|
On September 27 2010 03:52 Ramiel wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2010 03:44 Jibba wrote:On September 27 2010 03:04 teekesselchen wrote:If only America would have better education, at least the Tea Party wing would simply vanish. It takes serious mental damage to support such archaic ideas which specifically oppose everything good the USA ever represented. Come on, the virtues of the USA are engraved into the statue of liberty itself and yet the so "patriotic" tea party quite obviously despises them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_ColossusIf they should ever have serious control over decisions in US politics, the whole nation will regress into medieval intellectual poverty. From "defenders of human rights" back to "hunting the devil", yeah. Statue of Liberty is French. ohh snap, have to love it when people outside of the us try and argue about American politics. and yes the tea party movement is all about god, jesus, and finding the devil- along with witch hunts. Its appalling to me how grossly misinformed so many people in this thread seem to be. where has everyone been getting their information? cnn,msnbc,fox? All i hear form so many people, is a one liner about how the tea party will ruin everything, and how the vast majority of Americans are un-educated / stupid. It says a lot about someone when their opinion is so grossly misinformed. And it speaks volumes when they are willing to spout it everywhere under a tone of distaste, and perceived superiority.
For the second time, if I were you I would stop saying everybody is uneducated.
Just an advice.
|
Just once, just once I would like to see voters actually vote against the most dishonest politicians. The Republican party would wither and die that election. But it will never come to pass, people are too content imagining that the world actually runs the way they wish it did. That their moral standpoint allows them to ignore actual law, that science only exists when it is convenient.
Which party is more likely to not believe in evolution?
Which one has the strongest history of invasive, anti-sex policies?
Has in the modern era most often opposed sexual, physical, racial, and other minorities?
ls most prone to supporting tax policies that would explode the deficit while simultaneously claiming to be fiscally responsible?
Believes that locking people up is a better way to deal with the medical condition of addiction than sending them to doctors?
Opposes health care reform in the face of desperate health care and financial statistics?
Supports unconstitutional religious intrusion into public government?
A vote for the Democratic party is a vote for sanity. Unfortunately, it seems we've all gone completely nuts.
|
On September 27 2010 03:57 Melancholia wrote:
Just once, just once I would like to see voters actually vote against the most dishonest politicians. The Republican party would wither and die that election. But it will never come to pass, people are too content imagining that the world actually runs the way they wish it did. That their moral standpoint allows them to ignore actual law, that science only exists when it is convenient.
Which party is more likely to not believe in evolution?
Which one has the strongest history of invasive, anti-sex policies?
Has in the modern era most often opposed sexual, physical, racial, and other minorities?
ls most prone to supporting tax policies that would explode the deficit while simultaneously claiming to be fiscally responsible?
Believes that locking people up is a better way to deal with the medical condition of addiction than sending them to doctors?
Opposes health care reform in the face of desperate health care and financial statistics?
Supports unconstitutional religious intrusion into public government?
A vote for the Democratic party is a vote for sanity. Unfortunately, it seems we've all gone completely nuts.
Thanks.
Oh and by the way:
![[image loading]](http://timpanogos.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/cartoon-fiscal-conservative-greenberg21.jpg)
EDIT: I know it's old, but gotta love it
|
On September 27 2010 03:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2010 03:32 Ramiel wrote:
biff, if you don't live in the us your perceptions of our politics are very misguided. Sorry, but i feel that your opinion is extremely obtuse, it is clear to me that you don't really have an educated view point. You sound more like a disgruntled European passing judgment.
The economic disaster has nothing to do with capitalism, it had everything to do with fools, and the idea of 'the great society.'
Secondly having a free market and liberal market is what will drive the world economy, socialism and structured markets are like a gaping wound, slowly bleeding markets dry.
Lastly, you description of republicans is completely off, and in the far right field (yes pun intended) Please stop spouting nonsensical definitions about political parties based on satire, or other news media outlets. At least I had a good laugh. Your first paragrapher is gold. I'll put it in every post where I disagree with someone. The economic disaster has to do with the destruction of a number of rules in the financial area in your country and in the world since the beginning of ultraliberal era (Tatcher-Reagan). The crisis is a direct consequence of the ultraliberal policies you guys are fighting for. Your free market thing is very nice, but there are a number of very socialist countries such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Germany in a certain extent... which do much better both on economical and social level than for example, UK. So your anti-socialist doxa is maybe old-fashionned. Third I haven't given any definition of the rpublican, except by saying they were hated around the world, which is a goddamn fact, and that the far right republicans à-la Tea Party are nuts. I am uneducated? What do you want to talk about? Ontological problem in XVIIth century rationnalist philosophy? The answer of German composers to atonality in the beginning of the XXth century? Freud's point of view on Dostoievsky? Or maybe about the crime of the CIA during operation Condor in South America in the 60's, I'm sure you are very aware of that. People who start their answers by "you are obviously uneducated" make me laugh out loud.
so defensive, and quick to jump hehe.
