Which Party you Belong to? (URGENT)

[maxpower]

NO ARGUMENTS PLEASE!!! THIS IS A SURVEY FOR MY FINAL PRESENTATION TO MY POLI SCI CLASS.

AFTER YOU HAVE VOTED, PLEASE ANSWER THESE QUESTION WITH AGREE, MAYBE, OR DISAGREE... AND I WILL CALCULATE YOUR ANSWERS TO SEE IF YOU BELONG TO THE PARTY YOU VOTED FOR

PLEASE WRITE DOWN WHICH PARTY YOU VOTED FOR ON TOP OF YOUR ANSWERS, THAT WILL BEST HELP ME DETERMINE WETHER YOU KNOW WHERE YOU LIE ON THE POLITICAL MAP. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

AGREE.... MAYBE.... DISAGREE...

1. Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet.

2. Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft.

3. There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults.

4. Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs.

5. There should be no National ID card

6. End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business.

7. End government barriers to international free trade.

8. Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security.

9. Replace government welfare with private charity.

10. Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more.

P.S. I WILL RELEASE THE RESULTS TO EACH INDIVIDUAL ON THIS FORUM OR IN A PRIVATE MESSAGE... HOW EVER YOU DESIRE.

[Samuel]

A Whig.

[Samuel]

I can answer these in several different ways.
-What is best for our National Interest?
-What is best for my personal Interests?
-What is best if I prioritize civil liberties over global dominance?
-What is best if I prioritize global dominance over civil liberties?
-So on, and so forth....

1. Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet.
Agree

2. Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft.
Agree, although in times of global crises, this rule should change.

3. There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults.
Agree

4. Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs.
Maybe, depending on the drug in question. *As a liberal, I would be inclined to say that WEED SHOULD BE LEGALIZED. *However, as an American, I question the negative implications such would have on our economy. *

5. There should be no National ID card
Who fvcking gives a sh!t?

6. End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business.
Maybe. *Corporations make the economy go "round-n'-round." *Just as the IMF hands out free money to starved nations, we need institutions (maybe we could privatize this??) to hand out money to corporations that are an integral part of the economy but are suffering. *However, we should force specific policy reform in the way they manage the corporation before agreeing to hand out the money.

7. End government barriers to international free trade.
Maybe. *This is way too complicated to answer with merely 3 choices. *Valid points can be made for any decision. *I'd be inclined to say Disagree though, over Agree. *Free Trade is an idealistic concept that can only become a liability to nations in an anarchic international system (such as the one we're in).

8. Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security.
Disagree. *People can't control their dicks, let alone their finances. * Sorry Bush, but of all the stupid policies you've endorsed, this has got to be amongst the most retarded. *However, I have faith that he can top himself in the next 3 years.

9. Replace government welfare with private charity.
Disagree.

10. Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more.
DISAGREE. This is so stupid, it hurts. *Deep down inside. *Where my soul lives and breathes. *It aches. *Please, stop.

[maxpower]

samd is... LIBERAL *:)

[John_5_24]

First, let me say that I am very conservative but am NOT a republican. *Anyone who thinks the GOP is actually conservative doesn't know what's going on these days. *The GOP is only conservative when you compare them to the Dems, but they alone are certainly not conservative. *

In the last election, I voted for Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party. *They are strict constitutionalists who believe in returning to the Christian foundings of our country. *We should be so fortunate.

1. Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet.
Agree

2. Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft.
Disagree

3. There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults.
Are there now? *Unless you are talking about frolicing in the park, I would say that sex between conselting adults is unfettered as it is.

4. Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs.
strongly disagree

5. There should be no National ID card.
disagree-only because I don't want states giving cards to illegals.

6. End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business.
Agree, but this is so open to interpretation, the question itself is dangerous.

7. End government barriers to international free trade.
agree

8. Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security.
agree 10,000,000%

9. Replace government welfare with private charity.
agree

10. Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more.
AMEN!! *Agree!

[Senalko]

I am not realy Sure what i am at all... i know i am far from being a supporter of the Liberals, but i am no Conservative either.... anyways maybe u can tell me what i am.... here are my answers :)


1. Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet.
* * * Agree

2. Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft.
* * *Agree

3. There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults.
* * *Disagree

4. Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs.
* * Disagree

5. There should be no National ID card
* * * *Disagree

6. End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business.
* * * Disagree

7. End government barriers to international free trade.
* * * * Agree

8. Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security.
* * Disagree

9. Replace government welfare with private charity.
* * * *Disagree

10. Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more.
* * * * *Agree

[jm314159]

1. Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet.
Agree: the media should be the watch dog that keeps government in check not the current administration's bitch.

2. Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft.
Agree: I won't die for something I don't agree with, but in the case of another nation invading our's or something along those lines, I'll sign up.

3. There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults.
Agree: what consensually goes on between two adults in the bedroom is their business

4. Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs.
Disagree (to a certain extent): I'm biased because I've seen the negative effects of drugs on people I love. *Addiction of a healthy individual is the problem. *If weed really does help people with cancer, aids, etc. ... *let 'em blaze away. *got cancer? *here's some weed. *simple.

5. There should be no National ID card
Agree: I don't need the government to know my every move. *You guys ever seen that movie "Minority Report"? *nonstop advertising, among other things, because your shopping, shitting, drinking, eating, driving habits are known.
http://www.unrealid.com/index.html

6. End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business.
Disagree (to a certain extent): *Chrysler would not have survived the 80's with handouts. *100,000+ would be unemployed without that handout. *on the other hand: enron, MCIworldcom, ...

7. End government barriers to international free trade.
need time to think and research more

8. Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security.
Disagree: businesses are completely self interested, I can't see a company willing to take care of it's retired employees for the rest of their lives. *People pay taxes to keep the government running so that they can take care of and protect us.

