| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"LisaKay" |
| Date: |
12 Aug 2004 06:16:48 PM |
| Object: |
US presidential election information |
I see lots of biased information about the presidential candidates
here and all over the web. I'd like a non-biased comparison of the
candidates. A data table with their stance on each issue would be
nice.
I'm sure something like that exists on the web, but I can't find it.
Any ideas?
Yes, I know every source is biased in some way, but something as
non-biased as possible.
-LisaKay
aa#2054
.
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: US presidential election information |
12 Aug 2004 08:48:01 PM |
|
|
"LisaKay" <LisaKay2054@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1dbe2aec.0408121516.7e087298@posting.google.com...
I see lots of biased information about the presidential candidates
here and all over the web. I'd like a non-biased comparison of the
candidates. A data table with their stance on each issue would be
nice.
I'm sure something like that exists on the web, but I can't find it.
Any ideas?
Yes, I know every source is biased in some way, but something as
non-biased as possible.
Lisa, something like that could only be provided by a miracle from God..
And we are in the wrong newsgroup to ask Him.
.. ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: US presidential election information |
12 Aug 2004 09:03:44 PM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@verizon.net> wrote in
news:l5VSc.14161$EQ5.8181@nwrddc03.gnilink.net:
"LisaKay" <LisaKay2054@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1dbe2aec.0408121516.7e087298@posting.google.com...
I see lots of biased information about the presidential candidates
here and all over the web. I'd like a non-biased comparison of the
candidates. A data table with their stance on each issue would be
nice.
I'm sure something like that exists on the web, but I can't find it.
Any ideas?
Yes, I know every source is biased in some way, but something as
non-biased as possible.
Lisa, something like that could only be provided by a miracle from
God..
And we are in the wrong newsgroup to ask Him.
. ;-)
Thy prayer is granted:
http://www.ontheissues.org
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: US presidential election information |
14 Aug 2004 09:36:22 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9543E071A575Afstone69@207.69.154.206...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@verizon.net> wrote in
news:l5VSc.14161$EQ5.8181@nwrddc03.gnilink.net:
"LisaKay" <LisaKay2054@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1dbe2aec.0408121516.7e087298@posting.google.com...
I see lots of biased information about the presidential candidates
here and all over the web. I'd like a non-biased comparison of the
candidates. A data table with their stance on each issue would be
nice.
I'm sure something like that exists on the web, but I can't find it.
Any ideas?
Yes, I know every source is biased in some way, but something as
non-biased as possible.
Lisa, something like that could only be provided by a miracle from
God..
And we are in the wrong newsgroup to ask Him.
. ;-)
Thy prayer is granted:
http://www.ontheissues.org
Oh, Fred.....CATASTROPHE!!!
According to that site, I am most in line with HOWARD DEAN, then *****
Cheney, then George Bush, with a38%, 37% and 37% share.
You can imagine the shock to my good conservative system that was....
But .....at the bottom of the list, at a whopping 14%, was Kerry.
So maybe I'm not totally lost from the fold. ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: US presidential election information |
14 Aug 2004 10:00:29 AM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@verizon.net> wrote
According to that site, I am most in line with HOWARD
DEAN, then ***** Cheney, then George Bush, with a38%,
37% and 37% share.
Such sites are worthless.
The Republicans ran on privatizing Social Security in 2000.
Well, it took them a stolen election to claim victory, so
all references to Social Security privatization mysteriously
vanished from the official GOP web sites prior to the 2002
election.
So, what do you go by? The official party lip service? What
they were saying when they thought it wouldn't cost them an
election? What they actually do?
And if you go by what they do, who interprets it for you?
"Fred" is suggesting that you let some web site make those
decisions for you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: US presidential election information |
14 Aug 2004 12:35:13 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EfCdnezGIfMmuoPcRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@verizon.net> wrote
According to that site, I am most in line with HOWARD
DEAN, then ***** Cheney, then George Bush, with a38%,
37% and 37% share.
Such sites are worthless.
The Republicans ran on privatizing Social Security in 2000.
Well, it took them a stolen election to claim victory, so
all references to Social Security privatization mysteriously
vanished from the official GOP web sites prior to the 2002
election.
So, what do you go by? The official party lip service? What
they were saying when they thought it wouldn't cost them an
election? What they actually do?
And if you go by what they do, who interprets it for you?
