N*********6
发帖数: 2302 | 1 明天好好读。xxsl..
In California, SCA 5 may be DOA due to Asian Americans against affirmative
action
March 14, 2014 1:06 PM
For a change, there's a movement to restore affirmative action, and not to
end it.
Unfortunately, because of some short-sighted Asian Americans, SCA 5 may die
before it can get to the electorate.
SCA 5 is Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 5, which seeks to overturn
Proposition 209 in California. That was the initiative that won a simple
majority at the ballot in 1996 and ended the use of race in all educational
admissions, public hiring, and public contracting.
Since then, Prop. 209 has been replicated like a bad seed to thwart
affirmative action, but not without legal challenges along the way,
including in Michigan, where its version is now being considered by the U.S.
Supreme Court.
In California, Prop. 209 has survived all challenges at both the state
Supreme Court and at the legislative level. Meanwhile, the state's black,
Latino, and segments of the Asian American and Pacific Islander community,
most notably the Filipino, Southeast Asian, and Pacific Islander groups,
remain woefully underrepresented.
Still, to overturn 209 is practically herculean. Having passed an initiative
process, Prop. 209 became a constitutional amendment. And to overturn that
requires amending the amendment--no small feat.
It hasn't stopped State Senator Edward Hernandez (D-West Covina) from trying
. After three attempts to pass a measure to reverse Prop. 209, his latest,
SCA 5, was approved in the Senate this year.
Now it goes before the State Assembly for a vote, and if it's passed by a
super-majority there, it goes before the voters in a referendum as early as
Nov. 4 this year.
Climbing Mount Everest might be easier.
The political fight to kill it has already begun. Some Asian American groups
against affirmative action have jumped the gun and gone on the offensive,
targeting electeds, including some Asian Americans in both the Senate and
the Assembly in Southern California.
It's a different role for Asian Americans, even in the affirmative action
debate.
Normally, the fight is over ending affirmative action, and Asian Americans
are trotted out by predominantly white anti-affirmative action groups as the
poor "aggrieved victims," as in Texas and Michigan.
In this new California fight to reverse the ending of affirmative action,
some Chinese Americans, most of them new immigrants, have learned their
political role and have been quick to speak out first. And in a state like
California, where Asians are the second largest ethnic minority after
Latinos, politicians who are prone to ignore Asian Americans can't dismiss
such a vocal contingent.
Some public officials reportedly have tempered their support or have begun
to hedge on SCA 5.
On Change.org, over 100,000 signatures have been collected on a petition
drive opposing SCA 5. The comment box shows the standard responses, such as
the perversion of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s statement, "I have a dream
that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will
not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their
character."
I doubt Dr. King would have supported Prop. 209. He would have supported SCA
5.
Other comments: "SCA 5 is NOT fair to the student who study and work hard.
What a JOKE!"
And this: "I believe racial preference in college admission is not the right
practice and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Children who study and work hard should deserve equal opportunity
in college admission regardless of their race and gender."
And this: "Fairness is important! If a kid work harder and get better grade,
no matter what, the kid should have better chance to go to desirable school
!"
With that kind of response, or confusion, some Chinese Americans are already
proclaiming SCA 5 dead.
Well, only if the politics of fear prevail.
While it's admirable to see Asian Americans in the process, a deeper
understanding of what's at stake with 209 beyond one's short-term self
interests is important.
The fact is Prop. 209 was written by two white academics who were trying to
stem the tide of new competition from diverse groups in public education and
employment. All 209 did was preserve the overrepresentation of certain
groups, while making it impossible to do anything to remedy the
underrepresentation of others.
If you can't use race in admissions or hiring, as 209 has shown, it's hard
to adequately address ways to increase the numbers of underrepresented
groups.
Thus, Prop. 209 preserved the status quo. And in some cases, it made things
worse.
Since the passage of Prop. 209 in California, blacks have seen a 49 percent
drop in offers to UC Berkeley, and a 16 percent drop to UCLA.
The Asian American numbers have also dropped. UC Berkeley's offers to Asian
Americans before 209 were up by 75 percent, and by 14 percent after.
