Gwen Ifill's Crazy Blue 1980s Style Jacket Politics Thread!

Postby dajafi » Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:44:10

I should probably add that I really appreciate Sullivan's obsession with accountability from candidates. Over the top as he's been on some aspects of Palin-mania, I give him huge credit for being, far as I've seen, the only voice out there hammering on her unwillingness to so much as hold a press conference... and on his peers in the press and the public for not making a bigger deal of this.

TPM posted a clipof Palin being interviewed by one of the Fox "News" lackeys, in which she explained her bad performance with Couric by saying that she was annoyed at how Couric's pesky questions got in the way of her criticizing Obama (I'm paraphrasing, but not really all that much). This is about as close as I've ever seen a national political figure come to explicitly articulating that the role of the press really should be to serve as stenographers and amplifiers for talking points.

Again, it's ironic and sad that McCain--a man who built his reputation in large part through his openness to and candor with the press--is reduced to championing a simpleton like Palin in what looks likely to be his last few weeks of relevance on the national stage.

dajafi
Moderator / BSG MVP
Moderator / BSG MVP
 
Posts: 24567
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 20:03:18
Location: Brooklyn

Postby dajafi » Sat Oct 04, 2008 14:22:11

for Vox:

Image

for pacino:

Image

for nobody:

Image

and of course for me:

Image

dajafi
Moderator / BSG MVP
Moderator / BSG MVP
 
Posts: 24567
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 20:03:18
Location: Brooklyn

Postby Philly the Kid » Sat Oct 04, 2008 14:40:06

Laexile wrote: bunch of stuff about Palin...

I believe that anyone can believe or do whatever they want as long as it doesn't impact others.

In fact, it's my core belief that everyone's beliefs have equal value.


re: Palin. I suspect what she really believes and what she 'says' she believes are not the same thing. I suspect, that she is a person (beauty pageant, sports competitor) who likes the public eye, and is now a politician well entrenched. She's tied to certain interests and will espouse what needs to be said to be consistent with those interests. If the great leaders of her sect changed philosophy and the entire herd followed, she would likely as well if it was expedient for her.

re: ..." as long as it doesn't impact others..." I think everything everyone does and thinks impacts others. We are all related and connceted and inter-connected. This theoretical I'll do what I want, and you do what you want isn't reality. Maybe in nomadic times with a few thousand people on the planet, you could go live by yourself and do and think whatever you wanted and not impact anyone in any overt way, though even then you would still have some impact. Now its a crowded planet, people self-organize in a variety of ways, and its kind of abstract, theoretical at best, and naive at worst to think what people think and do can in some way, 'not impact others'.

re: ... "everyones' beliefs have equal values..." Not really sure what the means? Or what that extrapolates to? Its sort of a cool sounding phrase but seems more like a mis-direction. I don't know what intrinsic value a belief has? Everyone doesn't have equal opportunity or equal resources. Beliefs are usually a foundation for actions. And beliefs are foundations for teaching and influencing other peoples beliefs. As one teacher says -- "a belief is just a thought you keep repeating" ...

Philly the Kid
Space Cadet
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 19434
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 13:25:27

Postby Laexile » Sat Oct 04, 2008 15:39:51

For someone not sure what it means you sure write alone. I have no idea what she believes. I've never spoken with her. I have no idea what you mean by everyone impacting others. Of course we do. How does that change the idea that anyone can do or believe what they want? Some people here seem to want a totalitarian society where people are prohibited from certain jobs due to their beliefs. While the left is justifiably trying to end intolerance against gays and minorities they push an intolerance of the religious, among others. They allow no room for differing points of view on so many issues these days. Intolerance used to be the ugly underbelly of the right and tolerance used to be an admirable quality of the left. The left was about showing the right what tolerance was. Instead they've become them.
Laexile
There's Our Old Friend
There's Our Old Friend
 
Posts: 3307
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 13:50:23
Location: LA

Postby pacino » Sat Oct 04, 2008 15:47:08

what a load of bullcrap
thephan wrote:pacino's posting is one of the more important things revealed in weeks.

