It Gets Worse

Perfect example of the ignorance Joe highlights here.
-
As if on cue...

To be fair to textee it should be noted that it is an involuntary reflex. It's like my gag reflex every time I hear Sarah Palin speak.

Textee is Exhibit A of Joe Klein's article. Communists, fascists, socialists...all defunct political concepts of the early 20th century. What better way to camouflage racism than to cloak it with McCarthy-style rhetoric.

Exibit A.

Surely textee is pulling our legs.

Is there actually any point left in visiting the Swamp, much less commenting here?

It all depends upon what the meaning of the "communists". It means just a committed anti-capitalist (like Joe himself) then there are way more than 4 of them.

"You can't disprove these things to these folks, Joe. They are fanatics. Fanatics don't listen to reason or rationality. That's the nature of fanatics."

So, over 50% of the country who is displeased with Pres. Obama are "fanatics?" C'mon now. Give me a friggin' break. Are you that blindingly liberal that you won't acknowledge that Americans have serious concerns about Obama's populist agenda?

"The more I see of this lunacy, the more I am convinced that most of these folks just cannot live with the idea of a black man being president. That's what is really driving this insanity."

When did being opposed to a politician's agenda make one a racist? I'm sick and tired of race-baiters like yourself who automatically assume that one is racist for opposing this president. Ridiculous

nomad 28,
-
No, we are discussing the folks Klein highlights in his post. the ones who firmly believe that there will be "death panels," and that Obama is a secret Muslim communist with designs on overthrowing the U.S. government, etc.
-
Nowhere did I state or imply that my comments applied to any more than the people being discussed in Klein's post. You did that, but I didn't.
-
And, yes, I think most of these loony zealots highlighted here are racists.

nomad, don't spew poll numbers that you don't under stand. The polls also show that only about 12 percent of the country make up the lunatic fringe you belong too. His overall drop in approval numbers includes Democrats that are pissed about losing the public option, don't confuse them as being on your side, although it's the media failure to provide that information when they site these polls. -- See Joe what kind of harm you cause when you bring in poll numbers without explaining what they really mean. Don't use poll numbers you don't under stand to drive your narratives and then get taken a back when the lunatic fringe uses that information to support their agenda.

Palin...,

Actually, you're wrong. Klein never mentioned "death panels" in this post. He chided a lady in a town-hall for saying that Obama employs Communists at the WH.

Have you not read that Van Jones, the green jobs "czar" has admitted in the past to being a communist?

How does that make someone a "radical?" Those are Van Jone's own words!

What about the science "czar" John Holdren? He proposed "compulsory sterilization" and forced abortions to control population

What about Cass Sunstein, the regulatory "czar?" He proposed bans on hunting and eating meat and proposed that your dog to be allowed to have an attorney in court.

What about Carol Browner, the global warming "czar" who was part of Socialist International, a group for "global governance?"

What Ezekiel Emmanuel, Obama's health care adviser, who has been a proponent of the "Complete Lives System," which puts values on lives based mostly by age?

You cannot tell me that these people aren't radical. Their ideas are not mainstream. Surely you can see that?

nomad28:
.
Please provide links to and direct quotes of the persons whose positions you purport to describe, otherwise these unsubstantiated claims have no credibility whatsoever.
.
You can do that, right? You weren't just told these things by entertainers (or anonymous emailers), and are now repeating wild hearsay like a gullible dolt, correct, nomad28?
.
You can back up your assertions with uninterpreted, documented facts?

Dee,

Wow. Don't let your ideology blind you. Poll after poll suggests that not only are Obama's policies widely unpopular, but polling also indicates that we live in a conservative country. I'll let the following polls speak for themselves, and then I'll await your feverish attempt to discredit them. Ha!

