POLITICS: Bush Asks Blacks to Go Republican

Majic says

I am still waiting for real proof of real lies by President Bush. Until some real proof comes along, I must give him the benefit of the doubt.

You Want a Documented Lie by George Bush?

Anyone who starts rhetorical hand-waving and weasel-worded explanations as to why this isn't really a lie is in a serious state of denial. The excuse that was used with the WMD lies won't work. U.S. forces had been on the ground for months, so the excuse of bad intelligence just doesn't cut it. Bush knew this statement was false when he made it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a gullible fool.

If Bush didn't know he was lying, then he must have been lied to by his subordinates. Evidence, please.

I am unable to access that forum, but if you can quote, summarize or refer to a non-ATS link I would be very interested in checking it out.

Originally posted by curme
I would contend that the majority of readers of the Army Times are Army soldiers. In order make a profit, and publish more issues, you would have to cover topics that are of interest to the Army soldier, and topics that contain the majority of the readers point of view.

An interest in the topics covered by a publication and agreement with its editorial positions are not the same thing. Many subscribers to the New York Times are interested in the news they cover, but do not necessarily agree with their editorial positions.

To claim that the editorial position of the Army Times represents "what the military thinks about Bush" is incorrect, and that is what I am objecting to.

Originally posted by Majic
I am unable to access that forum, but if you can quote, summarize or refer to a non-ATS link I would be very interested in checking it out.

The Political Debate Forum costs 500 points for permanent access. You have 2373 points. Are you hoarding your points for some reason?

Oh, you can also access the same post in the War on Terrorism Forum under the title

Bush and Blair Lied About Mass Graves in Iraq

Originally posted by donguillermo
The Political Debate Forum costs 500 points for permanent access. You have 2373 points. Are you hoarding your points for some reason?

Yes. I come to ATS primarily for non-political content, although getting dragged into politics seems inevitable in any forum, from the family dinner table to pretty much every discussion facility on the Internet.

I am already a member of several other "mud pits". I prefer, instead, to save up the 3.5k for the "Really Above Top Secret" forum. Once I hit that, I'll start picking up the other amenities.

Edit: Elaboration.

[edit on 7/24/2004 by Majic]

I will pick up the "Mass Graves Lie" issue on that thread, and recommend this thread focus on the topic: Bush Asks Blacks to Go Republican.

Originally posted by Seth Bullock
And, JohnSmith, 'just start handing out cash to black people" is Kerry's platform, not Bush's.

You're going to have to explain this one to me because the data doesn't support it.

I realize the standard Republican line has remained "Dems are for giveaways, but Republicans teach black people how to fish" (or some such nonsense) ever since Grandpa Reagen told his first huge yarn about a Chicago "Welfare Queen" who had ripped off "$150,000 from the government, using 80 aliases, 30 addresses, a dozen social security cards, and four fictional dead husbands"...despite no investigative reporter (or Reagen) EVER being able to produce said fictional "Queen". And I further understand the allure of the current rhetoric since the good noble land owners loyal to the King (like Limbaugh) have continued to pound the theme that your lower middle class lot in life is "the peasants fault" and not the few that actually control the means to the gold since it's always easier to get the masses mad at something they hate (like minorities or poor people) rather than something you aspire to be (rich and powerful)... Heil Hitler!

BUT were I a proud, loyal conservative goose stepping in the King's service, I would at least hold my King accountable for his big "self reliance" talk and look into what he's done to fix this oh so burdensome welfare state he's managed to win such loyalty in condeming.

Considering the only significant welfare reform in decades passed under Clinton, then Bush took over right after, you'd think the problem (as you see it) would be fixed by now. Right? I mean the Republicans have control of everything! So surely there must be vast and drastic cuts in this obscene welfare state not to mention the complete eradication of all progressive initiatives like Affirmative Action. That is what you voted for, right?

Hrmmm, then I'm confused. Since Clinton's welfare reform act of 1996 stopped aid to immigrants (as well as numerous other cuts), then why did Bush's Whitehouse restore aid to immigrants in 2002 requesting an additional $2.1 billion for the restoration of Food Stamps? Is the dire state of the welfare state all just talk? Is Bush really just a big fat squishy liberal on the inside? Or is buying votes okay on the conservative dime as long as it's pro-life catholic immigrants?