But that's just the freshman class.
If Asians are starting to sound like whites in this debate, it's no mistake.
Asian Americans are the most overrepresented among all students in the UC
system. When you look at the overall numbers at all the UCs, ideally, you'd
want a public system to mirror the state's population, wouldn't you?
But look at the numbers:
African Americans, 4 percent in the UC system, 7 percent in the state.
Latinos, 28 percent at UC, 38 percent in the state.
Whites, 24 percent at UC, 39 percent in the state.
American Indians, 1 percent at UC, 2 percent in the state.
Asian Americans, 40 percent at UC, 14 percent in the state.
That's why Prop. 209 needs to be reversed.
The numbers are out-of-whack.
But the perception among the mostly new immigrant community in California is
that race-based policies hurt them, and they adamantly oppose SCA 5.
Some of them are blinded to the fact that as a minority in our democracy,
their interests are best served by working in coalition with African
American, Latino, Native American, and LGBT communities to fight for greater
equity in California's top public entities.
That's real strength in numbers. It's not about fighting to preserve your 40
percent overrepresentation in the UC system.
Ironically, many of the Asian Americans against SCA 5 are in the scientific
community, where they see discrimination based on race or accent every day
at their labs. For them, the remedy has been simple. They have always relied
on working hard, scoring the highest in exams, and displaying their
credentials to prove their worth and become successful.
It's what they know, and it can make sense in some contexts. In a true
meritocracy, maybe it should.
But even they know, it doesn't always work in fighting the racism that
people of color still face in America.
For true equity and fairness, SCA 5 and the repeal of Prop. 209 makes sense
for all.
* * *
Updates at www.amok.com. Follow Emil on Twitter and like his Facebook page.
Posted by:Emil Guillermo
The views expressed in this blog do not necessarily represent the views or
policies of AALDEF.
13 comments
1. Asian Americans, 40 percent at UC, 14 percent in the state. That's why
Prop. 209 needs to be reversed. The numbers are out-of-whack. --------------
---------------------------------------------------- Emil wants Asian
admissions to drop by 75%. He's full of self-hatred.
Posted by: Suk Min | Mar 14, 2014 7:04 PM
2. "When you look at the overall numbers at all the UCs, ideally, you'd want
a public system to mirror the state's population, wouldn't you?" -- So you'
re promoting a quota system regardless of differences in culture and social-
economical status. We will fight against SCA-5 exactly because there are
racists like you.
Posted by: Peig | Mar 14, 2014 7:32 PM
3. "The Asian American numbers have also dropped. UC Berkeley's offers to
Asian Americans before 209 were up by 75 percent, and by 14 percent after."
-- Shame on you, Emil. This is a classic case of misusing statistics for
causal reasoning. Either you just ignore sensible reasoning to advance your
political agenda, or you don't even understand how to interpret stats. "If
Asians are starting to sound like whites in this debate, it's no mistake.
Asian Americans are the most overrepresented among all students in the UC
system. " -- This is ironic. You just said Asian American were hurt by Prop
209, and right after you are saying Asian are overrepresented? Could you
please help me understand what kind of logic is this? "That's real strength
in numbers. It's not about fighting to preserve your 40 percent
overrepresentation in the UC system." -- And you're saying this is because
massive racial discrimination against other races, and massive preferential
treatment to Asian Americans? Gosh....
Posted by: Peig | Mar 14, 2014 7:40 PM
4. Sure, why not punish Asians for what whites did to blacks hundreds of
years ago, and while you are at it, give hispanics, the new majority in
California a free ride, to get a wholesale votes at the expense of Asians.
Let's get those Asians out of UC, and if they donot agree they are
shortsighted. SCA5: Get Asians out because YES WE CAN.
Posted by: connie chen | Mar 16, 2014 1:28 PM
5. Contrary to what Emil writes, individual Asian students are actually
judged by a harsher standard than are non Asians -- amounting for the
equvilant of a 100 point SAT advantage for whites and a 400 point advantage
for blacks and hispanics. It is his dubious notion of racial equality that
looks at raw numbers and not what those numbers represent.