From Gallup:

Despite the Democratic Party's political strength -- seen in its majority representation in Congress and in state houses across the country -- more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal. While Gallup polling has found this to be true at the national level over many years, and spanning recent Republican as well as Democratic presidential administrations, the present analysis confirms that the pattern also largely holds at the state level. Conservatives outnumber liberals by statistically significant margins in 47 of the 50 states, with the two groups statistically tied in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/122333/Political-Ideology-Conservative-Label-Prevails-South.aspx

Obama's Job Approval (from Rasmussen Reports 8/31/-9/2)

53% Disapprove 47% Approve

68% Say Passage of Health Care Reform Will Increase Decifit

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/68_say_passage_of_health_care_reform_will_increase_deficit

Nancy Pelosi has a 25% Approval Rating nationwide

Heck, even Jon Meachem, editor for Newsweek and rabidly liberal has said that we live in a "center-right" country.

Admit it. There's more of us than there are people of your ilk. It doesn't matter if the liberal mainstream media says otherwise.

Stuart,

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/PrintFriendly?oid=290098

http://hannity.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/09/03/all-the-presidents-radicals/

because fox news is a reliable source... O__o

but to be honest, i think that arguments over claims that are clearly false only serve to distract people from the real issues. i find it hard to stomach that there are people out there who do not believe that every individual has the right to live and be healthy.

about a year ago, i lost my job and was unable to see the doctor or fill prescriptions until i (luckily) found a new job. now imagine this: there are people out there for whom this is not a few months, but years and years of their lives. isn't the role of the government to serve the people? do we have any right more unalienable than the right to be alive, employed or unemployed?

a health care system with a public option means that some of your tax dollars go to people who aren't paying as much (or perhaps nothing at all). but i would hope that we live in a society that is not "every man for himself," but rather that believes in helping those in need.

nomad28:
.
Umm...you linked to a Fox News page authored by "Web Producer" helpfully entitled "All the President's Radicals?" ("Hey, we're just asking! We're not saying! You decide!") that provides no sourcing for its claims whatsoever.
.
With golden reportage like "Science and technology "czar" John Holdren has made headlines [which headlines? can they be linked to? are the headlines of sensationalist tabloid rags?]", "...going as far as appearing to suggest [appearing to whom? is that a euphemism for 'could be interpreted by the editorial staff of this news outlet to be suggesting?']," and "This week it was reported [by whom? Fox News' Web Producer?], the claims are highly questionable, to say the least.
.
As it happens, I dug up what appears to be (not that anyone can actually know) their sources, and they seem to be coming from the Discovery Institute --a Creationist think-tank devoted to publicizing unscientific claims about universally accepted evolutionary theory-- section of Fox News' site http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/08/the_inconvenient_truth_about_p.html called "Evolution News and Views", where selected text from a 1977 book on overpopulation is quoted out of context, given the interpretation of the blog's author as fact, and attributed solely to John Holdren.
.
At this Creationist think tank's site, every effort seems to have been made to create the appearance of Holdren having advocated for the immediate adoption of state-enforced coercive population control methods, through selective quotes like

In a section entitled “Involuntary Fertility Control,” Holdren wrote:
.
" The third approach to population limitation is involuntary fertility control. Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. "

,
An actual reading of the book, however http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98156598 reveals that this passage is a quote from another publication, as the footnote #104 attributes: "Edward R. Chasteen: The case for compulsory birth control", which is intended to describe the debate taking place. The population control methods described are an accurate depiction of the policies http://tinyurl.com/mvvr39 that actually were implemented in India --of course having nothing to do with Indian officials having read this obscure textbook-- during India's "Family Planning Program", first started in the 1950s.
.
Got that? The attribution "Holdren wrote" made by Creationist is a lie, because he's quoting some other guy's paper, as the footnote indicates.
.
A reading of the source also reveals that the section of the book from which these quotes are taken is extrapolating current population trends to catastrophic levels, focusing on the areas where the most dire, horrific Malthusian-style natural population controls --starvation and disease, in other words-- were already taking place at holocaust rates.
.
The book discusses what emergency steps could be taken, if any, to reverse the wholesale genocide that would occur naturally in such futuristic overpopulated areas, and whether or not those policies would work --based on what had actually happened over the previous decades.
.
There is much that is controversial about what is discussed in the book, to be sure, but what is far more troubling than an open discussion of population control in the 1970's is the obvious exploitation of it by Fox News in the service of an apparent campaign to paint Barack Obama as a f*cking closet eugenicist, nomad28.
.
But thank you so much for posting a link to the source of your claims on the subject, so that they can actually be verified.
.
It's unfortunate that the journalists at Fox News --and elsewhere-- couldn't be bothered to do this sort of verification work on your behalf, so that you didn't walk around making such demonstrably false claims, nomad28, and so that you weren't under such terrible, idiotic mis-impressions like "Barack Obama appoints people who want to use the government to force people to have abortions, which is somehow related to health insurance reform.".
.
I'd be pretty freaked out, too, if I thought that the President was OK with genocide. It's not that I trust the guy --he's a politician-- but that's a revolting conspiracy theory, like "Bush deliberately allowed 9/11! to happen, so he could go to war!"
.
Thanks for reading and considering this.