Calvinball wrote:Pacino was right.

pacino
Moderator / BSG MVP
Moderator / BSG MVP
 
Posts: 75831
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 18:37:20
Location: Furkin Good

Postby Philly the Kid » Sat Oct 04, 2008 15:47:15

Laexile wrote:For someone not sure what it means you sure write alone. I have no idea what she believes. I've never spoken with her. I have no idea what you mean by everyone impacting others. Of course we do. How does that change the idea that anyone can do or believe what they want? Some people here seem to want a totalitarian society where people are prohibited from certain jobs due to their beliefs. While the left is justifiably trying to end intolerance against gays and minorities they push an intolerance of the religious, among others. They allow no room for differing points of view on so many issues these days. Intolerance used to be the ugly underbelly of the right and tolerance used to be an admirable quality of the left. The left was about showing the right what tolerance was. Instead they've become them.


THere may be shreds of truth there, but large wholesale blankey statemtns (generalizations) aren't going to get us very far. As well, it's a nice hypothetical to say that relgious tolerance should be adhered to. The problem with fundamentalists, is that they consider anyone who don'est believe or say they bleive, what they want to hear, to be invalidated. Many religions by their very doctrine, or stated stands, de-humanize and invalidadate anyone who is the same as they are. When we get in to social and cultural views, what happens when someone's religion trumps the rule of law, or democracy, or a "you can live that way, we'll live this way"??

If me and my friends believe abortion is a drag but fully an individuals right, and you as a representative of your religion, (a mere social construct and self-organizing mechansim) come along and tell me that I can't live that way -- because you don't think its ok? What about people in Africa or Middle-east that justify clitoral mutiliation of girls on religious grounds. Hey, too bad, that's their views... no one has a right to step in?

It's a secular world of laws, being guided at times by a lot of fundamentalists, extremists, etc...

Demonstrate to me this vision of tolerance? Describe it for me in real terms here now today in 2008? Just use the USA, forget other countries for the moment...?

Philly the Kid
Space Cadet
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 19434
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 13:25:27

Postby dajafi » Sat Oct 04, 2008 16:39:38

The Times has a thoughtful look at Obama's association with the former Weatherman Bill Ayers. The conclusion, borne out by what seems like a goodly amount of digging, is that there ain't much there there:

[C]onservative critics who accuse Mr. Obama of a stealth radical agenda have asserted that he has misleadingly minimized his relationship with Mr. Ayers, whom the candidate has dismissed as “a guy who lives in my neighborhood” and “somebody who worked on education issues in Chicago that I know.”

A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called “somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.”
...
That project was part of a national school reform effort financed with $500 million from Walter H. Annenberg, the billionaire publisher and philanthropist and President Richard M. Nixon’s ambassador to the United Kingdom. Many cities applied for the Annenberg money, and Mr. Ayers joined two other local education activists to lead a broad, citywide effort that won nearly $50 million for Chicago.

In March 1995, Mr. Obama became chairman of the six-member board that oversaw the distribution of grants in Chicago. Some bloggers have recently speculated that Mr. Ayers had engineered that post for him.

In fact, according to several people involved, Mr. Ayers played no role in Mr. Obama’s appointment. Instead, it was suggested by Deborah Leff, then president of the Joyce Foundation, a Chicago-based group whose board Mr. Obama, a young lawyer, had joined the previous year. At a lunch with two other foundation heads, Patricia A. Graham of the Spencer Foundation and Adele Simmons of the MacArthur Foundation, Ms. Leff suggested that Mr. Obama would make a good board chairman, she said in an interview. Mr. Ayers was not present and had not suggested Mr. Obama, she said.
...
Archives of the Chicago Annenberg project, which funneled the money to networks of schools from 1995 to 2000, show both men attended six board meetings early in the project — Mr. Obama as chairman, Mr. Ayers to brief members on school issues.