9. Replace government welfare with private charity.
need time to think and research more

10. Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more.
Cut taxes by that much: Disagree
Government spending: Maybe (depends on what it's being spent on)

[sammiedebull]

"Independent".

[Samuel]

I must admit, with the exception of
jm314159, if the other two kids who already took the survey had any sort of political power, this country would be in ruins within two years. *Their logic defies political theory in every sense of the word. *Throwing out a disclaimer that they're "conservative" doesn't make the nonsense that one blurts OK.

[Samuel]

BY the way.... the new GOP is going into a whole new direction. *They're now, NEO-Conservatives. *They're more radical than your typical, bible wearing, holier than thou, can't spell their own name, conservatives we've become accustomed to. *I'm not accusing all conservatives of being like this. *But it's funny how a lot of them are. *HAHA. *LOOK AT ME LAUGH AT YOU.

[maxpower]

well John_5_24 you are CONSERVATIVE

Senalko you are right... you are a CENTRIST

jm314159 the one that best fits you LIBERAL

[sammiedebull]

You know, i kind of feel bad fo rthe democrats sometimes because the only think they can do is talk about the other side, talk about the issues for ONCE please. Think about it, this is why kerry lost, all he could talk about was how bad bush is, how bad the republicans are, how bad everything is screwed up but you know what? he never talked about solutions and that is why he lost.

Tooo bad for teh democrats :)

[John_5_24]

BY the way.... the new GOP is going into a whole new direction. *They're now, NEO-Conservatives. *They're more radical than your typical, bible wearing, holier than thou, can't spell their own name, conservatives we've become accustomed to. *I'm not accusing all conservatives of being like this. *But it's funny how a lot of them are. *HAHA. *LOOK AT ME LAUGH AT YOU.

samd,
I am curious as to how you define a neoconservative. *I here this term thrown around, but you ask 100 different people and you will get 100 different definitions. *
What is a neo con to you?

[sammiedebull]

knock yourself out John :

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/180

[ojeen1981]

Am a Marxists baby! We r toying with words here, there is classical liberalists too. *Marxists is somewhere between centrist and liberalism. *I wish u expand your topic according to the European political parties. *

1. Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet.
Agree

2. Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft.
Agree
3. There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults.
Agree
4. Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs.
Disagree
5. There should be no National ID card
Disagree
6. End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business.
Disagree
7. End government barriers to international free trade.
hmmmm *Maybe
8. Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security.
Disagree
9. Replace government welfare with private charity.
maybe
10. Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more
LoL from the Bourgeoisie…agree!

[John_5_24]

knock yourself out John :

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/180

According to this artive, I am a paleoconservative. *I agree on almost all points with Pat Buchanan!

[jm314159]

I consider my self independent:

here are some definitions of "Independent" (taken from Google (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-05,GGLD:en&q=define%3A+independent)):

a person who is not associated with any political party.
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/election/glossary.shtml

my favorite--->When a person or thing is not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself.
http://bensguide.gpo.gov/6-8/glossary.html

A candidate not belonging to one of the major political parties. [top]
http://www.arlingtonva.us/Departments/VoterRegistration/VoterRegistrationTermsTrivia.aspx

Registered voters who do not declare a particular party affiliation are grouped together under the term "independent". Because most voters registered for a particular party will vote for that party's candidate, general election campaigns have tended to focus on winning over these groups. Nationwide about a third of all voters consider themselves independent, however some key states have a higher proportion of independent voters than others. New Hampshire, for example, traditionally has a large number of independents and as a result has a reputation for producing unexpected results during its primary elections.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3357329.stm


etcetera...

[maxpower]

well ogeen what u know The political description that
fits you best is...


CENTRIST

[ojeen1981]

the list u gave is too limited..trust me am a Marxists!

[jm314159]

Political compass:
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/bothaxes.gif

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/axeswithnames.gif

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/internationalchart.gif

2004 US elections:
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/USelection2004.gif


http://politicalcompass.org/

[sammiedebull]

I like Pat Buchanan.

[missbaghdad]

Please give me your analysis! You can post it here


1. Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet. AGREE

2. Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft. *AGREE

3. There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults. DO NOT AGREE

4. Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs. DO NOT AGREE

5. There should be no National ID card DO NOT AGREE

6. End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business. DO NOT AGREE

7. End government barriers to international free trade. AGREE!!

8. Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security. DO NOT AGREE

9. Replace government welfare with private charity. DON'T KNOW

10. Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more. DON'T AGREE - CONTROL GOVERNMENT SPENDING

P.S. I WILL RELEASE THE RESULTS TO EACH INDIVIDUAL ON THIS FORUM OR IN A PRIVATE MESSAGE... HOW EVER YOU DESIRE.

[pfizzles_sister101]

1. Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet. MAYBE

2. Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft. Agree

3. There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults. Disagree

4. Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs. MAYBE

5. There should be no National ID card. DISAGREE

6. End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business. DISAGREE

7. End government barriers to international free trade. DISAGREE

8. Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security. MAYBE

9. Replace government welfare with private charity. DISAGREE

10. Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more. MAYBE


I'm not sure my answers are good or not they are kinda on the spot answers so fogive me? :think:

[sammiedebull]

1. Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet. AGREE (Government should stay away from such things, do we look like Saudi Arabia here!!! The media is getting worse and worse, I hope we have more networks, the current ones do not do anyone or anything justice. Pretty much the only one i like is MSNBC.)

2. Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft. AGREE (The current system works, people join the army becaus ethey really want to, they are not forced and an all volounteer army is much better than an army where people are forced to fight, it simply will not give us the best result. Now if we go to war with another heavy weight like China than circumstances change and it should be reviewed at that time.)