Seriously, think about the proud self reliant rhetoric you've all been taught as conservatives, then look at what Republicans actually do about it. NOTHING. It's a diversion tactic, plain and simple and for the love of God I'm not mad but I wish I could take each and every one of you by the scruff and slap the voodoo outta you.

Black people aren't your enemy. Hispanics aren't your enemy. Single parents aren't your enemy. Mentally handicapped and disabled people aren't your enemy. Not even poor white people (the largest group on Welfare) are your enemy!

What exactly is "welfare" to you people? It's so mired in rhetoric and buried in government infrastructure pork, it's damn near impossible to even find.

Food Stamps? Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC?) Is that it? Do you really know how small that is compared to the budget?

The dreaded "food stamps" that makes you all so mad in the checkout line behind a poor person is a relatively small division of the Department of Agriculture whose entire management, expense and distribution budget was $20.7 billion in 2002 (even with Bush increases) that fed 19.1 million people for a year (51% children, 42% white). It cost you and I about 20 cents a day to feed every hungry person in America whereas Christian organizations with huge advertising budgets advertise they can feed a poor person for 75 cents a day. Hmmm. Anyway, it's about the same as the impact of NASA on your daily life. Or half as expensive as the Treasury Department. You know the treasury Department, right? ...the people that actually print and own "your money damnit!"

Believe it or not, poor people aren't the problem. It's the high cost of running a capitalist super power these days. They aren't cheap. The debt alone on our $7.2 TRILLION dollar deficit is $318 billion a year and climbing under Bush. Get mad about that $3.12 a day out of your pocket if you get mad about anything. And it's largely the result of the continuously increasing "defense" (read as pre-emptive strike and nation building) budget (the number #1 drain on your wallet) which I'm sure you all support like good citizens.

So who's the enemy? What about Corporate welfare then? Surely that's just Dem talk?

Well when Bush's Daddy bailed out the Savings & Loans industry with $500 billion of the taxpayer's money, you might be interested to know that could have fed every hungry person in America for the next quarter century. But then Neil Bush wouldn't be able to sell Jeb school supplies for Florida from jail would he?

Help me out here. What's the "welfare state". Is it Housing and Urban Development or HUD? Republicans hate that. You know the little (under $50 billion) government division that helps people rise to the middle class with affordable mortgages and housing getting out of the cycle of poverty and rent and OFF WELFARE? No wait. That would be "teaching people to fish" right, so you're all for that.

Okay, what about Health and Human services? That actually is a big one. It's as big (and important) as the Defense Department...that is unless you like people that can't afford the insane capitalist health care system in this country walking around your place of work and child's school with communicable disease like Tuberculosis. Unfortunately (for conservatives) all the "designer diseases" that rid the world of gays and minorities eventually get the homophobes too if not checked...as Republicans learned the hard way with it's late and expensive entry into the world battle on AIDS depsite decades of denying it's threat.

And that's it! The whole damn "welfare state" all laid out for ya and apparently completely 100% supported by President Bush from what I can tell. Again, forget the feel good hate speechs of the reicht. Follow the money. Bush thinks you're stupid and will believe anything, and if you still think he's a welfare reformer YOU REALLY ARE STUPID.

Welfare reform? Ha.

Short of some Reagen/Hilter hybrid clone of alien origin intent on the apocolypse, nobody, and I mean NOBODY is ever going to be the President of record that starves 20 million Americans, makes another 30 million homeless and unleashes the plague on the population.

So really, why even bother with the trog hate redistributon of wealth; trog smash welfare talk when Republicans are NEVER actually going to do anything about it? The Democrats aren't any "worse" or more socialist than Republicans. In fact, countless analyses show Americans almost ALWAYS fair better under Democrats from employment to income to savings to stock portfolios! So what's the scam?

It's the Republican "pre-emptive" diversion tactic 101. Everything they do, it's really the Democrats doing it (supposedly). Oh yes, Democrats are the real racists. They are the ones that really make people poor. They're the ones really for redistribution of wealth.

Hardly. There's demonstratable evidence in practically every Republican effort to REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH UP all while playing the smoke and mirrors diversion game. I'll cut your taxes 1% while your out of pocket healthcare costs goes up 49%. Just look at your tax cut, then Cheney's.

