|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What Is This "Southern Strategy" Of Which You Speak?
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
From a tangent in another thread.
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Ken did not say all Republicans are racists.
Oh yeah, sorry, he said that Presidential candidate is pandering to the racists in his own party. My mistake.
How could I have assumed that ken thinks there are such a large racist minority that it is worth specifically speaking to them in a speech like this? I have no idea.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Not all republicans are racists, but racists are overwhelmingly republican.
Bullshit.
First, a little history for those who seem to be unfamiliar with it. For about a century after the U.S. Civil War white southerners were predominantly members of the Democratic party because Lincoln and the Republicans had freed the slaves. There were at the same time a significant number of northerners who were Republicans for more or less the same reason. The first cracks in this system became apparent in 1948 when southern Democrats splintered from their party over the issue of civil rights to run Strom Thurmond for president on what would become known as the Dixiecrat ticket. They lost, but the idea that southern racists could be tempted to abandon what was known as "the Solid South" over the issue of civil rights was clearly demonstrated.
The first opportunity to test this hypothesis came in 1964 when the national Democratic party, over the objection of its southern wing, started to push a vigorous civil rights agenda. Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater made his personal opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 an important aspect of his campaign. Although he lost, the results were rather startling. Compare the 1956 electoral map (an Eisenhower landslide) with the electoral college just eight years later. That's an almost complete reversal. Note that the only states Goldwater carried outright were his home state of Arizona, Strom Thurmond's four "Dixiecrat" states, and Georgia.
Despite the loss the Republican Party doubled down on what became known as "the Southern Strategy", using racist appeals to draw white southerners from their prior support of the Democratic party. Nixon was able to ride this tactic to two terms in the White House and most of the prominent Democratic opponents of the mid-century civil rights legislation finished out their legislative careers in the Republican party (e.g. Strom Thurmond).
Eventually outright appeals to racism became less popular, so the messages became coded. Republican strategist Lee Atwater explains in this 1981 interview:
quote:
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.
Lamis: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
Every so often someone forgets to use code, like Santorum complaining about food stamps for "blah people", but is it really so difficult to accept that a political movement that has spent the past half-century courting racists would be attractive to racists and might actually contain racists at a rate higher than the general population?
[ 12. September 2012, 19:52: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... is it really so difficult to accept that a political movement that has spent the past half-century courting racists would be attractive to racists and might actually contain racists at a rate higher than the general population?
No, not at all. But racism in the US is far more than whites vs. blacks or Republicans vs. Democrats. Zach82 said racists are "overwhelmingly" Republican, and I think that is an overstatement, certainly if one sees racism as encompassing more than the ugly extremes of Tea Party. The most racist public statement I'm aware of having been made in local politics around here came in a Democratic Party primary from a black woman, who told a largely black audience something along the lines of "we're not going to let them take our seat" -- "them" being the Latinos who were going to support her Latina opponent.
Do some Republicans appeal to the racism of some of their constituents? Absolutely. Is some of the resistance Obama faces due to racism? I think so. Do Republicans have a corner on racism in the US? No.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
The first opportunity to test this hypothesis came in 1964 when the national Democratic party, over the objection of its southern wing, started to push a vigorous civil rights agenda. Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater made his personal opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 an important aspect of his campaign.
A higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
What of LBJ's statement about the Civil Rights Act that "we [the Democrats] have lost the South for a generation"?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What of LBJ's statement about the Civil Rights Act that "we [the Democrats] have lost the South for a generation"?
Boy it's been a long generation, ain't it?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I shouldn't have thrown out a factoid from an article that I read a while ago, but am too lazy to track down now. Sorry.
quote:
Do Republicans have a corner on racism in the US? No.
Didn't say that, though.
[ 12. September 2012, 22:34: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What of LBJ's statement about the Civil Rights Act that "we [the Democrats] have lost the South for a generation"?
Boy it's been a long generation, ain't it?
North Carolina voted for Obama the last time, so did Virginia, which was the state that put him over the top.