3. There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults. AGREE (It's a free country, people can do what ever they want behind closed doors as long as they are of right age and no illegal activies are going on that is.)

4. Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs. DISAGREE (Drugs usually lead to bad things so they should be combated just as hard as we are combating terrorism. They usually lead to kids, kids give them to other kids, its just no good at all. And please, for you left wingers dont say weed helps a sick person better.)

5. There should be no National ID card DISAGREE (You know, I don't mind, its just another card in my pocket, there are many problems associated with this such as theft of IDS, making fake ones, etc, no system is ever perfect but i do believe that if it makes us 1-2% safer than why not, also if you have nothing to hide than what is the big deal.)

6. End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business. DISAGREE (The government needs to help small and large businesses as much as possible because at the end of the day they are the ones who create jobs, pay the most taxes and deliver new and innovative ways toi protect the country and make everyones life better with great products, medicines and so forth.)

7. End government barriers to international free trade. AGREE (The Government should be able to dictate what it wants to do with specific conutries in regards to methods such as terrifs and bans on certain goods, I do not mind having free trade with Mexico and Canada and others but i think we need to be VERY VERY careful with countries such as China and other poor nations which try to bring down the dollar for their own good.)

8. Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security. AGREE (with restrictions, you know, the current system is not very good, it may work but you really do not get the bang for your buck. The limits would include "frozen accounts" which means money cannot be removed until a certain age, etc.)

9. Replace government welfare with private charity. DISAGREE (People need help, Some people are stuck in situations because of bad luck, they need a start to get out of the mess they are in. The sad part is those who use and abuse the programs.)

10. Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more. DISAGREE (makes no sense, why would you do that, we are already at an all time deficit, how much more debt do you want to go in? I am a Independent and I lean more to the right so my natural instinct is to lower taxes but i think now is not a good time for such a move.)

[John_5_24]

By the way, I also loved Paul Wellstone. *I LOVE politicians who are real. *Wellstone and Buchanan are REAL people with REAL positions that they hold to no matter what the situation. *I don't care what your political affiliation, you should at least admire these men for sticking with their positions. *They are polar opposites on probably every political and social issue, but they are still from the same mold.

[ojeen1981]

Karl Marx. *Das Kapital.

[maxpower]

miss baghdad you are my friend are a CENTRIST

pfizzles_sister101 and darling.. you are STATIST

sammiedebull you are CENTRIST

[missbaghdad]

what exactly is a "centrist"? do you mean independent? because that's what I consider myself, although I lean to the left

[maxpower]

CENTRISTS espouse a "middle ground" regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice. Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind, tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.

[missbaghdad]

CENTRISTS espouse a "middle ground" regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice. Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind, tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.

WOOT WOOT

:rockout:

Glad to know I'm not a hypocrite

[ojeen1981]

Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks.

Democracy is the road to socialism.
Karl Marx

[Samuel]

BY the way.... the new GOP is going into a whole new direction. *They're now, NEO-Conservatives. *They're more radical than your typical, bible wearing, holier than thou, can't spell their own name, conservatives we've become accustomed to. *I'm not accusing all conservatives of being like this. *But it's funny how a lot of them are. *HAHA. *LOOK AT ME LAUGH AT YOU.

samd,
I am curious as to how you define a neoconservative. *I here this term thrown around, but you ask 100 different people and you will get 100 different definitions. *
What is a neo con to you?


What do you mean... "What is a neo-con to me?" *

Although the origins, and implications of the Neo-conservative movement are broad, when i hear neo-con, i read, The New Frontier, targeting the Middle East rather than the middle landscape, and using the Jew, rather than the Frontiersman to conquer. *The Neoconservative movement is a movement sprouted by Jewish intellectuals. *Most of which happen to be Zionists, strict anti-socialists, and Reagan apologists. *

As for your endorsement of Pat Buchanan: *

"Buchanan has described multiculturalism as "an across-the-board assault on our Anglo-American heritage" and supports restricting immigration into the United States. He has described homosexuality as leading to "a decay of society and a collapse of its basic cinder block, the family." He opposes abortion, including in cases of rape and incest. He advocates allowing prayer in public schools, and encourages defiance of Supreme Court rulings against school prayer. He supports abolishing many government bureaus and advocates a flat tax. He is in favor of ending treaties that do not protect the interests of the United States, such as one-way defense treaties where the U.S. must militarily come to the defense of another country, but not vice versa." *source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_buchanon


In other words, Buchanan is a hick with a voice.

[pfizzles_sister101]

When will you pm us to tell us our results??

[John_5_24]

As for your endorsement of Pat Buchanan: *

"Buchanan has described multiculturalism as "an across-the-board assault on our Anglo-American heritage" and supports restricting immigration into the United States. He has described homosexuality as leading to "a decay of society and a collapse of its basic cinder block, the family." He opposes abortion, including in cases of rape and incest. He advocates allowing prayer in public schools, and encourages defiance of Supreme Court rulings against school prayer. He supports abolishing many government bureaus and advocates a flat tax. He is in favor of ending treaties that do not protect the interests of the United States, such as one-way defense treaties where the U.S. must militarily come to the defense of another country, but not vice versa." *source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_buchanon


In other words, Buchanan is a hick with a voice.

1. wikipedia is hardly a source worth quoting

That being said, it has most everything regarding Buchanan correct, but I feel the need for some clarification of his/my positions.

Buchanan's position on immigration is that we should halt it alltogether for about two years. *During that two year period, we would alter our immigration policies to make it easier for people who want to come here LEGALLY to come here. *We would also round up all the felons who are here illegally and ship them home where they should be. *
The new immigration policy would then be simpler, but would have limits on it as to a maximum number of new immigrants per year. *I wholeheartedly agree with this approach. *Yes, including rounding up the illegals and shipping them home.

