The election is coming and where do you stand on the big political views of our time? I'd like you to look first at this web page from the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/candidatequiz/. Take a minute to see how the contenders differ from each other and from you.
When you have a little background, please take the online quiz here: http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html and report back to us what you discovered. Did it surprise you? What did you learn? What issues matter to you most?
As this is our first blog, let me set some ground rules. Please comment once without looking at what your peers have shared. Keep it real -- what do you think, feel, like, dislike -- you get the idea. Then, please read the comments of your classmates and offer a second response to someone else. We want to create a dialogue...refer to people by name, ask them questions, respond to them, etc. Sooooo.....that's two entries. If you do it with care, you'll get full credit (please don't even think for a moment that you're graded on your views -- actually you get full credit for HAVING opinions.) Conversely you'll receive no credit (that's a zero folks) for not participating! Give it a shot.....we'll make it interesting.
30 comments:
I had a 83% match with Barack Obama because most of what he says seems to make sense to me. He has a definite opinion and plan of how he is going to tackle the policies regarding abortion, health, education and Iraq.
The Republicans (Mc Cain) criticise Obama because he has less foreign policy experience than they do but the fact is, his views are more in line with the rest of the world, particularly on gay marriage, global warming and stem cell research.
One huge problem I see with Mc Cain is his age. It may not be politically correct to say that he is too old for the job, but you cannot argue with nature. This job of being president requires a young, energetic, vibrant, charismatic leader that the rest of the world respects. We have already had two terms of a president who believes in the same policies as Mc Cain and look at the problems we find ourselves in today.
One thing, however, I do not understand, coming from another country, is the gun laws in America. The issue seems to terrify both parties because they know they will lose votes over it.
In the majority of other civilised countries, it is illegal to carry small hand guns that can be concealed; and therefore gun crime is significantly lower. Nearly every night on the news here in the U.S. we hear of an innocent child or bystander being killed by being caught in the cross fire of some unnecessary gun battle. I understand that if you live on a farm, there are dangerous animals etc, so you need to protect yourself. For this, I perfectly understand why someone should own a rifle (with a background check of course) but there is absolutely no reason why anybody would ever need a gun that can be concealed (except the police or security services). It just does not make sense to me. If only to save one innocent child's life, it is worth banning them. Access to guns is far to easy in America.
If i could vote in this election, i would vote for Barack Obama, however when i took the online quiz to see which candidate my opinions matched up with the best, i was matched up with 99.01% with Ralph Nader. However, next, i was 77.27% matched up with Barack Obama.
Issues that stand out to me the most are abortion, stem cell research, and the war in Iraq.
I fully support the idea of women's choice. I feel like it is the responsibility, choice and privacy of a woman to decide to have an abortion or not, and the government should have nothing to do with it. That being said, I am still pro life, however i feel that abortion is an issue that is very much pro choice.
I also fully support stem cell research. I feel like it is not hurting anybody, but it is helping people as a whole to find out how to prevent life threatening diseases. If a person is willing to donate their embryos, again it is that persons choice to do what they want with their body in order to help a cause that could potentially save many peoples lives.
I believe that we should exit the war in Iraq because it would be the most beneficial thing for our country. I think that we are spending too much money there, and too many people are dying at a time. Although some people might argue that withdrawing from the war is like surrendering, i believe that it is the opposite. If we had the courage and strength to get into the way, we should have the courage and strength to leave the war in order to help our country more as a whole.
My views on these issues would match with Obama's and i think out of the two presidential candidates he is the best one for the job
After taking the candidate quiz, it said that I had a 68.92% match with Bob Barr, and a 51.35% match with John McCain. I looked at the summaries of Bob Barr's policies on his website, and, while some made sense, others simply didn't.
If I were to narrow the issues down to the three most important to me (which is hard for me, because they are all very important and intertwined), I would have to say Abortion, the Iraq War, and the Fair Tax.
In terms of abortion, I firmly and ardently believe that abortion should never be an option unless the mother's life is directly threatened. My reasoning is this: regardless of the circumstances, the child didn't choose to be conceived, so why should anybody be allowed to take away his/her opportunity to live when it wasn't his/her choice? If we could ask the child what he/she wanted, then fine, but, the fact is, we can't. If a woman just accidentally gets pregnant, and she just doesn't want to have kids, then abortion is nothing short of murder. If a woman is raped, that is one of the worst atrocities that I can possibly think of, but, again, it's not the child's fault. The child didn't do it, the child didn't choose to be conceived, it just happened, and, even if you think that the child isn't alive yet, by having an abortion, you are still taking away the opportunity for that person to have a life. And, if a couple cannot financially support a child (or, going back to the previous situation, the woman simply cannot emotionally devote herself to the child), then adoption is the only viable option. However, the adoption system in America is currently in desperate need of reform. While I could go into detail about the adoption system and needed reforms, I think I'll spare you from the rant.
Now, in terms of the Iraq War, it isn't about past decisions (I'm split on whether we should have gone in in the first place), it's about what we're going to do from now on. Currently, the Iraqi government can't support itself, and the entire nation is in disarray. Their economy is the strongest it's been since the start of the war, higher per capita income, higher GDP growth, higher economic security, but their not there yet. If we were to all of a sudden pull all out troops out, their nation would completely collapse. Yes, it would be better for America in the short-term, but what about the long-term? And what about the Iraqi people? If we were to pull out now, before their nation is ready, their economy, which is currently being supported by us, would collapse, their government, currently being protected by us, would crumble under violent opposition, and regional stability, currently being maintained by us, would go into disarray in the power vacuum, also severely impacting the Iraqi economy. The fact is, they need us, more now than ever, and they aren't ready to do it on their own yet. People say that they want us out, that we're only harming them, but the thing is, that's a very small percentage of the whole population. The majority of the population is better off than they were under the Ba'ath Party, and the government currently needs us to support them, it is only the radical combatants that wish us out. Also, do you realize the importance of us having an ally in the Middle East? It would be huge if we could have someone sympathetic to our cause. Above all, we would get a major contact in OPEC. Oil is one of the major issues in the world today, and, on top of that, the majority of oil exporting nations don't like us very much (Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Libya, Egypt, Syria, etc.). Our only contacts are Oman, Qatar, and Kuwait, and that's because we preserved their governments at one point or another. If it worked with Oman, Qatar, and Kuwait, then it'll work with Iraq, and it will only serve to improve our standing in the Middle East over the long-term, even if it hurts us now.
