yes, funny, it only makes me question if you understand what the initial argument was.
Republican Tea Party Candidate goons handcuff reporter.
- Thread starter joepistole
- Start date
I wasn't commenting on the actual argument, just your analogy.
Nice shoes.
Let's call the Tea Party what it is. It is an attempt to rebrand the Republican Party....to put distance between it and the image of the old Republican Party....the RINOs...the people who created the current economic debacle.
The challenge for the Tea Party organizers is to control the monster they created. And I think they are comfortable with the slate of Tea Partiers that are running for office this election cycle. Angle is on tape saying that she is willing to play ball with the forces that run the Republican Party in order to get along. I am sure the others feel the same way.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
joe, you really don't have a clue do you.
Bells
Staff member
At least he does not run away from debate Buffalo. Something you have a habit of doing. And at least he is not wrong. Something you often are.
But lets have a look at Joe's comments, shall we? Here is what an original Tea Party organiser and founder had to say about the current movement, or more to the point, what we are seeing of the Tea Party today:
Amen Bells. mr. roam cannot support his positions with fact or reason so he attempts to distract by changing the subject and/or hurling personal insults.
Pious Politics
Psychologically speaking, this isn't hard to imagine on an individual level. But a mass condition invokes a curious sense of scale.
There are diverse apparent components of the Tea Party's sense of outrage; and then account for the number of individuals in the movement. Imagine a video game, and as you scroll through the characters, you see bar graphs of political attributes. There won't be as clear as a pattern about those attributes as we tend to expect by our political generalizations.
But in the question of the candidates the Tea Party chooses, there is are more general psychological principles in play.
If I am weary of the political establishment, then perhaps I will grab onto any outsider that sounds close to my outlook. That is, a Tea Partier will more likely sympathize with a Christine O'Donnell or Sharron Angle than a communist. But, just like the communist, these candidates are problematic because they grate against the primary political grain of the society; they don't have as high a chance of success as a more mainstream candidate. But the more mainstream candidates are what I am sick of, so I'm going to back this candidate, anyway.
If the candidate loses, my weariness and outrage perpetuate.
If the candidate wins, and follows the usual adaptive course, my weariness and outrage not only perpetuate, but grows, because I have been betrayed.
If the candidate wins, and holds to the principles I voted for, yet makes no progress, my weariness and outrage perpetuate and grow because I am vindicated; the political establishment is conspiring against me and my fellows.
If the candidate wins, holds to the principles I voted for, and succeeds, there are two possibilities. First, if things go well overall—society recovers and prospers again—I am vindicated; this is the least likely outcome of all the possibilities. To the other, though, if things go poorly, and the policy prescriptions we win make things worse, I can always blame the Democrats, or the political mainstream, or just anyone else in general.
This is the key to understanding the dialectic of neurosis in the Tea Party movement. It isn't really about the society; that's just a coincidence of circumstance. At its heart, the Tea Party is a desperate leap after self-empowerment. The traditional power structure in America is both eroding and corroding. Demographic and socioeconomic realities are in constant flux, eroding the structure; corruption weakens the integrity of the structure.
Which brings us back to Brett Favre's penis, sort of.
Setting aside the phallic details, thematically the movement is about the loss of traditional authority, a future unwrit and unknown about which one's expectations become less certain, and the fear that comes with uncertainty. Equality and justice are nice ideas, but it is not unusual to be wary of the toll such outcome might demand.
What, then, does this movement fear? Sharia law? Somebody, please, tell me when that's going to happen in the United States. Singing Christmas carols in Spanish? We ought not wonder why nobody is saying it. That their grandchildren will be brown instead of white? Well, why does that matter?
So we approach a certain neurotic conflict. They're frustrated and frightened, but in the backs of their minds, they also recognize how silly some of those fears sound. Rather than mustering against those silly fears and overcoming them, though, they follow a classic neurotic path of justification and ego defense. They'll make it about all sorts of things that don't directly pertain to those fears, but suggest outcomes that will assuage them. This is why the fact that their policy suggestions are absurd doesn't really matter to them. And as is typical of neuroses, it is very hard for the neurotic to perceive this process.
Which brings us back, sort of, to the candidates. Here again we encounter a neurotic conflict. These are people who claim to fundamentally distrust government. What a paradox; we don't trust government, so we will band together to elect a government. The ideal outcome is, far and away, the least likely. And, indeed, if it does come about, it will also inflate many of those fears. Reinforce the wealth gap and erode education, for instance, and you have a recipe for increased crime and social instability. These effects will strike minority communities first, reinforcing the white phallic fears of brown people getting on white daughters and making peanut butter babies. And if those minority communities rally against these effects, it only reinforces other fears, like Sharia law or Spanish Christmas carols. So even success will inflate the neurosis.