Overrepresentation is not a matter of the numbers of students, but the
number of students who are the nighest achieving. Clearly, if Asians as a
group did not vastly outperform other groups scholastically, the percentages
would indicate invidious discrimination. The record indicates the contrary,
and all Asian parents want is for their children to be judged without
respect to race. The result at the moment would be a higher proportion of
Asian students, not based on invidious discrimination, but based on the
disproportionate high achievement of Asian Students. Smugly attributing the
concerns of Asian parents to fear mongering misses the point, and patronizes
their real concerns that their children will be judged on their own merit,
and not be sacrificed to a Moloch of faux equality. Alas, Asians are the new
Jews, and just as when the Jews began to enter the upper echelons of
education in disproportionate numbers, the dame arguments were made. The
same stratagems were also employed as well: quotas, and holistic processes
which miraculously disproportionately disfavored the higher achieving group.
Rejecting prop 209 does not promote equity or fairness for all. The Asian
parents and students who would be adversely affected see this clearly, and
all the name calling, negative insinuations, and patronizing dismissals will
not change this.
Posted by: bill | Mar 16, 2014 4:12 PM
6. Why do you use the term "ironically" when noting opposition to SCA-5? The
basic meritocracy ( although not perfect) seems to reward those who work
the hardeest and have the most talent. This had the appeal of actually
working and being eminently fair. Race normed quotas have neither virtue.
Posted by: bill | Mar 16, 2014 7:21 PM
7. The premise that racial proportions in the admitted student population
somehow must strictly reflect the racial proportions in the general
population is one which begs the question. There is no argument, except for
one's subjective preference, that these proportions must be the same. What
if the Asian community placed less emphasis on education? What if the Asian
community ignored its youth? What if that resulted in generations of
underperforming Asian students? Could the Asian community then say to the
general public, this is unfair, society is unfair, it is the responsibility
of Californians to reverse this trend by admitting Asian students in favor
of other races?
Posted by: Michael F | Mar 16, 2014 7:41 PM
8. Mr. Guillero, WRONG WRONG WRONG Affirmative Action is defined as to fix a
past wrong. NOT discriminate against an outcome someone does not like.
Answer unequivacally: Do you favor Equality of Opportunity OR Equality of
Outcome. The real crime in California is how poor the public education
system is, and how poorly it serves those children with the greatest need.
SCA 5 does nothing to fix that. Rather it seeks to paint over those crimes
by Potemkin Villiaging college admission. Mr. Guillermo, should you be just
as outraged by these facts: In 2008 $1.1 billion in college athletic
scholarships were granted. 0.1% of this went to Asian student-athletes.
Where's the fairness in that? By my calculations $60M in scholarship money
was taken out of the hands of Asian student-athletes. Is that fair?? Should
we have a NBA or Hollywood affirmative action bill to get more Asians into
these high-paying professions? Mr. Hernandez, does not care one whit about
fairness and creating more opportunity of those in need. He's playing a race
game for his own political gain. Sound familiar? Be outraged by these. Be
embarrassed by the PC robots who voted for the bill only to backtrack when
they actually read it after constituents raised a stink. Think about Mr.
Hernandez's motives, agenda, and intent.
Posted by: tom p | Mar 16, 2014 9:55 PM
9. Why stop at race..... why not religion and sexual orientation? How many
Muslim are represented at UC? Are Jews overrepresented at UC? How about LGBT
people? I don't think so!
Posted by: Kim | Mar 17, 2014 8:04 PM
10. Mr. Guillermo, I am against SCA5 simply because it is not the right
approach. If SCA5 proposes more government funds for K12 education of these
underrepresented ethnic groups and prepare them for college application
competition, I think most opponents I know would not have a problem with
that. If SCA5 proposes more government funds to expand UC system and admit
more students, most opponents I know would not have a problem at all. But
the issue is that current version of SCA5 would give preferential treatment
to certain groups, that is discrimination against other groups. I also do
not like your tone that criticized Chinese American as narrow interested. I
fight for my kids and my kids' future kids. It is my right to protect their
equal education opportunity. I am not ashamed at all. Criticism against
caring parents is despicable, or unbelievable at best. Last but not least,
we are all Americans, regardless of where we are from and our skin color. We
encourage mobility up social ladders. We care about these from
socioeconomically disadvantaged families. We consider family
socialeconomically background in the admission. Don't you think that is a
better criterion than skin color?