"Fred" is suggesting that you let some web site make those
decisions for you.
Nah, Fred was pointing out a website that was a little fun, compared stated
positions, and provided some amusement.
Me, I'm going to vote for Bush. I wouldn't have voted for Dean had he still
been in the running. No worries...;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: US presidential election information |
14 Aug 2004 01:33:42 PM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@verizon.net> wrote in
news:l3sTc.14$Kf4.6@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EfCdnezGIfMmuoPcRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@verizon.net> wrote
According to that site, I am most in line with HOWARD
DEAN, then ***** Cheney, then George Bush, with a38%,
37% and 37% share.
Such sites are worthless.
The Republicans ran on privatizing Social Security in 2000.
Well, it took them a stolen election to claim victory, so
all references to Social Security privatization mysteriously
vanished from the official GOP web sites prior to the 2002
election.
So, what do you go by? The official party lip service? What
they were saying when they thought it wouldn't cost them an
election? What they actually do?
And if you go by what they do, who interprets it for you?
"Fred" is suggesting that you let some web site make those
decisions for you.
Nah, Fred was pointing out a website that was a little fun, compared
stated positions, and provided some amusement.
If anything that site is a bit outdated. It's hard to keep up with
Kerry's stated positions... ;-)
Me, I'm going to vote for Bush. I wouldn't have voted for Dean had he
still been in the running. No worries...;-)
Heh, JTEM's still yapping at my heels. Talk about not being able to let
things go...
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: US presidential election information |
14 Aug 2004 10:32:26 AM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@verizon.net> wrote in news:GrpTc.5179$SC1.2247
@nwrddc03.gnilink.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9543E071A575Afstone69@207.69.154.206...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@verizon.net> wrote in
news:l5VSc.14161$EQ5.8181@nwrddc03.gnilink.net:
"LisaKay" <LisaKay2054@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1dbe2aec.0408121516.7e087298@posting.google.com...
I see lots of biased information about the presidential candidates
here and all over the web. I'd like a non-biased comparison of
the
candidates. A data table with their stance on each issue would be
nice.
I'm sure something like that exists on the web, but I can't find
it.
Any ideas?
Yes, I know every source is biased in some way, but something as
non-biased as possible.
Lisa, something like that could only be provided by a miracle from
God..
And we are in the wrong newsgroup to ask Him.
. ;-)
Thy prayer is granted:
http://www.ontheissues.org
Oh, Fred.....CATASTROPHE!!!
According to that site, I am most in line with HOWARD DEAN, then *****
Cheney, then George Bush, with a38%, 37% and 37% share.
You can imagine the shock to my good conservative system that was....
But .....at the bottom of the list, at a whopping 14%, was Kerry.
So maybe I'm not totally lost from the fold. ;-)
My score was Dean 55%, Graham 48%, Bush 48% and Kerry's only down at
35%.
Or by party, 58% Democrat, 43% Republican, 23% Green :-)
I am a *Centrist*. (Don't tell the ABB's :-)
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: US presidential election information |
14 Aug 2004 12:38:50 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95457567BB686fstone69@207.69.154.206...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@verizon.net> wrote in news:GrpTc.5179$SC1.2247
@nwrddc03.gnilink.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9543E071A575Afstone69@207.69.154.206...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@verizon.net> wrote in
news:l5VSc.14161$EQ5.8181@nwrddc03.gnilink.net:
"LisaKay" <LisaKay2054@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1dbe2aec.0408121516.7e087298@posting.google.com...
I see lots of biased information about the presidential candidates
here and all over the web. I'd like a non-biased comparison of
the
candidates. A data table with their stance on each issue would be
nice.
I'm sure something like that exists on the web, but I can't find
it.
Any ideas?
Yes, I know every source is biased in some way, but something as
non-biased as possible.
Lisa, something like that could only be provided by a miracle from
God..
And we are in the wrong newsgroup to ask Him.
. ;-)
Thy prayer is granted:
http://www.ontheissues.org
Oh, Fred.....CATASTROPHE!!!
According to that site, I am most in line with HOWARD DEAN, then *****
Cheney, then George Bush, with a38%, 37% and 37% share.
You can imagine the shock to my good conservative system that was....
But .....at the bottom of the list, at a whopping 14%, was Kerry.
So maybe I'm not totally lost from the fold. ;-)
My score was Dean 55%, Graham 48%, Bush 48% and Kerry's only down at
35%.