And, as for the Fair Tax, you have to be able to understand economics to at least some degree in order to understand the full impact of any tax system. Here is an excerpt from fairtax.org, and organization devoted to getting the Fair Tax enacted, and an organization I support:
----------
The FairTax Basics
The FairTax has been called the most thoroughly researched tax reform plan in recent history. This section offers a quick introduction to the FairTax and tax reform.
Scholarly research tells us that . . .
* The FairTax rate of 23 percent on a total taxable consumption base of $11.244 trillion will generate $2.586 trillion dollars $358 billion more than the taxes it replaces.
* The FairTax has the broadest base and the lowest rate of any single-rate tax reform plan.
* Real wages are 10.3 percent, 9.5 percent, and 9.2 percent higher in years 1, 10, and 25, respectively than would otherwise be the case.
* Disposable personal income is higher than if the current tax system remains in place: 1.7 percent in year 1, 8.7 percent in year 5, and 11.8 percent in year 10.
* The economy as measured by GDP is 2.4 percent higher in the first year and 11.3 percent higher by the 10th year than it would otherwise be.
* Consumption increases by 2.4 percent more in the first year, which grows to 11.7 percent more by the tenth year than it would be if the current system were to remain in place.
* The increase in consumption is fueled by the 1.7 percent increase in disposable (after-tax) personal income that accompanies the rise in incomes from capital and labor once the FairTax is enacted.
* By the 10th year, consumption increases by 11.7 percent over what it would be if the current tax system remained in place, and disposable income is up by 11.8 percent.
* Over time, the FairTax benefits all income groups. Of 42 household types (classified by income, marital status, age), all have lower average remaining lifetime tax rates under the FairTax than they would experience under the current tax system.
* Implementing the FairTax at a 23 percent rate gives the poorest members of the generation born in 1990 a 13.5 percent improvement in economic well-being; their middle class and rich contemporaries experience a 5 percent and 2 percent improvement, respectively.
* Based on standard measures of tax burden, the FairTax is more progressive than the individual income tax, payroll tax, and the corporate income tax.
* Charitable giving increases by $2.1 billion (about 1 percent) in the first year over what it would be if the current system remained in place, by 2.4 percent in year 10, and by 5 percent in year 20.
* On average, states could cut their sales tax rates by more than half, or 3.2 percentage points from 5.4 to 2.2 percent, if they conformed their state sales tax bases to the FairTax base.
* The FairTax provides the equivalent of a supercharged mortgage interest deduction, reducing the true cost of buying a home by 19 percent.
----------
If implemented correctly, these benefits from the Fair Tax would not only go to easing the tax burden on ALL American citizens, but dozens of government programs would become obsolete, thus lowering government spending, prices on goods and would go down, inflation would go down and the dollar would increase in value, and, with all this extra revenue, families below the poverty line could go ENTIRELY UNTAXED with minimum impact on government revenues. Honestly, I don't see a reason why we shouldn't have the Fair Tax.
Now, there is no perfect political test, but, I think that this test (and most political tests for that matter) lacks the necessary components to accurately portray someone's political beliefs. Just one example being that I support higher regulation on the economy domestically, a view fundamentally opposed by Libertarians. The current economic crises hasn't been caused by failed Bush policies, it's been caused by failed American policies. It's been the fault of corruption and greed at the highest corporate levels, most notably the latest CEO of...Washington Mutual I think it was...who was only in charge for 17 days before the company went under, and yet he walked away with over 1.7 MILLION dollars in his own pockets. Along with corruption and greed, the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) has been nigh on worthless ever since it was formed. The SEC is supposed to regulate the economy, and yet they have let it run itself into the ground. Several things on the long list of failures by the SEC have been letting fraud by large corporations such as Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac go unchecked, allowing for day-traders to lower the stability of the market causing less to invest long-term, and allowing for loans to be let out to those who lie about their economic circumstances and are known to not be able to pay back the money, thus only harming the economy and mortgage companies.
Now, while I support more regulation domestically, internationally is a different story. On the international scene, we need to tie our economy as closely as possible to friendly and economically powerful nations, especially Japan and the Republic of China. The economies of Japan, the US, and the ROC are very compatible, and when one does well, the others do well. It has been proven time and time again that economic isolation is simply not viable, and eliminating artificial barriers such as tariffs on trade will allow for more economic globalization and security for our economy. In times of crisis, such as now, if we and our allies abroad invest in each others economies and support each other, then it will first and foremost help our economy, which in turn helps there economy, which doubles back and helps us, and simply continues back and forth, benefiting everybody.
Now that I have sufficiently gone on for who knows how long, I'll close in saying this....
McCain/Palin '08!
After taking quizzes that showed me which candidate I match up with best, I had a 68% match with Ralph Nader. I initially said I would vote for Barack Obama. Although this does make me question who I would really vote for, I would still have to go with Barack Obama. The person I least matched up with was John McCain. This election is going to be between Obama and McCain and I would rather vote for the man that I share the most views with.
Although almost all the main issues that are being debated in this debate are quite important to me, I would have to say that health care, same sex marriage, and the fair tax issues stand out most to me.
I think that health care is something that should not be that hard to get access to. When someone's life is on the line, I think it is ridiculous that some people do not get treatment because they simply do not have the money. I think it is unfair and inhumane. Other countries already have that policy and I think that the United States should do the same.
Same sex marriage is something that I strongly support. I think that it is ridiculous to not allow sam sex marriages. Just because gays are not the majority does not mean they should not be allowed to get married. What gives them less of a right to get married than straight couples.
Fair tax is something that would hurt many of the poorer people. If anything, I think that we should be finding ways to benefit the poorer people. The richer people would benefit from fair tax, but they do not need more help than the poor do.