Posted by: Robert Wang | Mar 18, 2014 5:50 AM
11. SCA 5 is dead now, and won't be coming back for a while. Why does race
matter so much? How about using hair color or eye color or height or hair
length or something totally irrelevant for college admissions. The
assumption that different races need to be represented equally is totally
wrong; diversity in a college, private or public, should be based on
thinking process and culture, not something stupid like skin color. Some
people are working on a waterproof skin dye, so that it can be applied to
change the skin color of any person. Black people will be able to pose as
whites if they want to. Soon skin color may be as trivial as hair color.
Posted by: alex | Mar 22, 2014 1:34 PM
12. Mr. Emil Guillermo has no idea on his view on SCA5. He is just talking
out of the nonsense of liberal view ... I don't know how he is working for
Asian-Amerian. He does not understand Asian Ameriacan is ethnically
culturally diversed community. He is trying to paint them in one color.
Posted by: Jay Mckim | Apr 20, 2014 6:25 PM
13. Do you think it's fair for put a player over 70 years old on every NBA
sports team for "diversity"? Or put someone an obese person on every elite
track team or Olympic marathon team? Or a double arm amputee on a volleyball
team? All for the sake of so-called "diversity?" I am not a hater of
diversity. I have close friends of every race and religion there is. I am
simply asking for a fair chance for Asians. Because SCA5 is clearly not fair
. How is this promoting "diversity?" I say it's promoting racism. What's
next? Money redistribution to poor black and Hispanic people because rich
Asians have too much? Giving Asians harder tests? Taking points off SAT's
for being Asian? All for the sake of diversity?! Imagine if this was the
LGBT community. Would you condone the same? Would choosing students based on
sexual orientation be thought as "diversity" or hatred? I study hard every
day, so I can get into UC Berkley or UCLA. Please reconsider your views on
SCA5 and not deny my classmates and I a chance to get into a good university
because of our race.
Posted by: e | Jul 8, 201412:30 AM
Leave a comment
Name: required
Email Address: required, but will not be published
Comments:
| N*********6
发帖数: 2302 | 2 Sunday 了。
昨晚花时间在这里，还是值得的。。学到点东西。。
die
【在 N*********6 的大作中提到】
: 明天好好读。xxsl..
: In California, SCA 5 may be DOA due to Asian Americans against affirmative
: action
: March 14, 2014 1:06 PM
: For a change, there's a movement to restore affirmative action, and not to
: end it.
: Unfortunately, because of some short-sighted Asian Americans, SCA 5 may die
: before it can get to the electorate.
: SCA 5 is Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 5, which seeks to overturn
: Proposition 209 in California. That was the initiative that won a simple
| x****d
发帖数: 2239 | 3 "The fact is Prop. 209 was written by two white academics who were trying to
stem the tide of new competition from diverse groups in public education and
employment. All 209 did was preserve the overrepresentation of certain
groups, while making it impossible to do anything to remedy the
underrepresentation of others."
Why nobody looking at NFL, NBA, gang, crime overrepresentation of certain
groups and trying to solve them? | N*********6
发帖数: 2302 | 4 白人注重leadership,,, 鱼园这娘炮封他做leader他都不敢接。。。
因为中国的传统文化是：枪打出头鸟。。。。到处跪㖭自保，结局就是今天这个
鸟样。。2000年了都不变。。
Traitors 最多的民族。。
襄公之后无诚信，崖山之后无华夏，有一定的道理。。
to
and
【在 x****d 的大作中提到】
: "The fact is Prop. 209 was written by two white academics who were trying to
: stem the tide of new competition from diverse groups in public education and
: employment. All 209 did was preserve the overrepresentation of certain
: groups, while making it impossible to do anything to remedy the
: underrepresentation of others."