jumpoverit,

What comments are false? Read the article. Van Jones calls himself a Communist. How is that false?

"i find it hard to stomach that there are people out there who do not believe that every individual has the right to live and be healthy."

Wow! Are you serious? What about our CONSTITUTION??? I find it humorous that the same liberals who scream 'foul' at the mention of death panels because, they argue, that term is not found in the House bill, also somehow find abortions and a "right" to healthcare in our Constitution. Hypocrites, all of you.

Van Jones is a former communist. He now describes himself as an eco-capitalist and is considered an expert on Green issues, which is what his role as a Special Advisor to the President on green issues encompasses. He is the only one on this list who has ever been a communist.

John Holdren never 'proposed "compulsory sterilization" and forced abortions to control population'. He was co-author on a textbook on population policies in the 1970s that discussed various ways that governments have tried or proposed to control populations, but the authors did not endorse these methods. Instead they proposed noncoercive measures such as better access to condoms and (voluntary) abortion.

Cass Sunstein is a strong supporter of animal rights and has stated that hunting should probably be (eventually) banned and that animals should perhaps be allowed legal representation (in a speach at Harvard in 2007). He has not proposed that such measures be undertaken in the near future nor has he proposed outlawing meat consumption.

Carol Browner was the administrator of the EPA for 8 years, during which time she never made any suggestion or advocacy for "global governance." She couldn't have been "a member of the Socialist International" since the SI is an association of political parties and organizations, not individuals.

Ezekiel Emmanuel, a leading opponent of legalized euthanasia(!), was discussing the "Complete Lives System", which is a system for

"Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines."

That's it. As a bioethicist, he was analyzing the question of how to allocate things in short supply such as donated organs, and considered various alternatives that had been proposed.

In a 2009 article in the Lancet, this system was described. Here is a quote:

"Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge. We evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classified into four categories: treating people equally, favouring the worst-off, maximising total benefits, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness. No single principle is sufficient to incorporate all morally relevant considerations and therefore individual principles must be combined into multiprinciple allocation systems. We evaluate three systems: the United Network for Organ Sharing points systems, quality-adjusted life-years, and disability-adjusted life-years. We recommend an alternative system—the complete lives system—which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles."

In the article he specifically compares the CLS and DALY and comes to the conclusion that while both systems discriminate against the elderly, DALY is worse in this regard. Dr. Emmanuel has never advocated heath care rationing in general.

Though it's tempting to think Obama's race is the primary motivator here, let's not forget how easily the right went after a 100% white war hero, someone you would think might elicit more of their sympathy. No, this is just intolerance of any view other than their own.

To stuartzechman:

Excellent post, although I doubt the FoxBots are going to be swayed by Reason.

Nomad28's claim that this is a Conservative country are based on a Gallup poll where the choices were 1) Very Conservative, 2) Conservative, 3) Somewhat Conservative, 4) not that Conservative, and 5) Liberal. The first 4 responses were then tallied as Conservative. Unsurprisingly, the Liberal tally was quite small.

The same Gallup page links to their polls on Party Identification. The results? 30 States Firmly Democratic, with 8 more leaning. Republican? 4 Solid, 1 leaning. And they are all low-pop. States (Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Alaska, Alabama.)

The Obama Haters use faulty numbers, out-of-context quotes, unfounded accusations, and outright Lies. There is no Conservative majority. There is no Republican majority. Progressives are in the driver's seat, trying to steer us away from the cliff Bush and his cronies aimed us at, and will be for 7 more years.