I am looking forward to see what happens in this election, but I still support Obama and I am hoping for change.
While I decided to talk about same sex marriages, fair tax, and health care, other people have discussed other topics that I also find interesting.
I agree and disagree with certain parts of the argument of owning arms that Gracie mentioned. While I agree that it is crazy to let people have guns that can easily be concealed due to the amount of killings with guns, I also think that it is a right to own an arm. Some people might use it as a source of defense and some people might view it as a violation of free rights if they took away those guns.
I agree with Olivia's stance on abortion. While I do find it sad that abortion means the death of an unborn baby, but I think it is the mother's choice. The mother probably knows what is best for her and the baby and can make a good decision.
I have a different opinion about the war on Iraq than Robby does. While I can see what he is saying when he mentions that the government in Iraq is very unstable and they need us to a certain extent, I think it would be better if we pulled out. Not only have we spent too much money, but I think that we have taken too many innocent lives there. I do not think it is in our place to decide the fates of many Iraqis.
Apparently, my views most closely match Ralph Nader's ideals. In the election, however, I would vote for Obama, which was the second closest at 69.15%.
Surprisingly, McCain is in the "Middle of the Pack" 34.04%. McCain is absolutely the last person I would vote for in the election.
I should start out by saying that I agree with a few of McCain's idea. Not all of them... just a select few (the death penalty, attacking Iran).
But I strongly disagree with many of his other beliefs, such as same-sex marriage, gun control, stem cell research, and abortion rights.
First, the debate over same-sex marriage is ridiculous. If two people love each other, let them get legally married! Who cares about gender??
Next, gun control. Yes, people should be able to own guns, but gun control laws should be much more stringent.
And now Stem Cell Research. The fact that there is a debate over this really disappoints me. I never knew that my fellow Americans would even consider it morally wrong to try to cure a disease or give someone another chance at life. This leads into another issue about science in America... but this isn't the place to discuss that.
And finally, abortion rights. If someone doesn't believe in abortion, then fine - don't get an abortion. But let other women get an abortion!
And probably one of the other major reasons that I am anti-McCain is because of his Vice Presidential choice. Sarah Palin scares me. If she were to somehow become vice president (or God forbid, President), our country would have serious issues. She only believes in Intelligent Design (which is completely ridiculous), doesn't support abortion rights or teaching abstinence in schools (when her own 16 year old daughter is pregnant), and most of all... she just isn't smart. Now you don't necessarily have to be a genius to be VP or President, but I'd like someone who doesn't say (when asked what newspaper he/she reads: "Um, all of them, any of them [aka none of them]that have been in front of me all these years"
Can anyone really read all 200,000 plus newspapers? (http://www.loc.gov/preserv/newspaperbrochure.html)
Honest to God, Palin scares me.
So no, maybe Obama wouldn't be my first choice, but the calculator was definitely wrong about my last choice (although it did not factor in Palin).
In response to some of Spencer's comments:
Health Care: I agree, in a perfect world everybody should get health care for free. It's not that simple though. You can say, "I want universal health care", but do you know what that entails? Do you have a plan for it? Do you know Obama's plan?
Fair Tax: Do you know what the Fair Tax really is? How would it hurt the poor? How would it help the wealthy? Why do you think it's bad?
Iraq: Why would it be better if we pulled out? Do you know how much money we have spent there? Very few innocent Iraqis have been killed by US forces, and those who were were killed in horrible accidents. Over 98% of Iraqis killed by US forces have been enemy combatants that attacked our forces first, how are they innocent? Should we not defend ourselves? Should we not defend those too weak to do it themselves?
In response to Ian's comments:
Stem-Cell Research: How is it right to sacrifice the life of one person against his/her will in order to save the life of another? Stem-cell research is the same as performing experiments on a person against his/her will. How is that right?
Sarah Palin: I admit, she is intimidating, and I still have some doubts about her, but how is she scary? How would she being VP or President (which won't happen, because the claim that McCain will die in office is completely ridiculous) cause our country serious issues? How is intelligent design stupid? There's no tangible evidence for the theory that humans evolved from apes, so how is that more viable? And, regardless, how does that make her a bad politician? Also, her daughter is 17, not 16, and they were already engaged before she got pregnant. How does her daughter getting pregnant with her fiance reflect on her policies? And, saying that she's flat out not smart is actually quite insulting. How is she not smart? How do you know? Have you met her before? And, finally, can you show me a link or something proving that she said that? I'm just curious.
In response to Robby's response about my response (wow that's a long chain :) ).
Stem Cell Research Stem cell research does not necessarily involve embyos. Stem cells can be taken from the Umbilical cord. No embryos required (link).
But let's ignore that fact and pretend Stem Cell Research requires embryos. The embryos that are being used (from in vitro fertilization) are going to be discarded anyways... why not put them to good use? And these "embryos" are so young that they don't even resemble a human. There is no harm to using embryos (it is probably worse to step on an ant by accident).
Sarah Palin Okay, maybe I was a bit harsh. But a couple things - she is not intimidating (to me at least). Also, here are some quotes (with sources) to prove she is not smart enough to be VP:
- Just watch this clip...
- Making up quotes that Thomas Jefferson said (watch this)
- She doesn't answer questions well (watch this clip
- And did you watch tonight's debate? Clearly, she just referred to her talking points. She didn't answer many questions.
- And one more thing about tonight's debate... she didn't know what an Achilles' Heel was. When asked "What is your Achilles' Heel?" she responded by listing her positive virtues...
(I can't cite these last two points (not on YouTube yet), but I'm sure they'll be on YouTube shortly)
(and here's the link to the newspaper quote... sorry for not sorting my sources)
Some other thoughts:
- Intelligent design totally mixes Church and State together. And scientists can't prove anything in our world... but we have evidence supporting evolution. And we have a whole bunch of evidence against intelligent design. Why teach something that is clearly wrong?
- Sorry about getting her daughter's age wrong. I had no idea they were engaged beforehand. Good investigative skills :)
Responding to Ian's response to my response to Ian's comment....