: Why nobody looking at NFL, NBA, gang, crime overrepresentation of certain
: groups and trying to solve them?
| u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | 5 发信人: uvachja (鹤立鸡群), 信区: Parenting
标 题: Re: 再论AA
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Jan 1 13:23:29 2016, 美东)
NBA AA: 提到这个的 ID 太多了！
中小学 AA: fishingarden (Abigail Fisher隔壁老王)
online dating AA: feebe (华人民主党，还是人吗？)
问的目的是想确认 平权运动 的适用范围仅仅是：高等教育录取方式、政府部门合同审
批、和政府部门招聘活动。
其它地方没有被政府强加 平权运动 的限制。
发信人: bluestorm (偃棋息股), 信区: Parenting
标 题: Re: AA还是很有道理的
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Dec 28 01:56:55 2015, 美东)
NBA为啥不想招来亚裔的篮球精英？
还是那句话，如果你要在学术上这么搞亚裔，那么必须同样在职业体育和娱乐界搞黑人
和白人，否则就是种族歧视
to
and | x****d
发帖数: 2239 | 6 And why you can ask "diversification" question to your company CEO nowadays?
and who decide which area this AA policy can/can't apply?
Furthermore, why discrimination can only apply to race not to class?
【在 u*****a 的大作中提到】
: 发信人: uvachja (鹤立鸡群), 信区: Parenting
: 标 题: Re: 再论AA
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Fri Jan 1 13:23:29 2016, 美东)
: NBA AA: 提到这个的 ID 太多了！
: 中小学 AA: fishingarden (Abigail Fisher隔壁老王)
: online dating AA: feebe (华人民主党，还是人吗？)
: 问的目的是想确认 平权运动 的适用范围仅仅是：高等教育录取方式、政府部门合同审
: 批、和政府部门招聘活动。
: 其它地方没有被政府强加 平权运动 的限制。
:
| u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | 7 Case law decides.
In particular, Supreme Court decisions.
Race is a class.
Some classes are protected by federal law:
The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" by Federal
law:
Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot
discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974
and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
nowadays?
【在 x****d 的大作中提到】
: And why you can ask "diversification" question to your company CEO nowadays?
: and who decide which area this AA policy can/can't apply?
: Furthermore, why discrimination can only apply to race not to class?
| x****d
发帖数: 2239 | 8 你生活在火星上？还是装傻？
Federal
【在 u*****a 的大作中提到】
: Case law decides.
: In particular, Supreme Court decisions.
: Race is a class.
: Some classes are protected by federal law:
: The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" by Federal
: law:
: Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
: Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
: Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
: National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
| f**********n
发帖数: 29853 | 9 鸡兄终于开始迈出讲法律的蹒跚一步了，可喜可贺。大力表扬！
Federal
【在 u*****a 的大作中提到】
: Case law decides.
: In particular, Supreme Court decisions.
: Race is a class.
: Some classes are protected by federal law:
: The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" by Federal
: law:
: Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
: Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
: Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
: National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
| f**********n
发帖数: 29853 | 10 路人甲兄，小心鸡兄计数器大法。
【在 x****d 的大作中提到】
: 你生活在火星上？还是装傻？
:
: Federal
| | | u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | 11 Be nice to The Martian. It is a very popular movie.
Since you implied that race is not a type of classes, then 你生活在土星上或
者是装傻。
Race is a class! 这点貌似连头盔皮都知道。难道你比他还XX？
【在 x****d 的大作中提到】
: 你生活在火星上？还是装傻？
:
: Federal
| u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | 12 头盔皮又开始拉头皮了。
鼓掌之前先看明白问题：Someone claims that race is not a class.