God Bless our President.

woodwakr,

You're dead wrong. First of all, on the Gallup poll, the choices were: 1. Very Conservative 2. Conservative 3. Moderate 4. Liberal 5. Very Liberal

(http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-Single-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx)

Of those polled, 40% called themselves "conservative" while only only 21% called called themselves "liberal." What part of this poll DON'T you understand? It'll be fun to see you try to "explain" this poll away. Bring it.

Jon Meacham, late last year, wrote a column in his newsmaganize Newsweek in which he argued that this country has historically been a center-right country. Miind you, this is coming from a flaming liberal like Meacham whose magazine routine lambasts conservatives and evangelicals. Let me quote some excerpts for your enjoyment:

(http://www.newsweek.com/id/164656)

"But history, as John Adams once said of facts, is a stubborn thing, and it tells us that Democratic presidents from FDR to JFK to LBJ to Carter to Clinton usually wind up moving farther right than they thought they ever would, or they pay for their continued liberalism at the polls. Should Obama win, he will have to govern a nation that is more instinctively conservative than it is liberal—a perennial reality that past Democratic presidents have ignored at their peril"

"So are we a centrist country, or a right-of-center one? I think the latter, because the mean to which most Americans revert tends to be more conservative than liberal. According to the NEWSWEEK Poll, nearly twice as many people call themselves conservatives as liberals (40 percent to 20 percent), and Republicans have dominated presidential politics—in many ways the most personal, visceral vote we cast—for 40 years. Since 1968, Democrats have won only three of 10 general elections (1976, 1992 and 1996), and in those years they were led by Southern Baptist nominees who ran away from the liberal label. "Is this a center-right country? Yes, compared to Europe or Canada it's obviously much more conservative," says Adrian Wooldridge, coauthor of "The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America" and Washington bureau chief of the London-based Economist. "There's a much higher tolerance for inequality, much greater cultural conservatism, a higher incarceration rate, legalized handguns and greater distrust of the state."

The argument I am making—that we are at heart a right-leaning country skeptical of government once a crisis that requires government has passed—is probably going to look dumb, or at least out of step, for many months to come. A big blue tsunami appears imminent. Election night and the first phase of a possible Obama administration may feel as though we have left the old categories behind, striking out on a bold new path in which pragmatism trumps dogma. (Bold new paths are a specialty for new administrations, until they become safe old paths.) Economically, the deficits are so vast that we're all supersized Keynesians now, and there will most likely be political and intellectual cover for a stimulus package of new spending in the new year.

"Will a Democratic administration, he asks, "ban handguns? No. Will it throw its weight behind legalizing gay marriage in every state? No. So even if you have, as we will, a Democratic Washington, America will remain a fundamentally conservative country."

Sir, it would do you good to step out of your little liberal bubble and look around the country. I'm a Mexican-American living in Southern California. I'm surrounded by liberals and live in a very liberal state, but yet I also understand that my little bubble is not representative of this country. If you were to remove your ideological blinders, you would understand that the reason that Fox News is so popular is not because the "fringe" flocks to its stations, BUT because there are more of us (conservatives) than there are of you (liberals).

Not surprising when you look at the poll numbers on health care.
-
The people opposing health care reform and the public option are overwhelmingly older and whiter than the general population. These are the very groups most averse to change, particularly change in the form of a black president.
-
My parents, who are die-hard union Democrats now in their 80s, didn't believe that America would elect a black man. In fact, they were convinced Obama would lose. Why? Because they hang around other old people who grew up in far more racist times.
-
Interesting that Obama and his health plan are still extremely popular among the under-40 set, but have dropped in the polls among seniors.

i think it would be nice if nomad28 would reply to stuartzcheman's arguements. funny how he replies to some argurments but not when he is proved wrong......

Not to mention someone who based their career on giving the fetid bleatings of crazy Pete Hoekstra an air of legitimacy.
Just think if instead of writing a column where he stenographically took Hoekstra's works and granted them anonymity, Klein had looked at what Hoekstra told him, done some basic research, and wrote a column about how a very powerful House Republican had lied to him and tried to abuse the trust between journalist and source to lie to the American people?
I guarantee if we kept getting those stories we'd have a lot less of the crazy and the lies and the conspiracy nonsense.