The financial crisis in America was not the work of liberal economic policies, that may have caused it to get worse, but it certainly was not the root cause of the problem. Secondly, all of the wonderful socialist countries you have named do not hold a candle to American economic might. Our gdp is 14.59 trillion. all of the countries you have named come no where close, even all united- they don't even cast a shadow. So please stop reiterating about the superiority of socialism. Socialism is a great on paper, but in reality it doesn't nothing but retard the growth of society, and economies.
China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia.
also show me in writing where the world hates the republican party. A fact is something that supposedly can be backed through empirical evidence, and i have yet to see any.
as for the rest of your post~
+ Show Spoiler +I am uneducated? What do you want to talk about? Ontological problem in XVIIth century rationnalist philosophy? The answer of German composers to atonality in the beginning of the XXth century? Freud's point of view on Dostoievsky? Or maybe about the crime of the CIA during operation Condor in South America in the 60's, I'm sure you are very aware of that.
L O L
edit: the fact that you even posted the political cartoon clearly shows that you don't understand what happened to the economy with the housing collapse.
|
On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote:
China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia.
You should know what terms mean before you use them.
|
On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2010 03:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2010 03:32 Ramiel wrote:
biff, if you don't live in the us your perceptions of our politics are very misguided. Sorry, but i feel that your opinion is extremely obtuse, it is clear to me that you don't really have an educated view point. You sound more like a disgruntled European passing judgment.
The economic disaster has nothing to do with capitalism, it had everything to do with fools, and the idea of 'the great society.'
Secondly having a free market and liberal market is what will drive the world economy, socialism and structured markets are like a gaping wound, slowly bleeding markets dry.
Lastly, you description of republicans is completely off, and in the far right field (yes pun intended) Please stop spouting nonsensical definitions about political parties based on satire, or other news media outlets. At least I had a good laugh. Your first paragrapher is gold. I'll put it in every post where I disagree with someone. The economic disaster has to do with the destruction of a number of rules in the financial area in your country and in the world since the beginning of ultraliberal era (Tatcher-Reagan). The crisis is a direct consequence of the ultraliberal policies you guys are fighting for. Your free market thing is very nice, but there are a number of very socialist countries such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Germany in a certain extent... which do much better both on economical and social level than for example, UK. So your anti-socialist doxa is maybe old-fashionned. Third I haven't given any definition of the rpublican, except by saying they were hated around the world, which is a goddamn fact, and that the far right republicans à-la Tea Party are nuts. I am uneducated? What do you want to talk about? Ontological problem in XVIIth century rationnalist philosophy? The answer of German composers to atonality in the beginning of the XXth century? Freud's point of view on Dostoievsky? Or maybe about the crime of the CIA during operation Condor in South America in the 60's, I'm sure you are very aware of that. People who start their answers by "you are obviously uneducated" make me laugh out loud. so defensive, and quick to jump hehe. The financial crisis in America was not the work of liberal economic policies, that may have caused it to get worse, but it certainly was not the root cause of the problem. Secondly, all of the wonderful socialist countries you have named do not hold a candle to American economic might. Our gdp is 14.59 trillion. all of the countries you have named come no where close, even all united- they don't even cast a shadow. So please stop reiterating about the superiority of socialism. Socialism is a great on paper, but in reality it doesn't nothing but retard the growth of society, and economies. China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia. also show me in writing where the world hates the republican party. A fact is something that supposedly can be backed through empirical evidence, and i have yet to see any. as for the rest of your post~ + Show Spoiler +I am uneducated? What do you want to talk about? Ontological problem in XVIIth century rationnalist philosophy? The answer of German composers to atonality in the beginning of the XXth century? Freud's point of view on Dostoievsky? Or maybe about the crime of the CIA during operation Condor in South America in the 60's, I'm sure you are very aware of that. L O L
Obviously if you compare a country like Finland with its 4 million people and America and its 270 millions, well, America is richer. How fucking surprising. Fact is, life of most people is better in theses countries, and by better, I mean much better than life of most US citizen now. Norway's economy is more flourishing than American's, and they are 78858545364 times more advanced socially.
I don't support what has been done in Russia and China. If you talk to Russian people, though, they would tell you that life in Russia is worse now than 30 years ago, during a hatred dictature. So really, not a great success.