Or by party, 58% Democrat, 43% Republican, 23% Green :-)
I am a *Centrist*. (Don't tell the ABB's :-)
There was another site...the URL of which I have NO clue...that measured
this with some chart or other; right of center, left of center, wanting more
government ruling and less...
I came out just slightly to the right of center and wanting a lot less
government.
Which astounded my debate opponents, all of whom have me catagorized as
somewhere to the right of Rush Limbaugh and wanting more control than
Genghis Khan..;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: US presidential election information |
14 Aug 2004 01:21:21 PM |
|
|
"DianaC" <dianaiad@verizon.net> wrote in
news:K6sTc.20$Kf4.4@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95457567BB686fstone69@207.69.154.206...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@verizon.net> wrote in news:GrpTc.5179$SC1.2247
@nwrddc03.gnilink.net:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9543E071A575Afstone69@207.69.154.206...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@verizon.net> wrote in
news:l5VSc.14161$EQ5.8181@nwrddc03.gnilink.net:
"LisaKay" <LisaKay2054@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1dbe2aec.0408121516.7e087298@posting.google.com...
I see lots of biased information about the presidential
candidates here and all over the web. I'd like a non-biased
comparison of
the
candidates. A data table with their stance on each issue would
be nice.
I'm sure something like that exists on the web, but I can't
find
it.
Any ideas?
Yes, I know every source is biased in some way, but something
as non-biased as possible.
Lisa, something like that could only be provided by a miracle
from God..
And we are in the wrong newsgroup to ask Him.
. ;-)
Thy prayer is granted:
http://www.ontheissues.org
Oh, Fred.....CATASTROPHE!!!
According to that site, I am most in line with HOWARD DEAN, then
***** Cheney, then George Bush, with a38%, 37% and 37% share.
You can imagine the shock to my good conservative system that
was....
But .....at the bottom of the list, at a whopping 14%, was Kerry.
So maybe I'm not totally lost from the fold. ;-)
My score was Dean 55%, Graham 48%, Bush 48% and Kerry's only down at
35%.
Or by party, 58% Democrat, 43% Republican, 23% Green :-)
I am a *Centrist*. (Don't tell the ABB's :-)
There was another site...the URL of which I have NO clue...that
measured this with some chart or other; right of center, left of
center, wanting more government ruling and less...
Maybe http://www.politopia.com ? http://www.lp.org has one too, but I
suspect they're weighted pretty heavily toward finding everybody is a
libertarian.
This one's a bit fancier:
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/index.html
Two variables is a little better than the usual left-right axis. Being a
stats guy but not a polisci guy I have to wonder how they did their
factor analysis. :-)
I came out just slightly to the right of center and wanting a lot less
government.
Which astounded my debate opponents, all of whom have me catagorized
as somewhere to the right of Rush Limbaugh and wanting more control
than Genghis Khan..;-)
I know how *that* goes. Forget about taking a moderate position, either
you're for us or we're against you.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DianaC" |
|
| Title: Re: US presidential election information |
14 Aug 2004 01:47:18 PM |
|
|
<snip to>
Maybe http://www.politopia.com ? http://www.lp.org has one too, but I
suspect they're weighted pretty heavily toward finding everybody is a
libertarian.
This one's a bit fancier:
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/index.html
Two variables is a little better than the usual left-right axis. Being a
stats guy but not a polisci guy I have to wonder how they did their
factor analysis. :-)
I came out just slightly to the right of center and wanting a lot less
government.
Which astounded my debate opponents, all of whom have me catagorized
as somewhere to the right of Rush Limbaugh and wanting more control
than Genghis Khan..;-)
I know how *that* goes. Forget about taking a moderate position, either
you're for us or we're against you.
I get that a lot. Well, I have a lot more time on my hands than is good for
me, I went to all the above links and played. ;-)
And all of 'em put me ever so slightly to the right of center and ever so
slightly libertarian. One more square left and I'm smack dab in the middle.
Now what does that tell you about where all the liberals are today, if those
they call right wing fanatics are actually CENTRISTS??
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LisaKay" |
|
| Title: Re: US presidential election information |
13 Aug 2004 03:50:37 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9543E071A575Afstone69@207.69.154.206>...
"DianaC" <dianaiad@verizon.net> wrote in
news:l5VSc.14161$EQ5.8181@nwrddc03.gnilink.net:
"LisaKay" <LisaKay2054@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1dbe2aec.0408121516.7e087298@posting.google.com...
