh I might even be gay. Way to completely miss the point. Trump supporter is not a protected class. Stop trying to cry discrimination whenever anyone judges you for it. As long as people don't steal my shit or try to jump me, I don't care. Social media combined with sjws has ruined peoples lives over saying the most minute shit and it's only going to get worse.
Then we're fine. Political violence is almost never justified, and certainly not justified in the United States of today. Incidentally I would be completely fine with students on campuses being allowed to form their own right wing safe spaces, I mean whatever, it's a safe space, nobody really cares. That includes kicking out SJWs who try and invade it etc. It's just when people try to turn the entire world into their safe space, and the right are far, far more guilty of this than the left, that I have a problem. Although both try and both are shitty for doing so.
|
On September 08 2016 09:39 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:33 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:30 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:18 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:13 biology]major wrote:
I defend people to be jerks, but in these situations people get hurt physically or get their shit stolen or hurt their future employment prospects. One of these is not like the others. We live in a country where it's still legal in many states to discriminate in employment based on sexuality but you're here complaining that people might not want to hire you just because you support the racist candidate and demanding that it be not allowed. This is the face of privilege right here. Sure, discriminate against the faggots, fuck those guys, but don't you dare judge me for that thing I said. Oh, we went a few pages without sympathizing with gay people? Thanks for correcting that. Let me make a parallel argument for you that gets thrown around all the time. 'Just because women in saudi arabia have it worse doesn't mean we shouldn't fix things in the US!' Political views are heavily surpressed in the USA, and it will only continue to get massively worse. Kwark, I'm not white by the way, I'm POC and an immigrant. Maybe I'm even muslim? Hmm what other labels can I add to make you feel bad for me? Oh I might even be gay. Way to completely miss the point. Trump supporter is not a protected class. Stop trying to cry discrimination whenever anyone judges you for it. As long as people don't steal my shit or try to jump me, I don't care. Social media combined with sjws has ruined peoples lives over saying the most minute shit and it's only going to get worse.
I love that while people (including police) are having a conniption fit over Kaepernick, there's some heavy overlap with the people whining about how hard it is for Trump supporters to freely express themselves.
On September 08 2016 09:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 09:39 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:33 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:30 biology]major wrote:On September 08 2016 09:18 KwarK wrote:On September 08 2016 09:13 biology]major wrote:
I defend people to be jerks, but in these situations people get hurt physically or get their shit stolen or hurt their future employment prospects. One of these is not like the others. We live in a country where it's still legal in many states to discriminate in employment based on sexuality but you're here complaining that people might not want to hire you just because you support the racist candidate and demanding that it be not allowed. This is the face of privilege right here. Sure, discriminate against the faggots, fuck those guys, but don't you dare judge me for that thing I said. Oh, we went a few pages without sympathizing with gay people? Thanks for correcting that. Let me make a parallel argument for you that gets thrown around all the time. 'Just because women in saudi arabia have it worse doesn't mean we shouldn't fix things in the US!' Political views are heavily surpressed in the USA, and it will only continue to get massively worse. Kwark, I'm not white by the way, I'm POC and an immigrant. Maybe I'm even muslim? Hmm what other labels can I add to make you feel bad for me? Oh I might even be gay. Way to completely miss the point. Trump supporter is not a protected class. Stop trying to cry discrimination whenever anyone judges you for it. As long as people don't steal my shit or try to jump me, I don't care. Social media combined with sjws has ruined peoples lives over saying the most minute shit and it's only going to get worse. Then we're fine. Political violence is almost never justified, and certainly not justified in the United States of today. Incidentally I would be completely fine with students on campuses being allowed to form their own right wing safe spaces, I mean whatever, it's a safe space, nobody really cares. That includes kicking out SJWs who try and invade it etc. It's just when people try to turn the entire world into their safe space, and the right are far, far more guilty of this than the left, that I have a problem. Although both try and both are shitty for doing so.
The problem for most folks is that America has long been a safe space for racists, bigots, and generally despicable white people.
Many are facing the dilemma of whether they restrict the free speech of folks like Kaepernick and accept them when they are applied to themselves, or whether they have to defend themselves in the same vein they would need to defend Kaep.
Most are just going the raging hypocrite route at the moment though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