It was later in 1995 that Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn hosted the gathering, in their town house three blocks from Mr. Obama’s home, at which State Senator Alice J. Palmer, who planned to run for Congress, introduced Mr. Obama to a few Democratic friends as her chosen successor. That was one of several such neighborhood events as Mr. Obama prepared to run, said A. J. Wolf, the 84-year-old emeritus rabbi of KAM Isaiah Israel Synagogue, across the street from Mr. Obama’s current house.

“If you ask my wife, we had the first coffee for Barack,” Rabbi Wolf said. He said he had known Mr. Ayers for decades but added, “Bill’s mad at me because I told a reporter he’s a toothless ex-radical.”

“It was kind of a nasty shot,” Mr. Wolf said. “But it’s true. For God’s sake, he’s a professor.”
...
In 1997, after Mr. Obama took office, the new state senator was asked what he was reading by The Chicago Tribune. He praised a book by Mr. Ayers, “A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court,” which Mr. Obama called “a searing and timely account of the juvenile court system.” In 2001, Mr. Ayers donated $200 to Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign.

In addition, from 2000 to 2002, the two men also overlapped on the seven-member board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago charity that had supported Mr. Obama’s first work as a community organizer in the 1980s. Officials there said the board met about a dozen times during those three years but declined to make public the minutes, saying they wanted members to be candid in assessing people and organizations applying for grants.

A board member at the time, R. Eden Martin, a corporate lawyer and president of the Commercial Club of Chicago, described both men as conscientious in examining proposed community projects but could recall nothing remarkable about their dealings with each other. “You had people who were liberal and some who were pretty conservative, but we usually reached a consensus,” Mr. Martin said of the panel.

Since 2002, there is little public evidence of their relationship.


A lot of the rest of the piece focuses on the extent to which Ayers has been "rehabilitated" in Chicago--Mayor Daley seems to think so--and the phenomenon, which we've seen episodically even in our politics discussions, of further-left people reconciling themselves to vote for Obama (or not) even though they find his moderation frustrating. I did find this interesting:

Even some conservatives who know Mr. Obama said that if he was drawn to Ayers-style radicalism, he hid it well.

“I saw no evidence of a radical streak, either overt or covert, when we were together at Harvard Law School,” said Bradford A. Berenson, who worked on the Harvard Law Review with Mr. Obama and who served as associate White House counsel under President Bush. Mr. Berenson, who is backing Mr. McCain, described his fellow student as “a pragmatic liberal” whose moderation frustrated others at the law review whose views were much farther to the left.


This seems worth highlighting since, by multiple accounts, we're about to see a sustained eruption of attacks on Obama's character and associations coming from the McCain camp. (Palin started today with a fairly vicious shot, incorporating the Ayers acquaintance and distorting the Times story.) I hope these reports are wrong--but if they aren't, I trust that the left 527s Obama's people took off the leash last month will hit back in kind.

dajafi
Moderator / BSG MVP
Moderator / BSG MVP
 
Posts: 24567
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 20:03:18
Location: Brooklyn

Postby Laexile » Sat Oct 04, 2008 23:59:30

pacino wrote:what a load of bullcrap

Hypothesis confirmed. Thank you. I don't think anyone could have said it better.

Tolerance is respecting other people's points of view regardless of whether you agree with them or think there's any basis for that belief. Tolerance isn't allowing someone to harm another individual because that's their belief. There are, of course, conflicts between personal beliefs and societal norms. In such cases society needs to make those judgements. Respecting a polygamist’s belief that plural marriage is acceptable and allowing plural marriage may be considered two different things.
Laexile
There's Our Old Friend
There's Our Old Friend
 
Posts: 3307
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 13:50:23
Location: LA

Postby TenuredVulture » Sun Oct 05, 2008 00:16:16

Laexile wrote:
pacino wrote:what a load of bullcrap

Hypothesis confirmed. Thank you. I don't think anyone could have said it better.