I see lots of biased information about the presidential candidates
here and all over the web. I'd like a non-biased comparison of the
candidates. A data table with their stance on each issue would be
nice.
I'm sure something like that exists on the web, but I can't find it.
Any ideas?
Yes, I know every source is biased in some way, but something as
non-biased as possible.
Lisa, something like that could only be provided by a miracle from
God..
And we are in the wrong newsgroup to ask Him.
. ;-)
Thy prayer is granted:
http://www.ontheissues.org
Fantastic site! There's a quiz that matches you to a candidate.
Unfortunately I was only 33% matched with GWB and 20% with Kerry. No
wonder I can't choose a candidate!! I matched Lieberman at 48% and
Cheney at 45%. It doesn't even match me clearly to a party. I bet I
would match up best with a libertarian candidate, but none are listed.
Matching me with party platforms, I get 38% dem and 38% rep. Wow!
Well, it didn't help me decide who to vote for, but thanks for the
site!
-LisaKay
aa #2054
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: US presidential election information |
12 Aug 2004 06:35:10 PM |
|
|
"LisaKay" <LisaKay2054@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1dbe2aec.0408121516.7e087298@posting.google.com...
I see lots of biased information about the presidential candidates
here and all over the web. I'd like a non-biased comparison of the
candidates. A data table with their stance on each issue would be
nice.
I'm sure something like that exists on the web, but I can't find it.
Any ideas?
Yes, I know every source is biased in some way, but something as
non-biased as possible.
The problem is that you'll never be able to construct such a matrix for
Kerry. Mr "I voted for it before I voted against it," can't even sit on the
fence. He has to occupy both sides at the same time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: US presidential election information |
13 Aug 2004 01:02:10 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote
The problem is that you'll never be able to construct
such a matrix for Kerry. Mr "I voted for it before I
voted against it," can't even sit on the
fence.
Interesting that Bush held exactly three different positions
on the exact same bill, and you have no problems with
him.
When the $87 billion funding bill first went up for a vote,
it called for $10 billion (of the roughly $20 billion) in
totally unaccounted for spending for the "reconstruction
of Iraq" to be repaid as a loan.
This was because half (or so) of the "damage" to Iraq
was caused by more than 10 years of sanctions, rather
than the war.
Anyhow, your god, Bush, said he would veto the bill.
Kerry voted for it.
Then the Republicans amended the bill to make the
full $20 billion in unaccounted for spending a "Gift"
to Halliburton...errr.. a "Gift" to the Iraqi people.
Bush supported this version, he even signed it. Kerry
voted against it.
At that point Bush & Kerry had both taken two positions
on the one bill. Not to be matched, Bush then adopted a
third position.
Bush next decided that you'd have to be a
terrorist-supporting, American-hating revolutionary to
do what he did and withhold support from *any* version of
the bill.
Bush did exactly that -- promising to veto the bill unless
it was amended -- but he insisted that it was wrong to do
what he did.
And do you know what's really pathetic? The Bush supporters.
Everything I've just said is a matter of public record. It's not
like it's difficult to dig up the truth is you try. Bush supporters
though, they want to be lied to.
I guess the truth about Bush is too much for them to handle,
so they have to cling to these lies...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: US presidential election information |
12 Aug 2004 08:19:06 PM |
|
|
TV's Fester wrote:
"LisaKay" <LisaKay2054@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1dbe2aec.0408121516.7e087298@posting.google.com...
I see lots of biased information about the presidential candidates
here and all over the web. I'd like a non-biased comparison of the
candidates. A data table with their stance on each issue would be
nice.
I'm sure something like that exists on the web, but I can't find it.
Any ideas?
Yes, I know every source is biased in some way, but something as
non-biased as possible.
The problem is that you'll never be able to construct such a matrix
for Kerry. Mr "I voted for it before I voted against it," can't even
sit on the fence. He has to occupy both sides at the same time.
As opposed to Herr Dumbya, who can't sit on the fence due to his head being
in the way.
--
If you don't like my lyrics you can press fast forward. - Jay-Z
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "commutator" |
|
| Title: Re: US presidential election information |
13 Aug 2004 05:11:35 AM |
|
|
(LisaKay) wrote in message news:<1dbe2aec.0408121516.7e087298@posting.google.com>...