Like McCain said "60 percent of the benefits from Bush's tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans, and that's not the kind of tax relief that Americans need." [Sen. John McCain, Washington Post, 1/5/00]

Yes, I realize that's the que for some College Republican to ditto 10 years of Limbaugh telling you something like he and the other top 10% of earners pay 99.99999999999999% of all taxes, and the peanut butter sandwiches are about to kill him. And nobody wants to hear why the wealthy owe more to the government that exists first and foremost to protect the "haves" again from me (as I've explained in detail to death on here), so I'll just let a rich guy explain it.

"Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took all of it from them."

Edward Albert Filene (1869-1937)

Filene (of Boston's Filene's Department Stores) founded the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to encourage businesses to contribute to the welfare of their communities. He eventually quit the organization, disappointed that it had become a bastion of right-wing conservatism and an anti-tax lobby.

*This quote and the spirit of this rant attributed to the coolest liberal on the net Steve Kangas though the data is from government and conservative websites.

Please look for yourself. Compare budgets and tax burdens. Look at this so called "welfare state" and what Republicans actually do about it other than talk. Then look at Republican pork or "corporate welfare" impact on your life. It's not black versus white or poor versus middle class at all. There's virtually no economic incentive for the vast majorty of Americans (I'd say 98% of us) to EVER vote Republican. And the lie is obviously unravelling by the continued emphais over the past 20 years to polarize the country on "morality" issues. Which has never been more extreme or obvious than in the current administration's unnecessarily phobic cultural war. Conservative Libertarians get it and I support them to a point (social policy) though I have serious problems with their increasing penchant to abandon all social contracts for anarchy...but that's another rant altogether.

If you read this far, congratulations and thank you. If you must dismiss this as purely partisan opine (because I do happen to think Democrats have their act together and remain the most sane and moderate party in America) then that's fine as long as you're willing to take a serious look at the Conservative rhetoric versus the deeds of the Modern Republican party. They aren't your party anymore. Fix it, find another or start a new one please. For the sake of the country and it's duty to humanity.

[Edited on 24-7-2004 by RANT]

A departure by Bush and the Republican Party from conservative ideology, particularly on such issues as "entitlements", government spending, deficits, and illegal immigration, is the most common complaint I have seen registered by conservative republicans, and they complain loudly and frequently about it.

If you don't believe me, go sample the banter at The Free Republic, a popular conservative website featuring thousands upon thousands of complaints about the Bush administration mixed in generously with the predictable cheerleading for Bush. What you most assuredly will not find is a uniformity of opinion among conservatives.

The thesis that conservatives, republicans and conservative republicans are somehow in lockstep in support of Bush is preposterous, and not supported by the facts. There is a great deal of disagreement among them, as even a casual sampling of their writings will reveal.

What I see in the post above is the creation and abuse of a straw man that does not actually exist. It does not agree with what I have observed among conservatives (or liberals, for that matter).

For my part, I find Republican pork to be no more or less desirable than Democratic pork. Neither are kosher.

However, I'm not sure how all that relates to Bush asking blacks to vote Republican.

Originally posted by Majic

If you don't believe me, go sample the banter at The Free Republic, a popular conservative website featuring thousands upon thousands of complaints about the Bush administration mixed in generously with the predictable cheerleading for Bush. What you most assuredly will not find is a uniformity of opinion among conservatives.

I cannot believe you characterize Free Republic as a conservative website. The people who post there are fascists, pure and simple. Contrary to the impression you try to create, there is no diversity of opinion, and no tolerance for it. Sure, there are complaints about Bush. Because he is not far enough to the right. Anyone to the left of Adolf Hitler is a communist, according to these people. And no dissent is tolerated. I once saw a guy banned in a matter of minutes for saying he thought Fahrenheit 9/11 was a pretty good movie.

The thesis that conservatives, republicans and conservative republicans are somehow in lockstep in support of Bush is preposterous, and not supported by the facts.

Polls consistently show over 80% of Republicans say they will definitely vote for Bush.

What I see in the post above is the creation and abuse of a straw man that does not actually exist.

RANT accurately depicts the lies and BS coming from the Republicans on these issues. There is no strawman here. I call BS on your strawman charge.