Stem-Cell Research: I know that you can use the umbilical cord, that's one of my main arguments (did I not mention that? oops). If you can use the umbilical cord, then why do you need to use embryos in the first place? Also, if I understand the process of in-vitro(sp?) fertilization, there needs to be a better alternative than that. I mean, taking away the opportunity for so many people to have life against their will just so that one person can? That isn't right. Also, the fact is, by aborting a child, even if you think that they aren't alive yet, you are still taking away the opportunity for a child to have life. That's unacceptable in my opinion.
Sarah Palin:
-You can't slam Palin on her lack of foreign policy experience when Obama doesn't have any either. And, guess what, he's the Presidential candidate, while she's the Vice-Presidential candidate. His lack of foreign policy experience is far more significant than hers.
-With a brief search I couldn't find Jefferson saying that (I looked for about 90 seconds, very brief). But I'm pretty sure that he said/believed in something along those lines which she was attempting to paraphrase. I could be mistaken though.
-That last question was totally unfair. You can't ask someone to think of a bunch of supreme court rulings off the top of their head, that seemed like a trap question to me. Why didn't she ask Biden that? And, if she did, why didn't they show his answer? Watch this video also (I can't figure out how to make it a link). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRZX_ndZN-g&feature=related
-I agree that she did not do well in the debate. Biden is a more clear and forthright speaker. Though, while Biden answered more of the questions, a couple were somewhat twisted. But I agree, he won. Honestly, I'm not entirely sure that she's ready for all this. In a little while, yes, but not yet. I agree with you. The only reason that McCain picked her was so that he could try to get Hillary and "change" votes, he wouldn't otherwise.
Intelligent Design:
-How does intelligent design mix church and state? There is zero substantial evidence supporting evolution, and zero substantial evidence against intelligent design. I'm not saying that evolution doesn't happen, just that there's no evidence to support humans evolved from apes. The only argument for it is that apes and humans are similar...well...squares and trapezoids both have four sides, but that doesn't mean they're the same thing. We should either teach both, or don't teach it at all, it isn't clearly right, but it isn't clearly wrong either.
If I was able to vote in this election, I would definitely vote for Barack Obama. I really don't want another Bush governing The United State of America and I think Barack Obama brings a lot of new ideas into the government.
I agree with a lot of the things Barack Obama says. For example, I completley agree with ending the war in Iraq. I think we should bring our troops back home immediatley.
Although I agree with a lot of the things Barack Obama offers, I strongly disagree with the right to having an abortion. I think I disagree because I'm a Catholic and I believe that having an abortion is killing a living thing, although a lot of people believe that the child is not alive until born.
I agree with many of the things Ian said. Sarah Palin scares me as well. I think she is not prepared or cut out for vice president what so ever. In the debate on Thursday night, I thought it was like night and day between Palin and Biden. While Biden spoke eloquently, answered the questions asked and just sounded educated, Palin was the opposite. She did not answer any of the questions that were asked, and talked very generally about many of the major topics. This is just another reason why i support Obama over Mccain. I think overall, Obama and Biden make a better team to rule our country then Mccain and Palin. This is obvious to me by both of the debates and because i agree with the stance Obama and Biden take in many of the worlds issues which i mentioned in my pervious post.
Though I have been unsure whether I could support any candidate through the entirety of this election, I was very surprised to have been matched with Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party. To be honest, environmental issues matter very little to me, but upon further research into the values of the Green Party and of Cynthia McKinney, this seems to be a fair match.
Generally, I would identify myself as very liberal regarding social issues, and conservative regarding financial issues. I cannot say that I care about one more than the other.
However, there are certain issues that seem very clear cut to me and almost beyond debate.
In this day and age, it is ridiculous that marriage between two consenting adults should ever been prohibited, regardless of their gender. This is 2008--opposition to gay marriage seems almost quaint.
In fact, I disdain any law limiting the rights of an individual, including limitations on gun rights. It is ridiculous to make some kind of assumption that the possesion of a gun will end up hurting somebody, and to prohibit the ownership of a gun because "they don't need it." I have no intention of ever owning a gun myself, laws should never be made limiting what an individual can do or own when it only concerns himself.
Those who support harsh suppression of illegal immigration generally see the world in terms of laws--if it's illegal, it must be bad, right? This is not always the case. Despite some drawbacks such as increases in crime, the presence of illegal immigrants is overwhelmingly beneficial to our economy and there should absolutely be a way for these hard-working individuals to become citizens. Furthermore, the construction of a border fence is an enormous waste of tax money and would likely accomplish very little.
In regards to abortion rights, I consider myself pro-choice. However, I do not understand those who see the debate over abortion as soley concerning the rights of the woman--it seems to me that the debate over abortion is more about the fetus. The concept of abortion, even early in pregancy, makes me uncomfortable but by no means should the option of abortion be prohibited to any pregnant woman.
Our society isn't fair--there always be poverty, and of course this isn't right. However, the government should not take the money of citizens and distribute it to others. This should be handled by private charities, not by government policies which affect everyone.
To summarize my general views, the government should have a minimal presence in the lives of citizens. The only purpose of the government should be to protect individuals and the nation from others when necessary. Intervention in the personal lives of citizens is never right.
After taking the online quiz, I was found to have a 73% match with independent Ralph Nader. This didn't surprise me too much because Nader is pretty big on supporting abortion and I really agree with what he has to say on the topic. We also agree on other important issues like education and gun control.
I don't think too many people really think about supporting Nader just because he's not part of one of the bigger parties, but I think it would be interesting to research him. I haven't really considered him much, but our views clearly match up quite a bit so I would like to learn more about him and why less people support him.
My bottom match is John McCain, which also doesn't surprise me too much because my views are pretty liberal. I think McCain isn't too bad a candidate as Republican nominees go because he's willing to change and has been influenced to do so in the past. I also think it would be really cool to finally have a woman as vice president, but probably not Sarah Palin. Her views and actions seem too contradictory, she is inexperienced and does not seem capable to become a potential president of the United States; she has too much on her plate.