Homosexuality has and will continue to decay our society.

Abortion is murder, even in cases of incest and rape.

Prayer in public schools should be allowed. *The Supreme Court itself started it's first session ever with a 6 HOUR prayer. *They also start each Supreme Court session and Legislative session of Congress with prayer.

Flat tax = fair tax. * * * For more info go to www.fairtax.org * * If you haven't researched this fully, I suggest you do.


Like I said Samd, I am fully aware of Buchanan's positions and I do agree with him!

[RaNoOoBiE420]

Liberal

1. Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet. agree

2. Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft. agree

3. There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults.disagree

4. Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs.disagree

5. There should be no National ID card.maybe

6. End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business.

7. End government barriers to international free trade.agree

8. Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security.agree

9. Replace government welfare with private charity.maybe

10. Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more.agree

[KoolEug1981]

My political beliefs transcend the political specturm. *But if I have to choose a political affiliation, I would probably be a social democract. *That is, I am somone who deems govermental intevention desirable when it protects its citizens from the ravages of the free market. *However, I vehemently oppose any centralization of power. *So I guess I am what political scientists consider an orthodox Marxist since I confer the power to change history on the masses. *Leninsm differs from Marxism in that aspect. *Leninsm entrusts the powers of decision-making in the hands of a few people, that is, the vanguard.

[maxpower]

RaNoOoBiE420, you stated that your libral.. but according to your answers... it shows that you are a CENTRIST

[Samuel]

As for your endorsement of Pat Buchanan: *

"Buchanan has described multiculturalism as "an across-the-board assault on our Anglo-American heritage" and supports restricting immigration into the United States. He has described homosexuality as leading to "a decay of society and a collapse of its basic cinder block, the family." He opposes abortion, including in cases of rape and incest. He advocates allowing prayer in public schools, and encourages defiance of Supreme Court rulings against school prayer. He supports abolishing many government bureaus and advocates a flat tax. He is in favor of ending treaties that do not protect the interests of the United States, such as one-way defense treaties where the U.S. must militarily come to the defense of another country, but not vice versa." *source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_buchanon


In other words, Buchanan is a hick with a voice.

1. wikipedia is hardly a source worth quoting

That being said, it has most everything regarding Buchanan correct, but I feel the need for some clarification of his/my positions.

Buchanan's position on immigration is that we should halt it alltogether for about two years. *During that two year period, we would alter our immigration policies to make it easier for people who want to come here LEGALLY to come here. *We would also round up all the felons who are here illegally and ship them home where they should be. *
The new immigration policy would then be simpler, but would have limits on it as to a maximum number of new immigrants per year. *I wholeheartedly agree with this approach. *Yes, including rounding up the illegals and shipping them home.

Homosexuality has and will continue to decay our society.

Abortion is murder, even in cases of incest and rape.

Prayer in public schools should be allowed. *The Supreme Court itself started it's first session ever with a 6 HOUR prayer. *They also start each Supreme Court session and Legislative session of Congress with prayer.

Flat tax = fair tax. * * * For more info go to www.fairtax.org * * If you haven't researched this fully, I suggest you do.


Like I said Samd, I am fully aware of Buchanan's positions and I do agree with him!


1) Wikipedia is a GOOD source. *If you don't think so. *That's too bad. *I've been encouraged to cite it in research papers by professors whose careers mostly consists of RESEARCHING. *There's a reason why everything stated was correct....it's because wikipedia is a GOOD source. *Great, i'm glad we've settled that one.

2) You address the most trivial political issues. *Homosexuality, public prayers, and abortion carry no weight in regard to policy-making. *Even politicians you support who are pro-life, speak tongue-in-cheek. *High profile politicians such as Bush, don't give a fvck about life. *They care about the bible-thumpers re-electing them. *

3) Your opinions don't matter. *Really. *A lot of people have been conditioned to think that ALL opinions matter. *I don't. * I think a person who says "homosexuality is the decay of..." and "flat tax = fair tax" is unreasonable, and should be treated as such. *So with that....

Have a nice day.

[John_5_24]

1) Wikipedia is a GOOD source. *If you don't think so. *That's too bad. *I've been encouraged to cite it in research papers by professors whose careers mostly consists of RESEARCHING. *There's a reason why everything stated was correct....it's because wikipedia is a GOOD source. *Great, i'm glad we've settled that one.

2) You address the most trivial political issues. *Homosexuality, public prayers, and abortion carry no weight in regard to policy-making. *Even politicians you support who are pro-life, speak tongue-in-cheek. *High profile politicians such as Bush, don't give a fvck about life. *They care about the bible-thumpers re-electing them. *

3) Your opinions don't matter. *Really. *A lot of people have been conditioned to think that ALL opinions matter. *I don't. * I think a person who says "homosexuality is the decay of..." and "flat tax = fair tax" is unreasonable, and should be treated as such. *So with that....

Have a nice day.

1) *Wikipedia is hardly a good source. *You can ask any librarian who actually deal with reference on a minute by minute basis and they will tell you that.

2) I addressed the issues you brought forth. * I do agree that Bush is a punk. *I do not, and will not defend him. *I don't care how much lip service he pays to anything I support. *The fact is that he is a liar.

3) If my opinions don't matter to you, why did you bother responding? *We can certainly disagree on issues and I didn't claim that my position had any superiority over yours. *It seems that you are trying to dismiss my position without dealing with it. *Just an observation.

[Samuel]

1) Wikipedia is a GOOD source. *If you don't think so. *That's too bad. *I've been encouraged to cite it in research papers by professors whose careers mostly consists of RESEARCHING. *There's a reason why everything stated was correct....it's because wikipedia is a GOOD source. *Great, i'm glad we've settled that one.