如果真是这样，race-based "discrimination" is most likely constitutional
since only a rational basis test, the lowest level of scrutiny, is required
and Affirmative Action definitely passes muster. | w**d
发帖数: 2334 | 13 这篇算不算政治？到底什么时候可以讲政治，什么政治可以讲？ | u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | 14 亚裔精英在大学里被歧视的，请移步“筹建反 AA 亚裔大学”板块，一展宏图。谢谢。
亚裔萎缩男在线约会屡屡失败的，请移步“筹建反 AA 在线约会”板块，重振雄风。谢
谢。
体弱多病但不忿被 NBA 选秀忽略的，没治了。改行吧。无板块可推荐。 | f**********n
发帖数: 29853 | 15 路人甲兄说的是歧视，你说的是保护。唉，逻辑啊。
假故事兄好歹还贴一个宪法原文，你这种，不堪入目啊！
required
【在 u*****a 的大作中提到】
: 头盔皮又开始拉头皮了。
: 鼓掌之前先看明白问题：Someone claims that race is not a class.
: 如果真是这样，race-based "discrimination" is most likely constitutional
: since only a rational basis test, the lowest level of scrutiny, is required
: and Affirmative Action definitely passes muster.
| G***W
发帖数: 1967 | 16 什么都可以讲，所有的声音都可以发，就是不要挠乱治序，不要一堂言。。不要骗子过
度，不要造谣过度，你人肉搜索别人的同时等待被别人人肉。。
【在 w**d 的大作中提到】
: 这篇算不算政治？到底什么时候可以讲政治，什么政治可以讲？
| w**d
发帖数: 2334 | 17 谁来定规矩？还是需要版主？造谣应该是指伪造事实？很多人把自己的观点当事实贴出来
应该可以算，然后cherry pick数据也该是造谣。
又有谁人肉了？帖子太多，难道漏过了？
【在 G***W 的大作中提到】
: 什么都可以讲，所有的声音都可以发，就是不要挠乱治序，不要一堂言。。不要骗子过
: 度，不要造谣过度，你人肉搜索别人的同时等待被别人人肉。。
| u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | 18 孟母：十三迁吧，您。没有人拦着! 套用一下你兄弟的话：
【在 x****d 的大作中提到】
: 你生活在火星上？还是装傻？
:
: Federal
| f**********n
发帖数: 29853 | 19 计数器大法又开始了？我逃了。
【在 u*****a 的大作中提到】
: 孟母：十三迁吧，您。没有人拦着! 套用一下你兄弟的话：
| t******l
发帖数: 10908 | 20 其实把这个版彻底搞残，流量降到接近零，大伙儿都不相信机油，其实是件好事。
所以我觉得多来些军版 id 挺好的。大家玩 AI。
【在 f**********n 的大作中提到】
: 计数器大法又开始了？我逃了。
| | | G***W
发帖数: 1967 | 21 放心，没有毛主席，汉族肯定不会灭亡。。本版到达2位数的时期都弹回来了。。
这是本版的历史。。
历史老师很伟大。。。。
【在 t******l 的大作中提到】
: 其实把这个版彻底搞残，流量降到接近零，大伙儿都不相信机油，其实是件好事。
: 所以我觉得多来些军版 id 挺好的。大家玩 AI。
| u*****a
发帖数: 6276 | 22 说了半天，这个“孟母”十四迁的典故，是说菌斑 ID 的。整个一群蝗虫。 | f**********n
发帖数: 29853 | 23 好彩本人从不去军版发言，除了上了十大的。好险。
【在 u*****a 的大作中提到】
: 说了半天，这个“孟母”十四迁的典故，是说菌斑 ID 的。整个一群蝗虫。
| N*********6
发帖数: 2302 | 24 发信人: Narcissus26 (Jane), 信区: Military
标 题: Re: 【华裔迫切需要关注的大学入学AA】 (转载)
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Jan 4 21:18:14 2016, 美东)
帮顶。
以后就军版讨论多好？
我个人认为华人支持AA或者反对AA对华人子女上大学都没影响。
一些人吹得这么响，应该是为两党拉票而已或者还有别的政治目的。。。。所以军版才
是最适合讨论这问题的版块。
Good luck...
【在 f**********n 的大作中提到】
: 好彩本人从不去军版发言，除了上了十大的。好险。
|
|