It seems the sleeping White Giant has awaken,
-
There it is, in all its ungrammatical glory. This is about racial and cultural resentment. Full stop. Nothing else.
-
These people didn't raise hell about the massively expensive Bush-backed Medicare Part D program, nor about Bush's effort to get schoolchildren to regard his administration in a positive light.
-
There is no ideological or factual content to these tantrums and lies. Just racial panic.

One of the worst parts of the entire madness that has become the Republican Party is that no one will stand up to the Birthers or Deathers or Birchers or Rush or Beck.

The supposedly "sane" members are too scared to criticize the crazies. We knew it was headed this way when Republican officials had to apologize to Rush for not kissing his ring.

THE RNC is using the Wing Nut Daily mailing list. That is why the he said/she said journalism is a cancer in the media. It is destroying our social fabric when the GOP has realized that the media will elevate the "opposing view" for balance no matter how absurd, counter-factual, cynical, or offensive it is.
.
If the crazies can say soylent green is made up of seniors under Obama care 10,000 times, one well written "fact check" doesn't cut it.

We'll be greeted as liberators.
WMD are a slam-dunk.
We'll never spy on Americans.
Obama wants to kill your Granny.
Plus, he was born in Kenya.
And is a new Hitler.
And wants to destroy America.
And he caused the recession.
And is trampling the Constitution.
And hates white people, like his Mom.
Global warming is a conspiracy.
The jury's still out on evolution.
Abstinence Education works.
Poor people caused the bank crisis. Worldwide.
Cut taxes on the wealthy and de-reguate business and eveything will be rosy forever.
Torture prevented attacks.
And besides, Jesus would be OK with it.
Taxes are higher than they've ever been.
Environmentalists hate America.
The Geneva Convention rules are a quaint outmoded fancy.
Borrowing money from China to buy oil from Saudi Arabia is A-OK.
Lying is OK as long as it supports the GOP agenda.
But it was impeachable for Clinton.
Adultery is fine as long as you're a devout Evangelical.
Democrats like terrorists.

REPUBLICANS WILL STOP LYING WHEN YOU STOP BELIEVING.

Good lord, textee, your metallic lid is strapped far too tightly to your noggin. Loosen the straps and let some blood flow upward...

Here you go, Joe. You've got one on the hook.
.
textee's a card carrying member of the paranoid, xenophobic wing of the GOP. He's got a head full of nazis and commies and is convinced - convinced! I tell you - that any second, brown-shirted youth, fresh from indoctrination, are going to come to his house and take his guns and bible.
.
And the media will continue to humor him. We need to give him equal time. Maybe a full segment on Anderson Cooper. Can't appear biased, now can we?
.
textee is a product of the modern media. He's the modern equivalent of a flat earther. And as long as we entertain the plausibility of their lunatic theories, we'll continue to grow more like him.
.
You've let the lunatics run the asylum and now you wonder why there are so many lunatics running around.

And the media will continue to humor him. We need to give him equal time. Maybe a full segment on Anderson Cooper. Can't appear biased, now can we?
-
That's exactly right. At the end of the day, this is a triumph of political correctness. "Oh, it's so darling that these conservatives have such passion! Wouldn't want to go and spoil it by interjecting anyone's notions of "factually accurate" and "false" into the discussion!"

To Elvis (9.3):

Wait... wait...

You used the phrase 'notions of "factual... and "false"' in a reply to a guy whose rant is loony enough to mention Obama Youth uniforms?

BWWWAAAAAAAHHAAAHAAAHHAAHAAAHAAA(gasp)HAAAAAHAAHAAAHAAAAA!

Stop it. Yer killin' me.

You won't hear anything because it is the truth, southernbell. So DEAL with it, "Sista"!!

Talk about the wackos on the left. You are indeed at the top of the list Dee!! Please go take some of your anti-psychotic medicine, and put on your tin-foil hat for good measure.

we are all afraid that we know how this is going to end - and I think that is what they want.

Excellent insight, Kristiia. These are people driven by fear and anger. It's all they understand at this point. If they can make the *rest* of us afraid of *them*, then they regain control. And indeed, more than once of late I've heard level-headed friends worry that this is all going to erupt into violence of some sort.