2) You address the most trivial political issues. *Homosexuality, public prayers, and abortion carry no weight in regard to policy-making. *Even politicians you support who are pro-life, speak tongue-in-cheek. *High profile politicians such as Bush, don't give a fvck about life. *They care about the bible-thumpers re-electing them. *

3) Your opinions don't matter. *Really. *A lot of people have been conditioned to think that ALL opinions matter. *I don't. * I think a person who says "homosexuality is the decay of..." and "flat tax = fair tax" is unreasonable, and should be treated as such. *So with that....

Have a nice day.

1) *Wikipedia is hardly a good source. *You can ask any librarian who actually deal with reference on a minute by minute basis and they will tell you that.

2) I addressed the issues you brought forth. * I do agree that Bush is a punk. *I do not, and will not defend him. *I don't care how much lip service he pays to anything I support. *The fact is that he is a liar.

3) If my opinions don't matter to you, why did you bother responding? *We can certainly disagree on issues and I didn't claim that my position had any superiority over yours. *It seems that you are trying to dismiss my position without dealing with it. *Just an observation.


1) I still think wikipedia is an excellent source for our purposes. *It's certainly more informative than the subjective links you provide. *I've used wikipedia in papers. *I wouldn't use fairtax.org in a paper even to support a flimsy counterargument. *Btw. *Why are you criticizing a source when in fact, the information i provided through it was correct? *I personally feel that a librarian isn't a credible source. *Some ancient lady organizing 700,000 books obviously doesn't know the convenience of the internet. *So, again, according to the rules of opinion inferiority (i totally made this up)....hers don't matter. :) *The other day I had to sit through an hour lecture by a librarian on how to research. *The b!tch was telling me how to use google. *I was going to teach her how to create a resume so she could have a meaningful job for once. *

2) *I didn't bring up abortion. *I didn't bring up homosexuality. *I didn't even bring up prayer in public institutions. *But i will now, since you're so eager to debate the only three political issues a good Christian concerns themselves with. *Because knowledge is filth. *
This country wasn't founded on Christian principles. *Sure, Christianity was used as a justification to kill, torture, and conquer. *The native americans were demonized, and the "Good Christian" thing to do was to fvck them over. *Well congratafvckalations. *If you'd like to think of the country as having Christian origins because of that. *Then more power to you. *But the country's ideological standpoint reflected the "frontier narrative." *If you want a credible source, read Frederick Jackson Turner's "The end of the frontier" Thesis. *This country was secular from day 1. *Religion was a political tool. *Have a problem with that? * I'm sorry. *Isolate yourself and pretend otherwise. *I'm sure as a "good Christian" you're already familiar with this method anyway.

If Christianity is in fact not inherent in the concept of the United States, then there's no need to reference to Christian principles when policy-making. * Therefore, taking away people's rights without a more compelling reason than "God says so" would be un-American. *

As Justice Blackmun states in Bowers v. Hardwick (a supreme court case regarding the legalization of Sodomy in the state of Georgia):

"[i]t is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past."

As Justice Blackmun eloquently stated....There is NO reason in THESE United States to prohibit sexual acts amongst consenting adults. *There's no compelling reason to do so! *Why intrude on someone's privacy unless it threatens national security? *Why obstruct the Social Contract, because a couple of indigenous people (the religious-right) find themselves living in a progressive society and are uncomfortable with such?? *Why risk national chaos, public protest, and uncompliance with national government, because a couple of idiots took a novel too seriously?

It's funny how you agree with Buchanan over all of the small issues. *And you support him because of them. *But you disagree with Buchanan over much larger issues such as "Free Trade," and "treaty agreements." * That's how politics in the United States works. *People pick their team based on "abortion" and "homosexuality" related issues...rather than issues that matter. *Why? *Because they don't understand the bigger issues. *I'm not really crediting them with understanding smaller issues either. *But at least they can somewhat attempt to grasp those.

[John_5_24]

Samd. *Who said I didn't agree with Buchanan on the big issues as well? *You did bring up the issue of school prayer, abortion and homosexuality in your post from wikipedia.

And as far as Justice Blackman's positions, does he not realize how much of our system he would have to destroy if he applied his standard to the US as a whole? *I don't understand what has changed in his mind about sodomy? *Isn't sodomy still sodomy? *Oh, no, he is correct, the homosexuals have decayed our society to such a point that the very meaning of the word sodomy has now changed.

Additionally, if our country was not founded on Christian principles, then why did the US government for the first 100 years or so print the Bible for use in public schools? * Your make believe "seperation of church and state" is not in the constitution and in fact was never considered to be put in the constitution. *The phrase first appeared in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danberry Baptists who were being riled up by the federalists. *The federalists were telling them that the gov't was going to institute a specific form of church government. *The letter by then President Jefferson was to ensure the Danberry Baptists that the federal government was never going to intrude on their church. * Now the left has taken that phrase and reversed it from it's original meaning. *Originally it was to protect the church from the state, that was the only intention of the letter and that phrase. *The Supreme Court understood this until 1947 when Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black turned everything this upside down by quoting Jefferson's letter and missapplying it in Everson vs. The Board of Education.

Please don't insinuate that I do not understand the gravity of my positions or the reasons behind them Samd.

Oh, and one last thing. *With 3,200 innocent babies being slaughtered each day (22,400 each week, 1,168,000 each year) within this country, I would hardly consider abortion a "little issue" or trivial by any means.

[Samuel]

Samd. *Who said I didn't agree with Buchanan on the big issues as well? *You did bring up the issue of school prayer, abortion and homosexuality in your post from wikipedia.

And as far as Justice Blackman's positions, does he not realize how much of our system he would have to destroy if he applied his standard to the US as a whole? *I don't understand what has changed in his mind about sodomy? *Isn't sodomy still sodomy? *Oh, no, he is correct, the homosexuals have decayed our society to such a point that the very meaning of the word sodomy has now changed.