Tolerance is respecting other people's points of view regardless of whether you agree with them or think there's any basis for that belief. Tolerance isn't allowing someone to harm another individual because that's their belief. There are, of course, conflicts between personal beliefs and societal norms. In such cases society needs to make those judgements. Respecting a polygamist’s belief that plural marriage is acceptable and allowing plural marriage may be considered two different things.


But some points of view are dumb. Tolerance does not require suspending judgment, or lapsing into so mush headed relativism.

Tolerance isn't general, it's specific.
Be Bold!

TenuredVulture
You've Got to Be Kidding Me!
You've Got to Be Kidding Me!
 
Posts: 53243
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 00:16:10
Location: Magnolia, AR

Postby Wizlah » Sun Oct 05, 2008 05:53:39

So, I was reading through some of those Andrew Sullivan links, out of interest, and I came up with this gem:

I'm a fan of Thatcher; I revere her; she saved my native country; she didn't just break a glass ceiling, she pulverized it into a million little pieces. And she did this, whatever you think of her policies, by always being accountable, always available, always engaged, always eager for an argument on the toughest of grounds, armed with facts and figures and passion. Democracies allow citizens as well as the press to question their potential leaders - rudely, aggressively, relentlessly. The exchange above was one of her lowest points, and she had many high ones. The reason I'm posting this is to remind American voters what a real democracy sounds like.


That is some presumptous shit right there. Always fucking accountable? The woman redefined what you could get away with in quangos. Her press secretary laid the groundwork for the modern culture of Spin in the UK. She was the very definition of doing what the hell you liked when you liked and NEVER HAVING TO ANSWER TO ANYONE BECAUSE YOU WERE IN CHARGE.

I will always remain deeply ambiguous about the day the mortar shells missed downing street. The Brighton Hotel bombing less so. I guess I'm getting more easy on norman tebbitt as I get older. Dunno why. He was a detestable right wing racist fuck too.

Always accountable. Sullivan just made my hate list. You're right up there with fucking smoltz, pally. That is some rose-tinted bullshit right there.
WFO-That face implies the bottle is destined for something nonstandard.
Woddy:to smash in her old face
WFO-You went to a dark place there friend.
---
JT - I've arguably been to a worse wedding. There was a cash bar

Wizlah
Space Cadet
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 13199
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 09:50:15
Location: Lost in law, god help me.

Postby TomatoPie » Sun Oct 05, 2008 09:03:03

Well, I can't vote for Barry, and I'm tiring of McCain.

This may be the way to go:

http://www.tsgnet.com/pres.php_id=46832 ... p&altl=Qjf

TomatoPie
Dropped Anchor
Dropped Anchor
 
Posts: 5184
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 22:18:10
Location: Delaware Valley

Postby drsmooth » Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:05:23

TomatoPie wrote:Well, I can't vote for Barry, and I'm tiring of McCain.

This may be the way to go:

http://www.tsgnet.com/pres.php_id=46832 ... p&altl=Qjf


our very own tattooed love boy

good luck kid!

so proud <snif>
Yes, but in a double utley you can put your utley on top they other guy's utley, and you're the winner. (Swish)

drsmooth
BSG MVP
BSG MVP
 
Posts: 47349
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 19:24:48
Location: Low station

Postby TenuredVulture » Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:19:29

Most of the discussion of the bailout vote focused on the house vote, as it passed the Senate easily. But I think it will be interesting to look at some of the closer Senate races, and take a look.

There doesn't seem to be a particularly partisan pattern here, other than the fact that there are more vulnerable Republicans than Democrats.

Vulnerable Dems--Landrieu voted no, Lautenberg voted yes. Hard to see Zimmer making an issue of it, and Landrieu is clearly covering her ass here--she looks pretty safe I guess, but there was no need to irritate anyone else.

Of the Republican Rs, here's the breakdown:

Smith--Yes, Dole--No, Stevens--Yes, Sununu--Yes, Coleman--Yes, Wicker--No, McConnell-Yes.

I'll cast Wicker's no vote in the same category as Landrieu--playing it safe. Dole is clearly casting a vote for self preservation. The interesting votes are the the yes votes (other than McConnell--he should feel pretty secure, and he can't very well not vote for it.) Certainly, Al Franken is going to waste no time calling attention to it. It might be tougher for Shaheen to do that.