Virginia is a battleground state now, so it looks like it has been detached from the "Solid South".
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What of LBJ's statement about the Civil Rights Act that "we [the Democrats] have lost the South for a generation"?
Boy it's been a long generation, ain't it?
I think twelve years is a very short generation.
The South has voted mostly for Republicans over the past fifty years, but there are many exceptions. Carter carried Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas in 1976. Clinton carried Arkansas in 1992 and 1996; he carried Florida in 1996; he carried Georgia in 1992; he carried Kentucky in 1992 and 1996, he carried Louisiana in 1992 and 1996; he carried North Carolina in 1992; he carried South Carolina in 1992; he carried Tennessee in 1992 and 1996; he carried Texas in 1992; he carried Virginia in 1992.
A Southerner is more likely to win the votes of other Southerners.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What of LBJ's statement about the Civil Rights Act that "we [the Democrats] have lost the South for a generation"?
Boy it's been a long generation, ain't it?
North Carolina voted for Obama the last time, so did Virginia, which was the state that put him over the top.
Virginia is a battleground state now, so it looks like it has been detached from the "Solid South".
The part of Virginia that put him over the top is the DC suburbs. They are quite clearly not part of the "South." People not in the DC suburbs -- people in the South -- are very unhappy about that.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
The first opportunity to test this hypothesis came in 1964 when the national Democratic party, over the objection of its southern wing, started to push a vigorous civil rights agenda. Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater made his personal opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 an important aspect of his campaign.
A higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Moo
In 1964, most of the Republicans in Congress were from the North.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What of LBJ's statement about the Civil Rights Act that "we [the Democrats] have lost the South for a generation"?
Boy it's been a long generation, ain't it?
I think twelve years is a very short generation.
The South has voted mostly for Republicans over the past fifty years, but there are many exceptions. Carter carried Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas in 1976. Clinton carried Arkansas in 1992 and 1996; he carried Florida in 1996; he carried Georgia in 1992; he carried Kentucky in 1992 and 1996, he carried Louisiana in 1992 and 1996; he carried North Carolina in 1992; he carried South Carolina in 1992; he carried Tennessee in 1992 and 1996; he carried Texas in 1992; he carried Virginia in 1992.
A Southerner is more likely to win the votes of other Southerners.
Moo
Just briefly looking over your list for the '92 election you are incorrect about Texas and Tennessee. Proof here. That was also an election in which a third party candidate, Ross Perot, picked up votes that would likely have gone to Bush.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
Opps. Make that North Carolina, not Tennesse.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The part of Virginia that put him over the top is the DC suburbs. They are quite clearly not part of the "South." People not in the DC suburbs -- people in the South -- are very unhappy about that.
People from all over the country, and every party, come to live in the DC area. I think that there is a tendency for Democrats to settle in the Maryland suburbs, while Republicans prefer Virginia.
Back when installing expurgating filters on internet terminals in public libraries was a controversial issue, certain wealthy DC-suburban residents of Virginia led the charge nationwide. Thomas Jefferson must have rolled in his grave.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
The first opportunity to test this hypothesis came in 1964 when the national Democratic party, over the objection of its southern wing, started to push a vigorous civil rights agenda. Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater made his personal opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 an important aspect of his campaign.
A higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Moo
In 1964, most of the Republicans in Congress were from the North.
This is a common meme that exists primarily by ignoring the long history of sectionalism detailed in my first post. I'm crushed!
At any rate, when accounting for sectionalism it should be noted that northern Democrats voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act at a higher rate than northern Republicans, as was also true of southern Democrats and southern Republicans. In fact, no southern* Republican in Congress voted in favor of the legislation. Ignoring the sectional fissures in the mid-twentieth century American political parties for the sake of present-day partisan point-scoring is a kind of shoddy revisionism.
--------------------
* "Southern" in this case meaning from a state comprising the Confederacy.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The part of Virginia that put him over the top is the DC suburbs. They are quite clearly not part of the "South." People not in the DC suburbs -- people in the South -- are very unhappy about that.