My second highest correspondency was with Obama, who if I could, I would most probably vote for. Some of what he says seems to lack substance but overall, despite his 'young' age, he seems to know what he's doing. Compared to the McCain-Palin duo, the democratic nominees are much more stable. Obama is smart in that he picked a reliable, experienced VP to help and even him out.
Overall, I would probably support Obama, especially because I'm curious to see where he would lead our nation and what kind of president he would be. I'm also curious to see who is still willing to vote for McCain after all the controversy and talk about Palin.
I agree with different parts of many peoples opinions. I do agree with what Ben has to say about same-sex marriages. I don't really understand how a marriage that is taking place somewhere else, with people you don't know, can really affect you. I don't think it's your decision as to who any random person marries nor do I think that should be much of a topic up for debate in today's day.
As far as abortion rights go, I strongly agree with Ian. Similar to same-sex marriage, I believe abortion is a personal choice; if you don't want to have one, don't. Furthermore, I don't think abortion has too much to do with men; if it's a woman's issue, why should men get to decide what's going to happen(no offense)?
Finally, I agree with Olivia's views on the war in Iraq. It's kind of ridiculous that we're still there, hurting and not helping the nation, supposedly trying to get their nation 'back in order'. It seems to me that we're there for our own personal gain and in the process killing more Iraqis than we're benefiting.
Although I am a democrat, I strongly disagree with the right to having an abortion. Even though I think a woman should have the choice of having a baby or not, I also think that the baby should be given the chance to live. I strongly believe that the child is alive as soon as the embryo has been conceived so killing the child is essentially murder and against my religion.
Regarding same-sex marriage, I should be against it because of my religion of Catholicism, but I don't really care. I think people should be with the person they want to be with without the church being in the way.
After watching Barack Obama's speeches and hearing his views on the worlds most important issues, I realized that i would vote for him in this years election. When i took the internet quiz, my opinion matched up with Barack's at 72.22% followed by Ralph Nader's at 66.67%. This year is by far the most important election of all time and i am very excited to see who comes out as our next president. After seeing the Palin vs. Buden debate, it swayed my vote to Obama even more.
I believe it is necessary to allow abortion rights, along with same sex marriage. These two issues both Sen. Obama and i agree upon. I do not believe in the death penalty or in military action against Iraq. To many devoted US troops are getting killed. As the presidential election process continues i would like to learn a greater deal about the more complicated issues such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Patriot Act so i could have a view and state what my opinion would be. This will be a historic month and i am excited to see what will happen.
Everybody has left interesting and informative comments which i would like to commend. I would like to respectably disagree though with robby's views on the vice president candidate Sarah Palin. It is quite evident that you for sure know more about the election's main issues than i do, but i do feel though it would be terrible if she made her way into office. After watching the debate she had on thursday my view of this has become even stronger.
Some reasons i believe Sarah Palin is not the choice for Vice President are......
1. “I think she is the most inexperienced person on a major-party ticket in modern history,” said presidential historian Matthew Dallek.
2. She left a small town she used to be the mayor of in Alaska in financial ruin before becoming governor.
3. She wants creation science to be taught in all school.
4. She has no foreign policy experience along with not that strong of a view on what to do with the war in Iraq.
These reasons to me are enough to not want Palin in office
Robby,
With all due respect, I take some issue with your views on evolution and intelligent design. I'm a little confused as to why you do not see that the teaching of intelligent design in public schools is mixing church and state. "Intelligent design" is a purely religious doctrine that has close to zero scientific basis. If you hark back to our days in 9th grade biology, you will recall that there is substantial evidence supporting the theory of evolution, including but not nearly limited to fossil records, genetic evidence, and the observation of evolution on a small scale (microevolution). The fact that the "theory" of intelligent design cannot be disproved does not mean it should be taught in schools or even placed on the same level as the theory of evolution. Intelligent design is not a theory that has any concrete scientific basis. It is a religious doctrine, and teaching this theory in public schools is a clear violation of the seperation of church and state.
There was a philosopher by the name of Bertrand Russel who wrote of an analogy that is now referred to as Russel's Teapot:
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
Support for the theory of intelligent design is almost purely religious in nature, and religious doctrine is enough to convince many people. This does not mean that it should be taught in the same light as a scientific theory with substantial evidence, merely because many people in our country give credence to it.
To state that the theory of intelligent design should be placed on the same level as the theory of evolution simply because it cannot be disproved simply does not make any logical sense. There is substantial evidence supporting the theory of evolution, and little to no evidence for intelligent design. The teaching of intelligent design is based purely on religious doctrine and it is a clear violation of the seperation of church and state.
That should read Bertrand Russell, not Russel. My bad.
On the first website I took the democratic test and came back with the results of 57 points for Hilary Clinton and 35 points for Barack Obama. The things that I agreed the most with Hilary were her policies on the Iraq war, on Energy conservation, on our Economic policies, along with her policies on Immigration and Affirmative Action. I agreed with Barack Obama on HealthCare, Social Security, and Gun Control.
On the second website when taking the general test i got matched up the best with 86.21 Ralph Nader. Next on my list was with 78.26% Barack Obama which is who if I could vote would vote for in this election.
Originally when this election first began I was very eager to see Hilary be in office. My mom and I both supported her through out where my dad always was on the fence between her and Barack.
The issues that stand out the most for me are stem-cell research, the war in Iraq and the right to have an abortion.
One of the reasons I am so for stem-cell research is because I have a very close friend who has a fatal disease called Cystic Fibrosis so this could really help her. The typical age of death for this disease is when you are in your 20's which really frightens me. This is why I am so eager to see this happen. I believe that stem-cell research could help so many people in this world, not only my friend, who are dying of fatal diseases. I think that anytime doctors have the ability to save many peoples lives they should and yes I am aware that the argument is that you are killing a fetus's life, but wouldn't you rather save millions then worry about a fetus that isn't nearly close to being fully developed into anything yet.