The voting record of Kerry is posted somewhere in here. Thread called
John Kerry's voting record or something to that effect. (created by
Torres or something like that)
EOM.
I see lots of biased information about the presidential candidates
here and all over the web. I'd like a non-biased comparison of the
candidates. A data table with their stance on each issue would be
nice.
I'm sure something like that exists on the web, but I can't find it.
Any ideas?
Yes, I know every source is biased in some way, but something as
non-biased as possible.
-LisaKay
aa#2054
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "A. Bolmarcich" |
|
| Title: Re: US presidential election information |
12 Aug 2004 06:57:32 PM |
|
|
In article <1dbe2aec.0408121516.7e087298@posting.google.com>, LisaKay wrote:
I see lots of biased information about the presidential candidates
here and all over the web. I'd like a non-biased comparison of the
candidates. A data table with their stance on each issue would be
nice.
Open
http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president_party.php?party_name=All
Select each candidate for whom the NPAT (National Political Awareness
Test) column is "2004". Unfortunately, the candidates of the two
major political parties refuse to fill out the form.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Holden" |
|
| Title: Re: US presidential election information |
13 Aug 2004 10:31:53 AM |
|
|
LisaKay wrote:
I see lots of biased information about the presidential candidates
here and all over the web. I'd like a non-biased comparison of the
candidates. A data table with their stance on each issue would be
nice.
I'm sure something like that exists on the web, but I can't find it.
Any ideas?
Yes, I know every source is biased in some way, but something as
non-biased as possible.
-LisaKay
aa#2054
http://www.factcheck.org/
Not a site where you can find stances taken by the candidates, but it does
de-bunk some of the lies and crap that both sides are spewing on the
campaign trail.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: US presidential election information |
13 Aug 2004 05:24:55 PM |
|
|
On 12 Aug 2004 16:16:48 -0700, (LisaKay)
thought hard and said:
I see lots of biased information about the presidential candidates
here and all over the web. I'd like a non-biased comparison of the
candidates. A data table with their stance on each issue would be
nice.
I'm sure something like that exists on the web, but I can't find it.
Any ideas?
Yes, I know every source is biased in some way, but something as
non-biased as possible.
-LisaKay
aa#2054
http://issues2000.org/default.htm
Have fun... heh heh heh.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: US presidential election information |
12 Aug 2004 07:23:16 PM |
|
|
On 12 Aug 2004 16:16:48 -0700, (LisaKay)
wrote:
I see lots of biased information about the presidential candidates
here and all over the web. I'd like a non-biased comparison of the
candidates. A data table with their stance on each issue would be
nice.
I'm sure something like that exists on the web, but I can't find it.
Any ideas?
Yes, I know every source is biased in some way, but something as
non-biased as possible.
-LisaKay
aa#2054
I can give you that right now:
They all lie through their teeth, and would sell their grandmothers if
it helped their rich buddies.
That has just saved you hours of wading through the 'net.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LisaKay" |
|
| Title: Re: US presidential election information |
13 Aug 2004 03:51:37 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message news:<1b2oh0tjjh24f01v0pru8oqbv65elsl1mp@4ax.com>...
On 12 Aug 2004 16:16:48 -0700, (LisaKay)
wrote:
I see lots of biased information about the presidential candidates
here and all over the web. I'd like a non-biased comparison of the
candidates. A data table with their stance on each issue would be
nice.
I'm sure something like that exists on the web, but I can't find it.
Any ideas?
Yes, I know every source is biased in some way, but something as
non-biased as possible.
-LisaKay
aa#2054
I can give you that right now:
They all lie through their teeth, and would sell their grandmothers if
it helped their rich buddies.
That has just saved you hours of wading through the 'net.
I realize that, but let me be idealistic and at least pretend that the system works.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: US presidential election information |
13 Aug 2004 06:16:19 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:16:48 -0700, LisaKay wrote:
I see lots of biased information about the presidential candidates here
and all over the web. I'd like a non-biased comparison of the candidates.
A data table with their stance on each issue would be nice.
I'm sure something like that exists on the web, but I can't find it. Any
ideas?
Yes, I know every source is biased in some way, but something as
non-biased as possible.
-LisaKay
aa#2054
Try the League of Women Voters. They usually have good reference material
without a lot of hype.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