People from all over the country, and every party, come to live in the DC area. I think that there is a tendency for Democrats to settle in the Maryland suburbs, while Republicans prefer Virginia.
Back when installing expurgating filters on internet terminals in public libraries was a controversial issue, certain wealthy DC-suburban residents of Virginia led the charge nationwide. Thomas Jefferson must have rolled in his grave.
Could be. But.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
At any rate, when accounting for sectionalism it should be noted that northern Democrats voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act at a higher rate than northern Republicans, as was also true of southern Democrats and southern Republicans. In fact, no southern* Republican in Congress voted in favor of the legislation.
If northern Democrats voted for it at a higher rate than northern Republicans, and southern Democrats voted for it at a higher rate than southern Republicans, how can a higher percentage of Republicans as a whole have voted for it? Was there a third group? If so who were they?
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Prester John, you're right. I was getting my information out of The World Almanac and I misread it.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
If northern Democrats voted for it at a higher rate than northern Republicans, and southern Democrats voted for it at a higher rate than southern Republicans, how can a higher percentage of Republicans as a whole have voted for it? Was there a third group? If so who were they?
There would have been more Republicans in the North.
Picking numbers from the air:
50 Republicans in the north, 40 vote for. (80%)
20 Republicans in the south, 0 vote for. (0%)
10 Democrats in the north, 10 vote for. (100%)
20 Democrats in the south, 10 vote for. (50%)
In the north, the Democrats beat the Republicans, 100% to 80%, while in the south, Democrats beat the Republicans 50% to 0%. But because politicians from the north vote much more strongly for the measure and there are more Republicans up North, overall the Republicans beat the Democrats 57% to 50%.
This is potentially a problem in medical testing. Groups such as men and people with low incomes are less likely to recover from illness anyway. So if you're testing a drug and you don't balance the control correctly - e.g. you put most of the lower income men in the control group and the higher income women in the group getting the drug - you're liable to get a misleading result.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Here are the statistics from this site.
House of Representatives:
Democrats for: 152
Democrats against: 96
Republicans for: 138
Republicans against: 34
Senate:
Democrats for: 46
Democrats against: 21
Republicans for: 27
Republicans against: 6
Here is an analysis of the debate leading up to the passage.
quote:
It’s one thing to engage in a filibuster if there is even a glimmer of hope that something might be salvaged as a result. But serious commitment is required to take such action when one knows that ultimate failure is the only conceivable outcome. This fact should be kept in mind when thinking about people like Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, whose individual filibuster of the 1964 civil rights bill is the second longest in history, taking up eighty-six pages of fine print in the Congressional Record. Only a true believer would ever undertake such a futile effort.
Even so, one final element was essential to passage of the civil rights bill—the strong support of Republicans. Although Democrats had a historically large majority in the House of Representatives with 259 members to 176 Republicans, almost as many Republicans voted for the civil rights bill as Democrats. The final vote was 290 for the bill and 130 against. Of the “yea” votes, 152 were Democrats and 138 were Republicans. Of the “nay” votes, three-fourths were Democrats. In short, the bill could not have passed without Republican support. As Time Magazine observed, “In one of the most lopsidedly Democratic Houses since the days of F.D.R., Republicans were vital to the passage of a bill for which the Democratic administration means to take full political credit this year.”
A similar story is told in the Senate. On the critical vote to end the filibuster by Southern Democrats, 71 senators voted to invoke cloture. With 67 votes needed, 44 Democrats and 27 Republicans joined together to bring the bill to a final vote. Of those voting “nay,” 80 percent were Democrats, including Robert C. Byrd and former Vice President Al Gore’s father, who was then a senator from Tennessee. Again, it is clear that the civil rights bill would have failed without Republican votes. Close observers of the Senate deliberations recognized that the Republican leader, Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois, had done yeoman work in responding to the objections of individual Republicans and holding almost all of them together in support of the bill. “More than any other single individual,” the New York Times acknowledged, “he was responsible for getting the civil rights bill through the Senate.”