I believe that we should exit the war in Iraq especially with how bad our economy is right now. We are spending so much unnecessary money there looking for many things that most likely will not be found and are just based on biased suspicions. We are supposedly looking for nuclear weapons in Iraq to rid their country of them, but why are we allowed to have them and nobody else is. I think all countries should abolish nuclear weapons. Nothing in the past or future has ever been good because of them. When we dropped the Atomic Bombs in World War II it was a very controversial subject and still is. Many people in this country feel ashamed of those bombings. American citizens should never have to feel ashamed of our country and nobody else should have to feel that way. Also I don't believe that one country or person even should have the power to kill millions of people with an atomic bomb. I think that is a power that shouldn't be placed by any circumstances any ones hands, not even ours. I am completely against the war in Iraq and I believe that we need to pull out before we loose any more of our money that could be going into our country and getting it back into its golden years.
Abortion is an issue I have always been in complete favor of. I believe that all women should have the right to choose. There is a huge population in the world right now with the huge amounts of homeless people, and orphans. I believe that when a carrying mother gets pregnant and feels as if she would be completely unfit and would not be able to support this baby by any means she should have the right to decide whether to have an abortion or put it up for adoption. America is supposed to be the land of the free, and we are supposed to have so many options; so, if this is the case then why are so many teenage girls having to go through the pain of being pregnant in high school and giving up the baby for adoption or keeping it and raising it either on her own or with her family. I believe everyone should always have a choice.
If I was able to vote in this upcoming election I would undoubtedly vote for Barack Obama because I do not agree with most of what John McCain says and also because frankly I would not want to see Sarah Palin in the Vice Presidents chair.
Responding to Max:
I agree, she isn't ready and I'm not entirely sure that I like her. However, your points are invalid.
-Barack Obama has been in the Senate since November 2004, and he's been campaigning since January/February 2007, which means he's had only a little over two real years in the Senate. Before that he was a community organizer, he has absolutely no executive experience, and he has done nothing on a large scale. Palin actually has more experience as Mayor and then Governor of Alaska.
-First of all, I've never heard that, where did you get it? Also, Sarah Palin has had an average approval rating of 80% in both Wasilla and as governor of Alaska, and it sometimes hit 90%. Also, what most people don't mention is that Wasilla isn't just some small random town, it's actually quite an important city in Alaska and is only about 30 miles north of Anchorage, the biggest city in Alaska.
-Either both should be taught, or none at all.
-Do you seriously want to go there? Obama also has zero foreign policy experience, and he's the Presidential candidate, not the Vice-Presidential candidate.
Responding to Ben:
I never said that evolution doesn't happen, your right, there is indisputable proof that evolution does happen. What I'm saying is that there is no evidence to show that humans evolved from apes. All the "evidence" they have is some ancient ape skeletons and some ancient human skeletons and just because they're similar they say that we're related. And the "evidence" that we share 99% of our DNA is bull as well, because we share 99% of our DNA with any animal that performs cellular respiration, which includes insects, birds, reptiles, marine mammals, etc. And there is scientific evidence for intelligent design, people just refuse to acknowledge it. There is a book called "Creation as Science" by Dr. Hugh Ross who is a preacher as well as a theoretical astrophysicist with several degrees in science. His book presents a testable scientific model called the Reasons to Believe (RTB) model with evidence based on science that is in fact more founded in science then the widely accepted Big Bang theory. Honestly, the idea that the universe just exploded out of nothing makes absolutely no sense....What was there before? What caused it? Why are things the way they are? Why do objects billions of light-years away interact with each other on a scale so beyond normal interactions when they shouldn't even be able to see each other? There are so many holes in the Big Bang Theory (these and dozens of others) that it's hard to believe that it's even plausible. Intelligent design explains many more things than evolution or the Big Bang Theory can. In the scientific world, a theory's viability is viewed by the number of holes in it, and evolution and the Big Bang Theory have dozens of them.
If you say the teaching intelligent design is the mixing of church and state, then the teaching of evolution and the Big Bang Theory is the mixing of church and state as well, because the STATE is trying to DISPROVE the ideas of the CHURCH.
And, you realize, your quote could just as easily be used against evolution and the Big Bang Theory.
"If I were to suggest that humans evolved from apes and the the universe exploded out of nothingness, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that there's no way we can know what actually happened and that we look a lot like apes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the event of such an explosion or apes being the ancestors of humans were affirmed in text books, taught as the truth every weekday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Scientist in an earlier time."
There is evidence for intelligent design, and there is no evidence for the evolution of humans from apes or the Big Bang Theory, you just need to be able to accept it (which is EXACTLY the same line people give me to try to disprove my beliefs, so don't even).
Ok, done with my rant...for now.
i'm not even in this class but i feel the need to comment so i can tell robby to do some research please.
- sarah palin's approval rating USED to be 80%. now that the campaign has unearthed more of who she is and alaska is realizing she isn't all that great after all, it's now more like 50%, still respectable, but nowhere near 80%.
- so you say evolution happened, but we didn't evolve from apes. what, are you ashamed of your ape ancestry? we all have it. it goes hand in hand with evolution. remember 9th grade bio?
- to suggest that palin has more experience than obama is preposterous. she never even had a passport until last year - at least obama's seen a little bit of the "free world" he'd supposedly be leader of as president of the USA
- this dr. hugh ross of yours is probably 1 scientist of maybe 5 in the entire world who would tell you that intelligent design is true. hell, i know a guy on the promenade who says that the pirates of the caribbean endorses terrorism. is that true? i doubt it. if he had a Ph.D. or an M.D. or any doctorate level degree, would it make it any more true? no.
- also, teaching the big bang and evolution in schools isn't a violation of separation of church and state....... because they're not religious ideas.
- the fair tax is anything but fair... it charges more for the poor and less for the rich than what they pay today, how does that make sense to you
i could go on for pages but i have other stuff to do. please do some research before you so naively follow in your parents' political footsteps.
To Anonymous:
You can disagree but you don't have to be insulting about it. First of all, if you would read what I said, I clearly agree that I don't think she is ready for the office of Vice-President. The only reason McCain picked her was to get Hillary votes, the only thing she really adds to the campaign is the whole "change" thing simply because she's a woman.