However, I'm not sure how all that relates to Bush asking blacks to vote Republican.

RANT is responding to a specific poster, and to comments by previous posters. When other posters derail the thread with lies and misrepresentations, it is perfectly appropriate to correct those lies and misrepresentations, just as I have done with your post.

Basically, you have made a misleading, information-free post, which contributes nothing to the discussion.

Originally posted by SIMPLEMIND
The author of this article is obviously a Michael Moore clone who feels that he has to apologize for being white. NOONE was disenfranchised in Forida in the 2000 elections. Every investigation that was conducted did not turn up a single incident of a voter being turned away who had proper identification. That is why all charges were dropped and every BS rights organization did not pursue it. BUSH won count after count after count. You just can't let it go, can you? Wake-up! It's the Democrats that survive off of making people dependent on the government. More Democrats were opposed to the Civil Rights legislation then Republicans. They were the party that supported it. What is a Scary Kerry and his running mate John "I-made-my-millions-by-using-junk-science" Edwards going to do for you? Man, go back to school and take some basic economics courses.

lol What the hell are you talking about? The US Supreme Court halted the Florida recount before it could be completed. The only case I heard of Edwards is when he sued a jacuzzi company that made a jacuzzi so when a little girl sat on the bottom, the suction ripped her intestines out of her anus.

Originally posted by RANT.........

................If you read this far, congratulations and thank you. If you must dismiss this as purely partisan opine (because I do happen to think Democrats have their act together and remain the most sane and moderate party in America) then that's fine as long as you're willing to take a serious look at the Conservative rhetoric versus the deeds of the Modern Republican party. They aren't your party anymore. Fix it, find another or start a new one please. For the sake of the country and it's duty to humanity.

- That's the single best piece of writing I've read here yet; excellent work Rant.



[edit on 26-7-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by donguillermo
Basically, you have made a misleading, information-free post, which contributes nothing to the discussion.

An ironic claim, considering the post in which it is embedded, which does nothing to actually disprove my point that conservatives and Republicans are not in lockstep in support of Bush.

Originally posted by donguillermo
Polls consistently show over 80% of Republicans say they will definitely vote for Bush.

People do not necessarily agree on all points with those for whom they vote. This snippet, which is also unsourced, is irrelevant to my claim.

Your characterization of the Free Republic, aside from being a self-discrediting stream of invective, is flat out defamatory and untrue. A puzzling offering from a poster who is fond of pointing out ATS policy against knowingly posting false information.

Originally posted by donguillermo
Anyone to the left of Adolf Hitler is a communist, according to these people.

Kindly explain your deliberate use of falsehoods in this context, and how doing so adheres to ATS rules. Produce a quote by any member of that forum, let alone several of them, to validate this preposterous claim, or admit that you are deliberately lying.

All such nonsense does is establish a lack of credibility on your part. There is no advantage to the use of such tired rhetorical gambits, since I don't buy them, nor does anyone who values truth.

What makes this exchange particularly ridiculous is that you are, rather obnoxiously, contesting a self-evident claim. The idea that opinions in any political party are uniform and unvarying is patently absurd, and I am amazed that you see fit to suggest otherwise purely for the sake of argument.

I refuse to accept your baldly opiniated statements as fact, and if that is all you have to offer in discussion, the discussion will go nowhere.

These sorts of departures will never lead you, or anyone else, to the truth. I can't believe that you cannot see that.

I had been holding out hope that you were better than this. My hope is fading.

Originally posted by Majic

Originally posted by donguillermo
Basically, you have made a misleading, information-free post, which contributes nothing to the discussion.

An ironic claim, considering the post in which it is embedded, which does nothing to actually disprove my point that conservatives and Republicans are not in lockstep in support of Bush.

I chewed up your post into little pieces and spat it out. The best comeback you have is that I did not disprove your refutation of a strawman argument. And what is this business about Republicans are not in lockstep in support of Bush? Did RANT say that? You have falsely accused RANT of a strawman argument, yet your entire post is based on a strawman that does not fairly represent what RANT said.

Originally posted by donguillermo
Polls consistently show over 80% of Republicans say they will definitely vote for Bush.

People do not necessarily agree on all points with those for whom they vote. This snippet, which is also unsourced, is irrelevant to my claim.