Additionally, if our country was not founded on Christian principles, then why did the US government for the first 100 years or so print the Bible for use in public schools? * Your make believe "seperation of church and state" is not in the constitution and in fact was never considered to be put in the constitution. *The phrase first appeared in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danberry Baptists who were being riled up by the federalists. *The federalists were telling them that the gov't was going to institute a specific form of church government. *The letter by then President Jefferson was to ensure the Danberry Baptists that the federal government was never going to intrude on their church. * Now the left has taken that phrase and reversed it from it's original meaning. *Originally it was to protect the church from the state, that was the only intention of the letter and that phrase. *The Supreme Court understood this until 1947 when Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black turned everything this upside down by quoting Jefferson's letter and missapplying it in Everson vs. The Board of Education.

Please don't insinuate that I do not understand the gravity of my positions or the reasons behind them Samd.

Oh, and one last thing. *With 3,200 innocent babies being slaughtered each day (22,400 each week, 1,168,000 each year) within this country, I would hardly consider abortion a "little issue" or trivial by any means.


I'm running off to class, but i'll be back, and can't wait to answer this post! *BTW... Don't you just LOVE Hugo Black and Blackmun? *Almost my favorite Justices, if it weren't for Earl Warren, and Thurgood Marshall, and Blackmun's really crappy Majority opinion in Roe v. Wade. *Good decision, bad reasoning. *:)

[Samuel]

Samd. *Who said I didn't agree with Buchanan on the big issues as well? *You did bring up the issue of school prayer, abortion and homosexuality in your post from wikipedia.

And as far as Justice Blackman's positions, does he not realize how much of our system he would have to destroy if he applied his standard to the US as a whole? *I don't understand what has changed in his mind about sodomy? *Isn't sodomy still sodomy? *Oh, no, he is correct, the homosexuals have decayed our society to such a point that the very meaning of the word sodomy has now changed.

Additionally, if our country was not founded on Christian principles, then why did the US government for the first 100 years or so print the Bible for use in public schools? * Your make believe "seperation of church and state" is not in the constitution and in fact was never considered to be put in the constitution. *The phrase first appeared in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danberry Baptists who were being riled up by the federalists. *The federalists were telling them that the gov't was going to institute a specific form of church government. *The letter by then President Jefferson was to ensure the Danberry Baptists that the federal government was never going to intrude on their church. * Now the left has taken that phrase and reversed it from it's original meaning. *Originally it was to protect the church from the state, that was the only intention of the letter and that phrase. *The Supreme Court understood this until 1947 when Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black turned everything this upside down by quoting Jefferson's letter and missapplying it in Everson vs. The Board of Education.

Please don't insinuate that I do not understand the gravity of my positions or the reasons behind them Samd.

Oh, and one last thing. *With 3,200 innocent babies being slaughtered each day (22,400 each week, 1,168,000 each year) within this country, I would hardly consider abortion a "little issue" or trivial by any means.

I've written out THREE freakin' paragraphs and closed it twice! *This is my third attempt at addressing this damn post. *

If you don't mind, i'm going to skip addressing your first two paragraphs. *While the inaccuracy in them may be the fault of your imagination, my intolerance for those who fabricate events to demonstrate a point prevents me from considering your accusation of Blackmun. *Blackmun's involvment in redefining "sodomy" is quite a claim, buddy. *Have anything to prove it?

Let me show you something: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

That's an article which mediates credible information between academia and mere individuals like you and I. *Some like to call it an "Academic Article." *It could function as a source which would otherwise be used to substantiate claims made by people who have no credentials in the discussion they're involved with. *For example, this article discusses Justice Lewis Powell's memo to conservative think tanks, encouraging them to invest financially into framing issues, so that when phrases were to be coined by the media, they would suit the conservative agenda. *You see how that worked? *I made a claim, and have a world renown professor from a world-ranked university as testimony to it! *Clever, huh? *What's more fascinating is how this article seems to contradict your accusation of Justice Blackmun. *Instead, it asserts that conservative Justices, particularly Powell, were far more involved in "redefining" and framing issues. *So instead of critiquing my sources, try finding some of your own? *And try to look beyond the accumulation of short stories you consider the word of God. *That does no good with contemporary issues. *

Sodomy has legally been understood as non-procreative sexual acts. *Namely Oral and Anal sex. *Please explain how Justice Blackmun changed that? *It was used by states infested with the religious-right in order to deter homosexuality (Georgia, Texas). *Thank god for people like Blackmun, who had the MORAL courage to stand up to a bunch of amoral cowards who are intimidated by anything that differs from the anglo-saxon protestant. *Oh no...that Negro has a bigger dick. *My wife might prefer to suck it over my pale one! *:( Shit! *Honestly. *Isn't that what you're all concerned about anyway?

On to the next "point..."