-I never said her approval rating was 80% right now, only that her average approval rating has been just about 80% throughout her tenure as Mayor and Governor. And her approval rating is at 68% right now, not 50% (link to Anchorage Daily News story: http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/542179.html).
-Show me one shred of evidence that makes the theory that we evolved from apes more viable than intelligent design.
-I never said she has more foreign policy experience, neither of them do. What I'm saying is that she has more executive experience, and the President is the head of the executive branch of the government. Obama hasn't done anything to back up his claims, and though neither has Palin, but Obama is the Presidential candidate, not the Vice-Presidential candidate. Obama could be a great Senator, I don't know, he hasn't done enough for anybody to tell yet, but Senator and President are two very different positions that require two very different skill-sets.
-First of all, there are a hell of a lot more than 5 scientists who would advocate for intelligent design. Sarcasm has no place in politics, so please keep it reasonable, thank you. Anyway, it's not just some random guy saying intelligent design is true, it's a testable scientific model, which is a hell of a lot more than evolution or the Big Bang can present. Essentially, what the model states is that God (or whoever you believe in) very well could have created the universe in the way described in Genesis and yet still have it conform with scientific discoveries. What a lot of people don't realize is that the way science and the way the Bible say the universe was created aren't totally incompatible. Now, the model as described by Hugh Ross actually carries it a bit farther than I would. The way he describes it is that God created and controls the universe, and that scientific evidence actually conforms with that. The way I would describe it is that God created the universe, and that he installed science as the structure of the universe, what is essentially the Prime Mover theory that we learned about last year.
-If you say that teaching a testable scientific model is the mixing of church and state because it advocates for intelligent design, then teaching evolution or the Big Bang theory is mixing church and state because the STATE is trying to DISPROVE the ideas of the CHURCH. I don't know how much more clear I can be.
-Please, I would greatly appreciate it if you would present statistical evidence that the Fair Tax costs more for the poor and less for the rich. It just flat out isn't true. Here is a better explanation of the Fair Tax from FairTax.org that isn't nearly as confusing:
----------
What is the FairTax plan?
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.
The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 1025) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.
The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.
The FairTax:
Enables workers to keep their entire paycheck
Enables retirees to keep their entire pension
Reimburses the tax on purchases of basic necessities
Allows American products to compete fairly
Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
Abolishes the IRS
There will no longer be a federal income tax, which simply means you will no longer have all those taxes taken out of your paycheck. Instead the "FairTax" would create a national 23% sales tax meaning that we would pay .23 on every dollar spent. BUT...you would get a prebate of your taxes spent on ALL items of necessities. All valid Social Security cardholders who are U.S. residents receive a monthly prebate equivalent to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, also known as the poverty level expenditures. The prebate is paid in advance, in equal installments each month. The size of the prebate is determined by the Department of Health & Human Services’ poverty level guideline multiplied by the tax rate. This is a well-accepted, long-used poverty-level calculation that includes food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, etc.
What that means for example is a family of four with a middle-lower class income would receive an annual rebate of $6,297 and a monthly prebate of $525. Those figures are based on the above mentioned poverty-level calculation chart. Basically the more you spend on luxury items, the more taxes you pay up to a cap of 23%. For the everyday middle-lower class resident who spends the majority of their paycheck on everyday needs, you'll spend a lot less in taxes which means you'll have a lot more $$$ in your pocket.
----------
Essentially, the short of it is there will be a 23% flat sales tax across the nation. However, necessities such as food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, etc will be untaxed, saving everybody money. Those who now only have enough to pay for necessities shall be able to live more comfortably, and those who can't afford necessities will be able to.
And, again, you can disagree, but you don't have to be insulting about it. Also, before you begin to make wild assumptions, I am in no way "naively following in my parents's political footsteps", in fact, I am considerably more liberal than my parents. I'm actually shocked sometimes at the things they say. My dad is actually very reasonable, but my mom is sometimes really far right. I consider the Republican Party to be too conservative for me, but the I think the Democratic Party is too liberal for me, so I at this point am planning on registering as an independent and moving to a state where they have open primaries. Now, we could talk about a bunch of stuff that we agree on, I'm sure, but that's not as fun. I'm only talking about the stuff I disagree with here, cause if I were to talk about every single thing, then my posts would be even longer than they already are.
According to the Quiz, my views agree with Ralph Nader's 95% of the time. My second choice in the quiz was Barack Obama. My last choice was John McCain. I agree with Gracie when she mentions John McCain's age- I feel it is a big problem. Sarah Palin is much more likely to take the presidential office than joe Biden is, and Joe Biden is much much more qualified. The idea of Sarah Palin running this country terrifies me. Of all the issues on the quiz, I found myself more interested in social issues such as abortion rights. I find it appalling that some people suggest that women should not have the right to choose. I also find it very strange that these same people who are against abortion and stem cell research, claiming that it is taking an innocent life, do not support machine gun bans and background checks for guns. There is no reason a civilian needs to carry a concealed weapon or machine gun. If guns were not so readily available, I believe the amount of crime would decrease substantially. The FairTax also interests me. Although all my knowledge of it comes from the summary on the quiz website, everything I read there makes me wonder how anyone could ever support this tax. It seems to make things even harder for the poor, and much easier for the rich. I found it interesting that the bill advertises a 23% sales tax, while in reality it is a 30% tax. What provisions are made for people close to or below the poverty in this tax? Currently people under the poverty line or close to it are given big tax breaks, or do not pay an income tax at all. The Patriot Act was also interesting. It seems totally unconstitutional, and a total violation of peoples privacy and the Bill of Rights. Although the quiz matches me with Ralph Nader, I find him a totally unrealistic candidate, and if I were able to vote, I would vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
When reading all the comments I found Gracie's ideas to be very similar to my own on certain things such as McCain's age. I also believe that he is too old for the job of being the President of the United States of America. I think that the job is too rigorous for him and also that he lacks a certain energy and respect that the president is required to have. Going back to McCain's age if something does happen where he has to give the role of the president over to Sarah Palin I just plain old would not be comfortable with that under any terms. I agree with everything that Olivia said about the vice presidents and could not even fathom how McCain could even consider choosing Palin to be his vp let alone picking her. Since he did make that decision though it does make me think that he possibly is a little crazy himself too. It really scares me to think that someone like Sarah Palin could help lead our country and be a role-model.
i completely agree with spencer on health care. I do not understand why so many other developed countries have universal health care, yet the usa does not. I also agree with him about the FairTax. More needs to be done to help the poor, not less, and taxes should not be made easier on the rich. There is absolutely no reason that same sex marriage shouldn't be legal in every state. I agree with max about eh death penalty and the war in Iraq. What gives the government the right to decide if someone lives or dies? And the war in Iraq was based totally on lies, and i think is one of a few things that bush should have been impeached for.
for everyone who supports palin please watch this video- she can;t put a coherent sentence together
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM72M62jAUc
Robby,
"Show me one shred of evidence that makes the theory that we evolved from apes more viable than intelligent design."