Again with the strawman BS. Who said that people necessarily agree on all points with those for whom they vote??? Answer that question, o master of strawman arguments. So the snippet is unsourced. Do you dispute its accuracy? It is very relevant to your claim, because people do not have to agree about everything to be in lockstep support.

Your characterization of the Free Republic, aside from being a self-discrediting stream of invective, is flat out defamatory and untrue.

We are in the realm of opinion here. My characterization of Free Republic accurately reflects my opinion. For you to characterize Free Republic as a conservative website with real diversity of opinion doesn't pass the laugh test for anyone actually familiar with the site.

A puzzling offering from a poster who is fond of pointing out ATS policy against knowingly posting false information.

Still bitter that I caught you lying and plagiarizing, eh?

Originally posted by donguillermo
Anyone to the left of Adolf Hitler is a communist, according to these people.

Kindly explain your deliberate use of falsehoods in this context, and how doing so adheres to ATS rules. Produce a quote by any member of that forum, let alone several of them, to validate this preposterous claim, or admit that you are deliberately lying.

Oh, please. I am obviously making a rhetorical characterization of Free Republic, and you want me to document it as though I am making a statement of objective fact. My claim is not preposterous, it is accurate. I am definitely not deliberately lying, as I am succinctly stating my impression of the typical Free Republic poster.

All such nonsense does is establish a lack of credibility on your part. There is no advantage to the use of such tired rhetorical gambits, since I don't buy them, nor does anyone who values truth.

LOL! You accuse me of nonsense and rhetorical gambits? The irony!

What makes this exchange particularly ridiculous is that you are, rather obnoxiously, contesting a self-evident claim.

I am not contesting your self-evident refutation of a strawman argument. There is another lie on your part.

The idea that opinions in any political party are uniform and unvarying is patently absurd, and I am amazed that you see fit to suggest otherwise purely for the sake of argument.

Please show me where in my previous post I suggested that the opinions in any political party are uniform and unvarying. I am waiting. You are so fundamentally intellectually dishonest that you cannot accurately represent what another person is saying. First, you claim that RANT was saying that the opinions in the Republican Party are uniform and unvarying. RANT NEVER SAID THAT. Your characterization of RANT's post is a dishonest strawman. Then you try to put the same strawman on me.

I refuse to accept your baldly opiniated statements as fact, and if that is all you have to offer in discussion, the discussion will go nowhere.

These sorts of departures will never lead you, or anyone else, to the truth. I can't believe that you cannot see that.

I had been holding out hope that you were better than this. My hope is fading.

Right back at you. Look in the mirror and repeat these last four sentences.

I'm done feeding this monster. This is even worse than alt.flame, and I've seen this before too many times to ever want to see it again.

I have no desire or interest in continuing veering off-topic with you. You have convinced me of nothing except the accuracy of my assessment of the pointlessness of debate for debate's sake.

Originally posted by Majic
I'm done feeding this monster. This is even worse than alt.flame, and I've seen this before too many times to ever want to see it again.

I have no desire or interest in continuing veering off-topic with you. You have convinced me of nothing except the accuracy of my assessment of the pointlessness of debate for debate's sake.

I would throw in the towel too, if I were you. This exchange started with your post attacking RANT's devastating, well-reasoned post. Tellingly, you did not produce a single quote from RANT's post. Instead, you introduced this flagrant strawman.

The thesis that conservatives, republicans and conservative republicans are somehow in lockstep in support of Bush is preposterous, and not supported by the facts. There is a great deal of disagreement among them, as even a casual sampling of their writings will reveal.

Then, you had the audacity to accuse RANT of a strawman argument!!

What I see in the post above is the creation and abuse of a straw man that does not actually exist.

See, when you accuse someone of creating a strawman, you are supposed to point to something specific, not just make the accusation.

When, in my first reply to you, I called BS on your strawman charge against RANT, you blithely failed to point to anything in RANT's post that was a strawman.

In my second reply to you, I specifically charged you with creating strawmen which did not represent what RANT was saying, or what I was saying. And I pointed to your specific words which constituted a strawman. When someone charges you with strawman tactics, you are supposed to point to something in your opponent's words that shows you are accurately characterizing what your opponent said.

So, you charged RANT with a strawman argument without citing anything he said. When I called BS on your strawman charge, you ignored me.