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Here are the statistics from this site.
House of Representatives: [Northern/Southern]
Democrats for: 152 [145 / 7]
Democrats against: 96 [9 / 87]
Republicans for: 138 [138 / 0]
Republicans against: 34 [24 / 10]
Senate:
Democrats for: 46 [45 / 1]
Democrats against: 21 [1 / 20]
Republicans for: 27 [27 / 0]
Republicans against: 6 [5 / 1]
I fixed your information to reflect the regional nature of the vote. As noted before, it's clear from the voting record that this was a regional division, not a partisan one. Trying to recast it as such is dishonest.
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Here is an analysis of the debate leading up to the passage.
quote:
It’s one thing to engage in a filibuster if there is even a glimmer of hope that something might be salvaged as a result. But serious commitment is required to take such action when one knows that ultimate failure is the only conceivable outcome. This fact should be kept in mind when thinking about people like Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, whose individual filibuster of the 1964 civil rights bill is the second longest in history, taking up eighty-six pages of fine print in the Congressional Record. Only a true believer would ever undertake such a futile effort.
Moo
What's interesting about this analysis is that the longest filibuster by an individual Senator was also conducted against a civil rights bill (in 1957). In that case by Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. Of course this is rarely, if ever, mentioned by those trying to propagate the idea that the modern Republican party is a friend of civil rights since it draws attention to the fact that so many unrepentant segregationists like Senator Thurmond finished out their careers as Republicans. It seems fairly obvious to anyone with a rudimentary grasp of mid-twentieth century American history that Byrd and Thurmond's strong opposition to civil rights came from the fact that they were from West Virginia and South Carolina, not from their partisan affiliation.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What of LBJ's statement about the Civil Rights Act that "we [the Democrats] have lost the South for a generation"?
Boy it's been a long generation, ain't it?
Maybe he had in mind Jesus' eschatological use of the term? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
What's interesting about this analysis is that the longest filibuster by an individual Senator was also conducted against a civil rights bill (in 1957). In that case by Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. Of course this is rarely, if ever, mentioned by those trying to propagate the idea that the modern Republican party is a friend of civil rights since it draws attention to the fact that so many unrepentant segregationists like Senator Thurmond finished out their careers as Republicans. It seems fairly obvious to anyone with a rudimentary grasp of mid-twentieth century American history that Byrd and Thurmond's strong opposition to civil rights came from the fact that they were from West Virginia and South Carolina, not from their partisan affiliation.
West Virginia is not really a Southern state; it seceded from Virginia and became a separate state during the Civil War.
Thurmond finished out his career as a Republican, and Byrd finished out his career by becoming the Democratic leader in the Senate. He changed his mind about civil rights, as have many other Americans.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
In any case, it isn't the elected officials that are important in measuring the Southern Strategy, but rather the voters. And party affiliation is not much help, since at least the advent of the so-called "Reagan Democrats".
That is, it may or may not be true that stated party affiliation and racism are correlated. The question is whether actual voting patterns and racism are correlated, i.e. do racists overwhelmingly vote Republican?
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Depends on who you're going to classify as a racist and whether or not you just mean white racists.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
In any case, it isn't the elected officials that are important in measuring the Southern Strategy, but rather the voters. And party affiliation is not much help, since at least the advent of the so-called "Reagan Democrats".
A Reagan Democrat is just a Dixiecrat in a Brooks Brothers suit. And they're all Republicans now anyway.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Depends on who you're going to classify as a racist and whether or not you just mean white racists.
I'd say it should only logically depend on whether some political movement has taken steps similar to the Southern Strategy to court the votes of non-white racists. Otherwise we'd expect to see those votes moved only to the degree to which white racism is repugnant to non-white racists.
And I'm with TtO on this one. "Reagan Democrat" is just a polite euphemism for "Dixiecrat Turned Republican", the very folks under discussion here.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