I am not here to educate you. You stated evidence yourself--humans share 96% of their DNA with that of chimpanzees. We do share DNA with many other organisms. This is consistent with the theory of evolution, as it implies the common ancestry of these organisms. Furthermore, I do not quite understand why you accept the theory of evolution, but refuse to concede that humans may have evolved from apes. These ideas are intertwined, as mystery blogger stated. The overwhelming amount of evidence, including the OBSERVATION of microevolution, was presented to all of us in 9th grade biology class and I am not going to restate it all here. I am curious, however, about the scientific evidence supporting intelligent design, and I'd like it if you could present some of that evidence here.
I do not want to argue about the plausibility of the Big Bang theory--I am not a physicist. Regardless, I am much more inclined to place credence in the purely scientific work of some of the greatest minds of the previous century rather than weak claims that attempt to prove the validity of a book written 3000 years ago. I am curious as to why you have chosen to believe this scientist who has extremely unusual fringe beliefs.
There is a problem that lies within the "theory" of intelligent design. The "scientific evidence" supporting intelligent design has been compiled to support a claim that had previously been completely unsubstantiated. The theory of evolution, however, rises from nothing but scientific evidence. The first claim of intelligent design comes from a 3000 year old book. The first claim supporting the theory of evolution comes from a 19th century naturalist who based his theory of careful observation and evidence. There are no reasons to place credence in intelligent design over evolution that are not religious in nature.
I'm a little confused on your interpretation of the phrase "seperation of church and state." Here is a relatively recent article which presents a slightly more extreme depiction of what you are advocating:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article1600686.ece
Should schools avoid teaching the truth because it may "offend" certain students or contradict what they have been taught in their communities? This seems to be what you are advocating. It is unfortunate that you believe the theory of evolution contradicts popular religious beliefs. This does not mean that the teaching of the theory of evolution is "trying to disprove the ideas of the church."
I think you may have misinterpreted the analogy. The "teapot" can be compared to the theory of intelligent design. Aside from some weak attempts at substantiating evidence, the primary claim for intelligent design comes from the Bible. It is this origin that gives it validitity with many religious Americans. You claim that intelligent design should be taught because it cannot be disproved. Russell is attempting to illustrate that a skeptic of an ubsubstantiated claim is not obligated to disprove a theory that cannot be disproved.
I really do not understand how you seem to have glossed over the massive amounts of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. I do not want to present it here but if you'd like I'll talk to you about it outside of this blog, as it really doesn't have a place here.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/testablecreationsummary.shtml
Above is the link to a summary of the RTB model. Again, it takes it farther than I do, but it presents the events of Genesis in order next to the fossil records and such of science, and they coincide perfectly. I'm not trying to say that science doesn't exist or anything, quite the opposite actually. The world is dictated by science, but all I'm saying is that there isn't any evidence to disprove the existence of God or some "creator", so I don't see how science can be used to those means.
As for humans evolving from apes, there is circumstantial evidence, and inferences from fossil records, but beyond that there's nothing. It's an assumption, just like most controversial scientific theories. It can't be taken as the absolute truth. Nothing can be proven absolutely, all I'm saying is that nothing can be disproven either. The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are valid theories, but they're not facts, there's a difference. If somebody finds indisputable evidence that humans evolved from apes and that the Big Bang actually happened, then I'd be glad to accept them, but they haven't, so I won't.
I could continue this debate, but I'm getting tired of saying the same thing over and over again. Maybe I'll take apart your argument piece by piece some other time, I love these discussions.
I am a complete supporter of Barack Obama, but when I took the quiz, it came up as 88.3% for Ralph Nader. Next in line was Cynthia McKinney with the Green Party with 86%, and Obama with 82%. Last on the list was McCain, with 22%.
The most important issues to me are abortion, gay marriage, and stem cell research, all of which are of high importance to Obama. Barack Obama is a full supporter of reproductive rights, and promises to uphold women's rights under Roe vs. Wade. I believe that this is important because each individual woman should have the right to decide for herself what is best for her; the decision should not be made by the government.
I also believe in complete, equal rights for gay and lesbians. They are no different than anyone else, and they should be treated that way. I believe that limiting their rights to marriage strictly goes against the Constitution, and should not be tolerated.
As for stem cell research, I believe that we have made huge medical advancements due to stem cell research, and should continue to do so. Obama supports this as well, saying that stem cell research may hold the key to treatments if not cures for many diseases.
All in all, I fully support Barack Obama and his campaign. I believe that an America under John McCain will too closely resemble the America we've been living in - an America under Bush. It's time for change.
In regards to Wendy,
I agree with you in your decision to support Barack Obama in the election, and with your reason to support him because of his stance on the war in Iraq.
We disagree, though, when it comes to the idea of an abortion. I'm not sure whether I believe when a child should be considered "alive", but I do believe that, should a woman be put in a situation where she cannot successfully raise a child, she should have the option to spare the child of an poor upbringing, and spare herself of the drastic change in her life. I'm not saying that everyone should have an abortion, and I completely respect your opinion on it. But I believe that there should be a sense of tolerance in that, if you're against it, it is your choice not to take part. But if you're for it, it should be your choice as well.
Post a Comment