Anyway, I thought it an interesting contrast between the House and the Senate.
Be Bold!

TenuredVulture
You've Got to Be Kidding Me!
You've Got to Be Kidding Me!
 
Posts: 53243
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 00:16:10
Location: Magnolia, AR

Postby pacino » Sun Oct 05, 2008 11:06:09

'Our opponent though is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough that he is palling around with terrorists who would target their own country,' Palin said of Obama, also calling him an embarrassment.
Palin cited a New York Times story on Saturday that examined Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, a former member of the Vietnam-era militant Weather Underground organization who is now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The Times concluded they were not close.

I hate her so much. How can one get away with this crap?


On another note...
And yes, it's crap laexile. If you think I'M elitist, you have another thing coming buddy. You have no clue what I do for a living, the people I meet, hang out with, most of my views on many topics, etc. I'm not out to get approval from you, nor am I tailoring my views in this neverending thread to 'tolerate' the views of people who don't believe in evolution or who believe in ideas like the rapture or what have you. They should be defeated for public office by any thinking person, and it offends me that they are even thought of as viable for a school board post, let alone anything higher. Government has a duty to try to get the best and brightest, and those who would believe in discredited BS certainly don't apply there.

You float the idea of 'tolerance'. Why? What does tolerance accomplish? "Oh, I have utter contempt for your views...but I respect them!" No, no you don't. And if you do, you're a fraud. There's a way to respect a person without tolerating retarded viewpoints. And them holding those views, to a certain point, means they don't respect themselves enough, and they CERTAINLY don't respect others. Tolerance accomplishes nothing. And you do know that the 'left' also has some of the most devoutly religious people, right? I'm not one of them, not in the slightest, but to claim religion for the right is to define all religions as beholden to a certain political philosophy. Fairly presumptuous.

And you know what? I'm ranting. You know why? You touched a nerve. When 'religion' is designed to reduce the freedoms of others, or to push a discredited 'science', it deserves no tolerance or respect, only scorn. I'm not sure when you've last been outside the LA bubble, but to read your writing one would assume otherwise. One would assume that the Dobsons of the world are bringing to light the true word, and that it would need to be shouted to the rooftops and adopted by all living along the Potomac. Or we'd need to 'tolerate' them. I've said my piece, you can respond all you want with 'oh yeah, well look at what you just said hypocrite', I don't care beyond this response. Go back to editing your documentary, that should be fun.
thephan wrote:pacino's posting is one of the more important things revealed in weeks.

Calvinball wrote:Pacino was right.

pacino
Moderator / BSG MVP
Moderator / BSG MVP
 
Posts: 75831
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 18:37:20
Location: Furkin Good

Postby TomatoPie » Sun Oct 05, 2008 11:17:16

pacino wrote:
'Our opponent though is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough that he is palling around with terrorists who would target their own country,' Palin said of Obama, also calling him an embarrassment.
Palin cited a New York Times story on Saturday that examined Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, a former member of the Vietnam-era militant Weather Underground organization who is now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The Times concluded they were not close.

I hate her so much. How can one get away with this crap?


Facts that may trouble Obama supporters:

Obama's political coming-out party in the mid-1990s was hosted by Ayers and his terrorist wife, Bernadine Dohrn.

Ayers and Obama both took part in panel discussions that were organized by Michelle Obama.

The goodbye party for prominent Israel basher and Arafat apologist Rashid Khalidi was attended by Obama, Ayers, and Dohrn.

Khalidi himself hosted a fundraiser for Obama's first Congressional campaign.

Obama and Ayers served together on the board of the Woods Fund for three years, and continued to do so even after Ayers was quoted in the New York Times fondly recalling his days as a bomber, and despairing that he hadn't "done more."