And I am not defensive. you just don't realize how absurdly agressive you are.
You have nothing but lol to answer? That's the answer of a great mind, and a highly educated person, really. The point is you make assumptions based on nothing other people, you realize that you couldn't have gone more wrong and you expect to get out with it just with your uber-agressive standpoint.
Well it doesn't work.
|
On September 27 2010 04:07 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote:
China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia. You should know what terms mean before you use them.
Um, you do know that liberal market policies are free-market ones, right? The term "liberal" has been warped somewhat in the US. Or were you commenting about about how he made the rather obvious point that communism is a form of socialism?
|
On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote:
China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia.
EDIT: See my further post for the difference between socialism and communism.
This one was prolly unecessarly mean.
Melacholia: Now that I read myself, you are prolly right. I think saying to someone he is an ignorant is kind of an insult though. I guess I have felt insulted and over-reacted.
|
You should probably edit that post out, Biff, or at least the part of it where you're being an asshole. People have definitely been banned for less.
|
On September 27 2010 04:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote:On September 27 2010 03:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2010 03:32 Ramiel wrote:
biff, if you don't live in the us your perceptions of our politics are very misguided. Sorry, but i feel that your opinion is extremely obtuse, it is clear to me that you don't really have an educated view point. You sound more like a disgruntled European passing judgment.
The economic disaster has nothing to do with capitalism, it had everything to do with fools, and the idea of 'the great society.'
Secondly having a free market and liberal market is what will drive the world economy, socialism and structured markets are like a gaping wound, slowly bleeding markets dry.
Lastly, you description of republicans is completely off, and in the far right field (yes pun intended) Please stop spouting nonsensical definitions about political parties based on satire, or other news media outlets. At least I had a good laugh. Your first paragrapher is gold. I'll put it in every post where I disagree with someone. The economic disaster has to do with the destruction of a number of rules in the financial area in your country and in the world since the beginning of ultraliberal era (Tatcher-Reagan). The crisis is a direct consequence of the ultraliberal policies you guys are fighting for. Your free market thing is very nice, but there are a number of very socialist countries such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Germany in a certain extent... which do much better both on economical and social level than for example, UK. So your anti-socialist doxa is maybe old-fashionned. Third I haven't given any definition of the rpublican, except by saying they were hated around the world, which is a goddamn fact, and that the far right republicans à-la Tea Party are nuts. I am uneducated? What do you want to talk about? Ontological problem in XVIIth century rationnalist philosophy? The answer of German composers to atonality in the beginning of the XXth century? Freud's point of view on Dostoievsky? Or maybe about the crime of the CIA during operation Condor in South America in the 60's, I'm sure you are very aware of that. People who start their answers by "you are obviously uneducated" make me laugh out loud. so defensive, and quick to jump hehe. The financial crisis in America was not the work of liberal economic policies, that may have caused it to get worse, but it certainly was not the root cause of the problem. Secondly, all of the wonderful socialist countries you have named do not hold a candle to American economic might. Our gdp is 14.59 trillion. all of the countries you have named come no where close, even all united- they don't even cast a shadow. So please stop reiterating about the superiority of socialism. Socialism is a great on paper, but in reality it doesn't nothing but retard the growth of society, and economies. China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia. also show me in writing where the world hates the republican party. A fact is something that supposedly can be backed through empirical evidence, and i have yet to see any. as for the rest of your post~ + Show Spoiler +I am uneducated? What do you want to talk about? Ontological problem in XVIIth century rationnalist philosophy? The answer of German composers to atonality in the beginning of the XXth century? Freud's point of view on Dostoievsky? Or maybe about the crime of the CIA during operation Condor in South America in the 60's, I'm sure you are very aware of that. L O L Obviously if you compare a country like Finland with its 4 million people and America and its 270 millions, well, America is richer. How fucking surprising. I don't support what has been done in Russia and China. If you talk to Russian people, though, they would tell you that life in Russia is worse now than 30 years ago, during a hatred dictature. So really, not a great success. And I am not defensive. you just don't realize how absurdly agressive you are. You have nothing but lol to answer? That's the answer of a great mind, and a highly educated person, really. The point is you make assumptions based on nothing other people, you realize that you couldn't have gone more wrong and you expect to get out with it just with your uber-agressive standpoint. Well it doesn't work.
lol is simply my answer to something that has no bearing on this topic of conversation, i don't want to derail the thread. All i saw in the last paragraph was pompous intellectual posturing. Clearly you needed to show that you are far superior to me. I don't need to answer any of that.
Finland (which has a population of about 5mil not 4), great- Kentucky has about the same number of people (population 4.3 mil or something), still has a higher gdp. Whats the point? also americas population is not 270million. it's just a bit over 300mil.