Let's start by stating the FIRST amendment:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Danbury Baptists were concerned because they were being taxed by the established Church of their state. *So they addressed their concern to then President Jefferson and he responded by explaining that the "penumbras" of the 1st amendment protected them against such taxes. *

President Jefferson: *"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State." *

Justice Black used the letter in the case you mention by stating:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

Black's commentary makes PERFECT SENSE. *Would you support an Islamic mosque? *Would you allow your tax dollars to fund the construction of Islamic Schools? *

The critique of Justice Black's majority opinion was written in Rehquists Dissent. *He stated that Jefferson wasn't technically a founding father (you conservatives will do ANYTHING to get your way, even lie). *Accordingly since James Madison was the principle drafter of the Constitution, and that a majority of states did have "official" churches at the time of its adoption, the founding fathers must have approved of such a system. *Rehnquist appeals to the original intentions of the founding fathers. *However, The federalists, in order to EVER get the constitution ratified, HAD to include the Bill of Rights. *If it weren't for the Bill of rights.... THE CONSTITUTION WOULD HAVE BEEN NULL AND VOID. *GET IT? *The bill of Rights carries the Free Exercise Clause, and the Establishment Clause. *This country is secular. *Deal with it, big boy. *

And another thing. * Original intention is retarded. *Really. *If you are one to appeal to the original intentions of men who lived 300 years ago, you my friend, are a dumbass. *There is nothing special about them. *In the 300 years, we have progressed in so many ways, it would be pathetic to still follow their intentions. *Even when drafting the constitution, members of the constitutional convention threw away all of their NOTES!! they discouraged us following THEIR intentions. *They realized that they were just human and fallible. *Conservatives can't get that through their heads. *Well.. *They can't get much of what's going on today, through their heads. *But that's besides the point. *

^US Secular, Original Intention bad. * John, i don't know if you're white or not (you sound like it). *But i'm not. *I find original intention theorists fvcking assholes, and encourage them to lick my balls. *If we had it their way, I'd be attending a separate but "equal" school. *

As for your abortion debate. *This I DONT want to get into. *Why you ask? *Because quite frankly. *I think you're a big fat hypocrite. *You want to cut taxes and spending by 50% but you want over an extra million lives every year? *Interesting. *So you want to cut social programs, but you expect 16 year old Maria to give birth to a Child so that your imagined God doesn't get offended? Are you ready to shoulder the cost or are you just going to continue yappin'? *And that's why abortion is a trivial issue. *No matter the number of lives lost, and no matter what side of the issue, politicians know the financial implications of prohibiting abortion. *Who is to financially support all of the babies conceived by families already in poverty? *We have a fairly conservative group of Justices, a Congress completely dominated by conservatives, and a Conservative white house. *And still, abortion is in full force. *Get it? *Abortion doesn't fvcking matter to anyone outside of the deep south and mid-west, where IQs are as scarce as excitement. *Sorry to break it to you. *But everyone that matters doesn't truly feel that abortion matters. *


:-({|=

[John_5_24]

Samd,
I ceratinly appreciate your well mannered response to my positions. *I also appreciate your tolerance and acceptance that the left is so well noted for.

Your point on abortion is a peculiar one. *You see, I don't want Maria who is 16 to be pregnant in the first place. *You fail to address that as the first problem in your scenario. *Additionally, I would be more than willing to take part in a system where abortion was made illegal and I would help support unwanted children with all of the tax money I would save from my 50% tax cut. *Your point that "Abortion doesn't fvcking matter to anyone outside of the deep south and mid-west..." while stated so eloquently is somewhat untrue. *I would argue that abortion also matters to every baby that is murdered in this manner and furthermore matters to every child born in this world because they should be thankful their parent was pro-life. *The issue isn't nearly as marginal as you would like to believe. *On 9/11 we had 3,000 peole die tragically from terrorists, yet we had more than that die in abortion clinics that day and not a word. *

Your point about my tax dollars supporting religion is also false. *My tax dollars already do. *It's called a 501(c)3 organization which practically every church/mosque/synagogue would qualify as well as an Islamic school. *

Your so news article on language and definition is certainly worth a read, but your premise is faulty. *How old was the law that Blackmun overturned? *Was it a law written in the past decades by conservative think tanks? *I would say that the definition of sodomy was declared in a little town in western Iraq named Sodom. *Whether you believe the Bible or not, that is the source of the word and the story of Sodom and the defintion of the word certainly has not changed, but the country's acceptance of it has. *Hence my point that we are in a moral decline, not totally attributable to homosexuality, but certainly partially.

Oh, and on your point about your link being an "academic paper", that is false as well. *Your link, as I acknowledged is a worthwile read, but it's a news article. *The fact that it appeared in a college newspaper doesn't make it "academic". *Academic Papers are papers that are peer-reviewed and have gone through a vetting process. *The editorial process used in newspapers doesn't qualify as an academic peer review and I don't know of any journalist or researcher who would say so.

So, again, thank you for your well mannered, eloquent retort. *I did enjoy it. *Especially you calling me a "fvcking asshole" for apparently nothing more than disagreeing with you.

Also, for the record, I am Chaldean. *My last name is Kas-Shamoun, does that make a difference at all? *Is my opinion more or less valid than if I was white? *Just curious.

[John_5_24]

One more quick point on the newspaper article. *Just because it doesn't qualify as academic does not mean it is to reliable. I did not mean to insinuate that at all. *It is just not up to the level of an academic, peer reviewed, paper.

[Samuel]

Wow. *That's your response? *All you can do is critique my sources? *You're joking me right? *You're not even going to bother refuting my points? *I OBVIOUSLY wasted my time with you. *And if you do appeal to Original Intent, you're either blatantly ignorant or you're a fvcking asshole. *My accusation stands.


The only substance to your post was here:

"Your point on abortion is a peculiar one. *You see, I don't want Maria who is 16 to be pregnant in the first place. *You fail to address that as the first problem in your scenario. *Additionally, I would be more than willing to take part in a system where abortion was made illegal and I would help support unwanted children with all of the tax money I would save from my 50% tax cut. *Your point that "Abortion doesn't fvcking matter to anyone outside of the deep south and mid-west..." while stated so eloquently is somewhat untrue. *I would argue that abortion also matters to every baby that is murdered in this manner and furthermore matters to every child born in this world because they should be thankful their parent was pro-life. *The issue isn't nearly as marginal as you would like to believe. *On 9/11 we had 3,000 peole die tragically from terrorists, yet we had more than that die in abortion clinics that day and not a word. *"


So you're telling me a ZYGOTE/FETUS has interests now? *Wow. *You people never cease to amaze me. *I'll admit ONE thing. *A fetus carries intrinsic value. *But so does a van Gogh painting. *Are you asserting that just because a painting has intrinsic value, that it must also have a political interest?