The funds Obama and Ayers helped control at the Woods Foundation funneled thousands of dollars into both Khalidi's organization and the now-infamous Trinity United Church of Christ.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/GuyBenson/2...yers_fact_sheet

TomatoPie
Dropped Anchor
Dropped Anchor
 
Posts: 5184
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 22:18:10
Location: Delaware Valley

Postby TenuredVulture » Sun Oct 05, 2008 11:27:46

I'm coming to the conclusion that Howard Dean is a political genius.
Be Bold!

TenuredVulture
You've Got to Be Kidding Me!
You've Got to Be Kidding Me!
 
Posts: 53243
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 00:16:10
Location: Magnolia, AR

Postby pacino » Sun Oct 05, 2008 11:28:08

Nothing there troubles me. So they were both within a Chicago circle where they sort of knew who each other were...So what?

SARAH PALINS HUSBAND IS A SECESSIONIST. Who cares?


The fund describes itself as "a grantmaking foundation whose goal is to increase opportunities for less advantaged people and communities in the metropolitan area, including the opportunity to shape decisions affecting them. The foundation works primarily as a funding partner with nonprofit organizations. Woods supports nonprofits in their important roles of engaging people in civic life, addressing the causes of poverty and other challenges facing the region, promoting more effective public policies, reducing racism and other barriers to equal opportunity, and building a sense of community and common ground.

I can see why Obama should've stepped down from the Woods Fund...?

No one under 40 even knew who Ayers was...no one under 40 cares either. You may seek to relive the 60s, I don't.
thephan wrote:pacino's posting is one of the more important things revealed in weeks.

Calvinball wrote:Pacino was right.

pacino
Moderator / BSG MVP
Moderator / BSG MVP
 
Posts: 75831
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 18:37:20
Location: Furkin Good

Postby pacino » Sun Oct 05, 2008 11:31:58

Oh, and what's your point TP? Do you think he hangs out with 'terrorists'? Hmmmm?
thephan wrote:pacino's posting is one of the more important things revealed in weeks.

Calvinball wrote:Pacino was right.

pacino
Moderator / BSG MVP
Moderator / BSG MVP
 
Posts: 75831
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 18:37:20
Location: Furkin Good

Postby BuddyGroom » Sun Oct 05, 2008 11:32:35

Palin continues to be the gift that keeps on giving for Tina Fey. And Queen Latifah was hysterical was Gwen Ifill.
BuddyGroom
There's Our Old Friend
There's Our Old Friend
 
Posts: 3075
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 14:16:17

Postby Camp Holdout » Sun Oct 05, 2008 12:10:25

TomatoPie wrote:
pacino wrote:
'Our opponent though is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough that he is palling around with terrorists who would target their own country,' Palin said of Obama, also calling him an embarrassment.
Palin cited a New York Times story on Saturday that examined Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, a former member of the Vietnam-era militant Weather Underground organization who is now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The Times concluded they were not close.

I hate her so much. How can one get away with this crap?


Facts that may trouble Obama supporters:

Obama's political coming-out party in the mid-1990s was hosted by Ayers and his terrorist wife, Bernadine Dohrn.

Ayers and Obama both took part in panel discussions that were organized by Michelle Obama.

The goodbye party for prominent Israel basher and Arafat apologist Rashid Khalidi was attended by Obama, Ayers, and Dohrn.

Khalidi himself hosted a fundraiser for Obama's first Congressional campaign.

Obama and Ayers served together on the board of the Woods Fund for three years, and continued to do so even after Ayers was quoted in the New York Times fondly recalling his days as a bomber, and despairing that he hadn't "done more."

The funds Obama and Ayers helped control at the Woods Foundation funneled thousands of dollars into both Khalidi's organization and the now-infamous Trinity United Church of Christ.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/GuyBenson/2...yers_fact_sheet


OMG barack obama is a terrorist!!!?!!?!?!?!

this game of political limbo by the republicans is comical (how low can you guys go? these current depths are impressive.)

Camp Holdout
There's Our Old Friend
There's Our Old Friend
 
Posts: 1032
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 15:48:32
Location: NYC

PreviousNext