And you also don't support what has been done in Russia or in China? why? millions of people are beginning to make more money, and are starting to have a better quality of life. I don't understand what is so bad about this?
As for the Russians, once again can i see the evidence that the majority of the populace thought life was better 30 years ago?
if you can bring some data into your 'facts' i would rally appreciate it. I may stand corrected, but for now- I'm just feeling really confused. All of your population estimates are way off the mark, and i am still wondering why so many of these 'facts' you use, don't have any evidence to support your claim.
Also how am i being aggressive? none of the other posts that i had pointed out to you don't seem the least bit obtuse and overbearing? When i see things like, it annoys me. So i am sharing my opinion back. How is that aggressive?
|
The idea that Republicans need to abandon the principles they used to stand for is silly. Of course, many liberals promote the 'need to adapt' because they want it to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is, by adapt they mean adopt positions that are more liberal.
The conservative movement as I understand it is based on the idea that timeless universal principles can be applied to any society that has a sufficient degree of engagement and morality, no matter the context, and that the resulting policies will be more beneficial than any historical alternatives. Thus, they want to 'conserve' these principles.
This is directly opposed to the 'progressive' viewpoint that truth and what is right are relative, and 'progress' as society gets more technologically advanced and their needs change, etc.
Our positions are determined by whether or not we see timeless universal principles as a pattern throughout history across civilizations, cultures, etc. I personally clearly see patterns of history and individual and collective behavior that lead me to believe in timeless principles and rules that apply to society. Each rising generation seems to think they are unique in some way because they have new technology, but history has shown that while technological contexts change, the way people behave is the same. The new contexts just reveal new, previously latent applications of timeless principles of behavior.
I for one consider myself conservative, but am frustrated by what I perceive to be corruption in the Republican party. I feel that our attitude towards government has become to dependent. Whether or not you think 90% of tea party members are racists clinging to God and their guns or not, the principle of ordinary people holding an established government accountable hearkens back to America's infancy, and I would hope we can agree that the group of men involved in its creation, while holding widely opposing views, had the wisdom to recognize and apply timeless principles and create quite a successful experiment in governance.
|
On September 27 2010 04:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote:
China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia. Communism is radical socialism HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Now, I see how educated you are. Have you read a goddamn fucking line of Marx? Do you even know what communism means? Do you know that communism as such has never existed? Do you know that communism means DISAPEARANCE of the state? My god. And you said I was ignorant. That's hillarious.
see now im even more confused biff. Communism is simply a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership. soo.... what exactly did i say that was so wrong?
|
On September 27 2010 04:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:Oh and by the way: EDIT: I know it's old, but gotta love it
Yes, true conservatives have serious issues with this. True fiscal conservatives don't call Clinton a tax and spend liberal. They also are seriously concerned about President Obama's deficit which if I understand correctly, is several times greater than all of these after only 2 years.
|
On September 27 2010 04:15 Melancholia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2010 04:07 Mindcrime wrote:On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote:
China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia. You should know what terms mean before you use them. Um, you do know that liberal market policies are free-market ones, right? The term "liberal" has been warped somewhat in the US. Or were you commenting about about how he made the rather obvious point that communism is a form of socialism?
I wish I had a picture of Marx facepalming to post.
How about... for claiming that there was a "communist market" in China?
|
On September 27 2010 03:44 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2010 03:04 teekesselchen wrote:If only America would have better education, at least the Tea Party wing would simply vanish. It takes serious mental damage to support such archaic ideas which specifically oppose everything good the USA ever represented. Come on, the virtues of the USA are engraved into the statue of liberty itself and yet the so "patriotic" tea party quite obviously despises them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_ColossusIf they should ever have serious control over decisions in US politics, the whole nation will regress into medieval intellectual poverty. From "defenders of human rights" back to "hunting the devil", yeah. Statue of Liberty is French.
I don't see how that changes anything. True it was made in France, but we accepted it and the quote engraved on it is known by most American schoolchildren. The statue itself is a symbol not of France but of the US.
As far as this year's election goes, there's a possibility that the Democrats will retain control of both houses but there will definitely be losses for the Democrats. More than likely the house is going down with the senate maintaining a small Democrat majority but the election is still a month away and voters still need time to get to know their candidates. The tea party I think is double edged blade for the GOP, a movement so uncohesive is bound to have some nutballs that push moderates away but is doing a great job of energizing their base (and lets not pretend that the tea party is not the GOP's base). Moderates are probably torn between disappointment with Obama and the economy and exasperation at the GOP's consistent lack of any new ideas.
|
On September 27 2010 04:29 Ramiel wrote:
soo.... what exactly did i say that was so wrong?