Make sure the stuff you type....Makes sense. *And then press "submit"


Btw. *For the last FVCKING time. *My sources are more than sufficient within the context of this debate. *Especially since you fabricate stories/facts half of the time.

[John_5_24]

Samd, first, let me thank you once again for most eloquent retort.

I did not question your source, only your claim that it was an "academic paper". *A college newspaper does not qualify as an "academic paper". *A medical journal, a law journal, these contain academic papers.

Does a zygot have political influence? *No more than any other child that is not allowed to vote. *

You say I didn't respond to your other materials? * *I did respond to your racist insinuation about me being white. *I did respond to your posting of the article by statng that it was well worth a read. *I did respond to your comments about the Sodomy case. *I did respond to your question about supporting a mosque. *

Just because you don't like my answers does not mean I didn't respond. *About the only thing I did not respond to is the unending number of personal insults you have hurled at me. *

Additionally, I questioned Wikipedia, and not the article. *I actually made a second post to clarify and acknowledge that the article was a valid source and a good article. *I only questioned your assertion that it was an "academic paper" because of your condescending tone in stating that it was. *So, before you decide to be condescending, which seems to be every post for you, please make sure you know the simple definition of terms you use.

[ojeen1981]

I have no idea what this arguemnt is about, however, when i do have sometime i will read it becuase it sounds very intresting. *Plz correct me if I am wrong, however, it seems the arguemnt is about abortion? *let me know if it is becuase i got my own thing about it..much thanks

[John_5_24]

Ojeen, it's about a variety of topics all at once. *Probably not the best way to deal with them because they are all very meaty.

Becareful what you say though, because if you disagree with Samd, you are immediately branded a "fvcking asshole" regardless of your reason.

[ojeen1981]

thanks John.

Life starts at fertilization, this is a medical perepective

Living in a land of "freedom" we should give others the chance to chose if they wanna kill themselves or not. *no one can tell the fetus am gonna kill u, thats deprivation of voice, political perspective

Ethical/philosophical perspective = That fetus may grow up to become the next Einestine, or one who can find cure for cancer, u never know. *What if she was raped? put the baby up for Adoption.

Religious, and we all know this one, "thou shall not kill" = abortion is simply killing, the fetus has began life at point of fertilization becuase the process of fertilization is inevtiable to take place in the womb afterwards. *Unless its complicated by defects in the mother!

[Samuel]

Ojeen, it's about a variety of topics all at once. *Probably not the best way to deal with them because they are all very meaty.

Becareful what you say though, because if you disagree with Samd, you are immediately branded a "fvcking asshole" regardless of your reason.

Oh gawd. *I apologize for calling an original intention theorists an asshole, as much as a jew would apologize to a nazi for whatever condescending remarks they have to make. *Why did i assume you were white? *Because if you knew what was good for YOURSELF, then you wouldn't appeal to original intent. *I'm sorry that i have to spoon feed concepts to you. *But i'm kind of sick of it now. *How about you buy yourself a nice, and reliable encyclopedia, and learn stuff on your own?

In the meantime. *Keep *pretending* that you are white. *And pray tonight. *That you Christians are no longer persecuted in this country by condescending atheists. *Because you poor Christians have such a ROUGH time being accepted by this society. *Life must be hard for you, with all of those faggots running around, huh? *Don't you know how obnoxious you people are? *No one appreciates your ideology, besides your fabricated God. *And you had to make him up.

[John_5_24]

Samd,
What does being white, or being chaldean have to do with this conversation at all?

[John_5_24]

Samd,
I just reread your post. *Are you saying that believing that the original intent of our founding fathers should be upheld is equivelant to Naziism?

[CHALDEANELVIS]

Anthony, Ojeen, don't bother even posting in this thread. Do not feed what is Holy to the swine. I wouldn't even hang around a thread where people are swearing. It shows immaturity and I as a Christian would not want to be around cuss words, especially for politics! If someone is inquiring salvation, let's teach them, even though they might swear, I fill carry out 1 Peter 3:15. But for God's sake, not politics!

Christian advice from a Christian perspective,

Elvis

[Samuel]

Samd,
I just reread your post. *Are you saying that believing that the original intent of our founding fathers should be upheld is equivelant to Naziism?

Originalists are traditionalists of the worst kind. *They'll look for any excuse to perpetuate the white dominance that thrived years ago. *Even if it means glorifying the opinions of men who lived 300 years ago. *Personally, I don't believe in white dominance. *Get it? *I can draw a diagram if it's really that difficult for you to grasp.

[maxpower]

Samd,
I just reread your post. *Are you saying that believing that the original intent of our founding fathers should be upheld is equivelant to Naziism?

Originalists are traditionalists of the worst kind. *They'll look for any excuse to perpetuate the white dominance that thrived years ago. *Even if it means glorifying the opinions of men who lived 300 years ago. *Personally, I don't believe in white dominance. *Get it? *I can draw a diagram if it's really that difficult for you to grasp.

I would like to see a diagram.. if that is possible

[Samuel]

Samd,
I just reread your post. *Are you saying that believing that the original intent of our founding fathers should be upheld is equivelant to Naziism?

Originalists are traditionalists of the worst kind. *They'll look for any excuse to perpetuate the white dominance that thrived years ago. *Even if it means glorifying the opinions of men who lived 300 years ago. *Personally, I don't believe in white dominance. *Get it? *I can draw a diagram if it's really that difficult for you to grasp.

I would like to see a diagram.. if that is possible

alright. *I'll make one this weekend.