Then I charged you with using strawman arguments against both RANT and me. I pointed to your specific words to document my charge. Once again, you have no reply, except to throw in the towel.

If this debate were scored on points, you lost the debate 3-0.

Whatever. I've run into your type before. You are contributing nothing to this discussion, and I'm done with you.

Originally posted by Majic
Whatever. I've run into your type before. You are contributing nothing to this discussion, and I'm done with you.

I have run into your type before, too. You attacked RANT's brilliant post with strawman arguments, while falsely accusing RANT of strawman tactics. When I point out your dishonest debating tactics, you run away and hide.

Sir, it is you that have contributed nothing to the discussion. I performed a valuable service by cleaning up and sanitizing the mess you made in your lame attempt to discredit RANT's post.

Been there, seen it, done it, hung up my spurs about ten years ago. Always heartening to see some clever young blade take up the mantle, if wearying.

Andrew Heenan's Guide to Flaming

Godwin's Law FAQ

DonGuillermo, Rant and Majic and JohnSmith.

Whoa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!You have make this post one of the best post in this subject for quite some time, I love it.

And for going back to the topic after reading all your post, the conclusion is obvious, the blacks, Hispanics and other minorities in this country does not own anything to bush administration but hard ache, and bush does not have any right to ask for votes from any of this minority groups in this country.

Oustanding thread.

[edit on 24-7-2004 by marg6043]

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by Seth Bullock
And, JohnSmith, 'just start handing out cash to black people" is Kerry's platform, not Bush's.

You're going to have to explain this one to me because the data doesn't support it.

How on earth did you get welfare out of this? I thought this thread was about buying the black vote?

So far Mr. Kerry has only courted the minority vote with basically one idea. 10 billion dollars in education reform with almost one billion specifically targeted at minority scholarships.

www.evote.com.../news_section/2004-06/06302004Kerry.asp

That is the only bone he has yet to throw, so sure he is of getting the minority vote. A billion bucks. In fact, many minority leaders are disappointed with Mr. Kerry, and are saying he doesn�t demonstrate the commitment to the minority community he should.

www.washtimes.com...

www.newsmax.com...

So, yes I stand by my statement. Toss them some money and they will come. That is Kerry�s platform. President Bush tried to point that out yesterday and I agree with him.

But, since you want to talk about welfare, lets do that.

I fully support welfare. It is something needed in every civilized country. However, the democrats use it as a political tool as opposed to a way to get people on their feet again.

You bring up a very good point in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. An excellent piece of legislation from Newt Gingrich�s Contract with America, signed into law in 1996 by then President Clinton.

Mr. Clinton and Mr. Kerry vigorously opposed earlier attempts at legislation like this, for purely political reasons, ie.�buying votes� in my opinion.

Lets take a look at Mr. Kerry�s record.

1988 � Voted against �Workfare� a program that would ask one member of two parent welfare homes to work a minimum of �gasp� 16 hours a week.

1994 � Voted against �learnfare� a program that would curtail benefits to families that couldn�t keep their kids in school. Still an excellent idea to this day, in my opinion.

1994 - Voted to keep SSI disability payments to drug addicts and alcoholics. The biggest sham in Social Security history. In my opinion, FDR would roll over in his grave.

1995 � Voted against the family cap legislation, which would curtail the horrible practice of having more children just to get more money.

washingtontimes.com...

These were logical reforms, opposed in my opinion for the sole purpose of buying votes.

Black people aren't my enemy. Hispanics aren't my enemy. Single parents aren't my enemy. Mentally handicapped and disabled people aren't my enemy. Not even poor white people (the largest group on Welfare) are my enemy! My enemy is the liberal politicians that want to keep these people �on the dole� in an attempt to keep their vote.

Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. 60% go to wealthiest 10% blah, blah, blah. Do you know what across the board means? It is a well-known fact that the wealthiest 10% pay 60% of the taxes! So if you make an �across the board� tax cut, the results should be obvious. But this is a fruitless argument since apparently any evil bastard that makes more than the average person should pay it all in taxes, according to many on this board.

Anyway, I stand by my statement that the Kerry campaign is pandering to minorities.

By the way, in all of our debates, I have never called you �stupid� didn�t really care for that.