See your previous sentence.
Communism is simply a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership.
|
On September 27 2010 04:33 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2010 04:15 Melancholia wrote:On September 27 2010 04:07 Mindcrime wrote:On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote:
China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia. You should know what terms mean before you use them. Um, you do know that liberal market policies are free-market ones, right? The term "liberal" has been warped somewhat in the US. Or were you commenting about about how he made the rather obvious point that communism is a form of socialism? I wish I had a picture of Marx facepalming to post. How about... for claiming that there was a "communist market" in China?
lolololololol
It's terrible that everybody has a strong opinion about socialism / communism and then you realize that most of theses don't even have a clue about what communism even mean.
Ok.
Communism: Stateless and classeless society which has abolished private property, and in which there is no worker specialisation between intellectual / manual work, nor between city and countryside.
Socialism was supposed to be a moment between capitalism and communism where the state was taking control in the name of the proletarians of the production. It was meant to last a few years before the establishment of communism, which obviously never happened anywhere for various reason that I can explain if someone is interested.
USSR: Union of soviet SOCIALIST republic. That was not a communist country, for christ's sake!
|
American politics are so frightening. So many people here that seem to be reasonable yet are holding discussions about how to preserve the republican party when that same party has just done incredible amounts of damage not just to America but to the world and is populated almost exclusively either by cynics or religious lunatics. But no, we have to stop Pelosi and her radical agenda!!
|
On September 27 2010 03:57 Melancholia wrote:
Which party is more likely to not believe in evolution? There are many grey areas of belief, although this is often defined as a binary position. Additionally, this is not necessarily directly related to creating good public policy.
On September 27 2010 03:57 Melancholia wrote:Which one has the strongest history of invasive, anti-sex policies? If conservatives are anti-sex, why do they have more kids? Isn't it more invasive for Federal law to dictate to States what they should do about abortion, whereas otherwise there would be a nice eclectic mix and people could live where they like?
On September 27 2010 03:57 Melancholia wrote:Has in the modern era most often opposed sexual, physical, racial, and other minorities? If you know history, you'd understand that both parties are involved in bad racial policies. I'm curious what you mean by physical minorities?
On September 27 2010 03:57 Melancholia wrote:ls most prone to supporting tax policies that would explode the deficit while simultaneously claiming to be fiscally responsible? I think it's safe to say both parties are horrendously guilty of this.
On September 27 2010 03:57 Melancholia wrote:Believes that locking people up is a better way to deal with the medical condition of addiction than sending them to doctors? In principle I agree with this, however there are many examples, particularly of those involving repeat sex offenders, where this is clearly not a good idea. Some individuals may be unsafe for society. Maybe we should reform our jail system and not just let everyone loose?
On September 27 2010 03:57 Melancholia wrote:Opposes health care reform in the face of desperate health care and financial statistics?
I don't think you can honestly say this. Many who opposed health care reform did so because they thought the bill would be bad financially for individuals and the nation as a whole. Thus, they did not oppose health care reform, they opposed a bill with that name which they didn't see as living up to its namesake.
On September 27 2010 03:57 Melancholia wrote:Supports unconstitutional religious intrusion into public government? If you review the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and knew more about the context of Jefferson's much mis-interpreted 'Wall of Separation' statement, I don't think you would claim this.
|
On September 27 2010 04:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2010 04:33 Mindcrime wrote:On September 27 2010 04:15 Melancholia wrote:On September 27 2010 04:07 Mindcrime wrote:On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote:
China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia. You should know what terms mean before you use them. Um, you do know that liberal market policies are free-market ones, right? The term "liberal" has been warped somewhat in the US. Or were you commenting about about how he made the rather obvious point that communism is a form of socialism? I wish I had a picture of Marx facepalming to post. How about... for claiming that there was a "communist market" in China? lolololololol It's terrible that everybody has a strong opinion about socialism / communism and then you realize that most of theses don't even have a clue about what communism even mean. Ok. Communism: Stateless and classeless society which has abolished private property, and in which there is no worker specialisation between intellectual / manual work, nor between city and countryside. Socialism was supposed to be a moment between capitalism and communism where the state was taking control in the name of the proletarians of the production. It was meant to last a few years before the establishment of communism, which obviously never happened anywhere for various reason that I can explain if someone is interested. USSR: Union of soviet SOCIALIST republic. That was not a communist country, for christ's sake!
If you could list a few reasons I would appreciate it.
In my limited knowledge (if you can even call it that) it's because of human traits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