And if we worry about it, surely policy-makers worry about it... and no doubt adjust their behavior, and their positions, accordingly. Not out of reasoned concern for the public interest -- or even concern for their own *electoral* interests, since we're not talking about majorities here -- but out of quiet fear of how far the unhinged, angry wingnuts might be willing to go.

All in defense of their vision of a straight, white, patriarchal, Christian, laissez faire, and (without a trace of irony!) "freedom loving" America, of course.

Rusty please get a grip, it might be fun to think your side can win by promoting this foolishness, but what you fail to figure out is that you are making enemies out of half the country, anger is not a one way street. And if wasn't for the economic engines of blue states, you know those liberal areas of the country that you so often write off but without which there would be no subsidies for red state America who have been draining our tax dollars since we took them back onto the union.

Dear Dee,
.
In all seriousness, I could give a flying rats A$$ what you think! So stuff that in your pot smoking liberal pipe and take a big puff! Wackjob!

Rusty stopped pretending he was right. You must have hit a nerve, Dee.

Are you still getting your talking points from Nancy Pelosi, Dee?
.
You should really get out of the house more often. She is crazy too!!

Unlike you Rusty I don't need talking points because I have the ability to interpret data and come up with the salient information to rebut the ridiculous arguments of the idiots on the right with out any help at all. Now you on the other hand are dependent on the ignorant rants of right wing websites you visit continuously.

Dee, don't give yourself too much credit. You are a walking DailyKos nut and couldn't carry a logical thougt in a wheelbarrow. Hey genius, do yourself a favor and look at the polls. We're winning the debate, not you. It's not just right-wingers but again, you just get that from your talking points. 2/3 of independents have left the boy-genius.

I should have said that.

Gotta love the free advice and high Broderisms establishment media types spew out.

Just out of curiousity, could you define an "extreme liberal" position in the health care debate?

I'm a liberal, all I meant by the comment was that there are extremests on both sides of the debate, though I've never seen Mr. Beck's equal I have to admit. Well, except Palin, but she's just a moron.

agribik:
.
I'm also intrigued...who are the extreme liberals on that side of the debate? To which people specifically are you referring? Can you think of any in particular?

AH duh! Perhaps someone at a protest rally BITING the finger off another protester from the other side.
.
They just might be a extreme liberal!!
.
Thanks Jeff Foxworthy!

Please name these extreme liberals. Just one maybe.

Perhaps this list would suffice for answering your question, "who are the extremist left wingers".
.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633
.
Toggle down to the list of names of the signators. Those who believe in this crap. Then you may understand.
.
Here are just a few;
.
At number 2 : Ed Asner, Actor Activist
5. Keidi Obi Awadu, aka The Conscious Rasta, talk show host, LIBRadio
.
28. Jodie Evans, co-founder, Code Pink
.
31. Janeane Garofalo, actress, comedienne, talk show host, Air America Radio
.
46. Van Jones, executive director, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, STORM, and COC. Current "Green Czar" for Obama Administration.
.
51. Mimi Kennedy, actress, Dharma and Greg, progressive activist
.
52. Faiz Khan, M.D., Triage Emergency Physician on 9/11, Assistant Imam
.
62. Cynthia McKinney, five-term Congresswoman from Georgia
.

.
53. David Korten, author, When Corporations Rule the World
.

Oh my gosh, Faiz Khan is an Assistant Imam? Thanks for pointing that out rusty. And for putting that fact in boldface. Because that's one radical liberal...wait, you mean terrorist, don't you? What the hell, liberal, terrorist--they're all anti-real-Americans.

This is why the GOP lost in November, among other reasons. And why it's headed for the garbage heap of history, at least if it keeps it's current form. Argue honestly about policy, provide constructive alternatives, make a case for yourselves rather than simply demonize the opponent. The worst you can say about a person is that he's an "Assistant Imam"? Pathetic, really.

(I know you can't hear me because I'm one of "them" and so anything I say must be evil, but I'll try anyway.)

(Sorry for the double post, forgot something)

Welcome to the new era, looks just like an old one.