But various degrees of failure—the more likely outcomes—will also inflate neurosis. The distrust of government will grow. The righteous sense that they are being attacked by disagreeable cultural elements will increase. The failures will be anybody's fault but theirs, reinforcing the idea that they are victims who need to fight back even harder.
We are witnessing the coalescence of a political, instead of religious, fundamentalism. The neurotic condition of the Tea Party movement is ideally positioned to follow Riesebrodt's pathway into fundamentalism:
Details from Martin Riesebrodt's Pious Passion, pp. 17, 19.
The Tea Party is obviously an attempt at what Riesebrodt identifies as world mastery; I would suggest they have achieved mythical regress in their outlook, but are in conflict between the literalist and experiential pathways. And that conflict could be occurring on a deep, personal level; or it may also be found in the argument between the organized Tea Party extension of the GOP and the scattered individuals who might enjoy certain benefits of that organization and the exposure it brings, but despise its tendency toward established traditionalism, as this would include much of the Beltway culture that the individuals disdain.
Putting the worst person forward, as such, is to some degree something we can expect of this movement. Almost any result will drive the Tea Party further along its fundamentalist path, but this is the most direct and immediately gratifying.
Some of these candidates will, of course, succeed at the ballot box, but like Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), they will likely find themselves in some way obliged to play the Beltway game. This betrayal, too, will push the Tea Party toward fundamentalism.
Those candidates who win at the ballot box, and stand rigid in Congress, will find themselves generally alienated, leading to failed advocacy of various policies. And this failure will also encourage the Tea Party toward their eventual fundamentalist neurotic outcome.
____________________
Notes:
Riesebrodt, Martin. Pious Passion: The Emergence of Modern Fundamentalism in the United States and Iran. (1990) Trans. Don Reneau. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993.
Bells said:
Psychologically speaking, this isn't hard to imagine on an individual level. But a mass condition invokes a curious sense of scale.
There are diverse apparent components of the Tea Party's sense of outrage; and then account for the number of individuals in the movement. Imagine a video game, and as you scroll through the characters, you see bar graphs of political attributes. There won't be as clear as a pattern about those attributes as we tend to expect by our political generalizations.
But in the question of the candidates the Tea Party chooses, there is are more general psychological principles in play.
If I am weary of the political establishment, then perhaps I will grab onto any outsider that sounds close to my outlook. That is, a Tea Partier will more likely sympathize with a Christine O'Donnell or Sharron Angle than a communist. But, just like the communist, these candidates are problematic because they grate against the primary political grain of the society; they don't have as high a chance of success as a more mainstream candidate. But the more mainstream candidates are what I am sick of, so I'm going to back this candidate, anyway.
If the candidate loses, my weariness and outrage perpetuate.
If the candidate wins, and follows the usual adaptive course, my weariness and outrage not only perpetuate, but grows, because I have been betrayed.
If the candidate wins, and holds to the principles I voted for, yet makes no progress, my weariness and outrage perpetuate and grow because I am vindicated; the political establishment is conspiring against me and my fellows.
If the candidate wins, holds to the principles I voted for, and succeeds, there are two possibilities. First, if things go well overall—society recovers and prospers again—I am vindicated; this is the least likely outcome of all the possibilities. To the other, though, if things go poorly, and the policy prescriptions we win make things worse, I can always blame the Democrats, or the political mainstream, or just anyone else in general.
This is the key to understanding the dialectic of neurosis in the Tea Party movement. It isn't really about the society; that's just a coincidence of circumstance. At its heart, the Tea Party is a desperate leap after self-empowerment. The traditional power structure in America is both eroding and corroding. Demographic and socioeconomic realities are in constant flux, eroding the structure; corruption weakens the integrity of the structure.
Which brings us back to Brett Favre's penis, sort of.
Setting aside the phallic details, thematically the movement is about the loss of traditional authority, a future unwrit and unknown about which one's expectations become less certain, and the fear that comes with uncertainty. Equality and justice are nice ideas, but it is not unusual to be wary of the toll such outcome might demand.
What, then, does this movement fear? Sharia law? Somebody, please, tell me when that's going to happen in the United States. Singing Christmas carols in Spanish? We ought not wonder why nobody is saying it. That their grandchildren will be brown instead of white? Well, why does that matter?
So we approach a certain neurotic conflict. They're frustrated and frightened, but in the backs of their minds, they also recognize how silly some of those fears sound. Rather than mustering against those silly fears and overcoming them, though, they follow a classic neurotic path of justification and ego defense. They'll make it about all sorts of things that don't directly pertain to those fears, but suggest outcomes that will assuage them. This is why the fact that their policy suggestions are absurd doesn't really matter to them. And as is typical of neuroses, it is very hard for the neurotic to perceive this process.
Which brings us back, sort of, to the candidates. Here again we encounter a neurotic conflict. These are people who claim to fundamentally distrust government. What a paradox; we don't trust government, so we will band together to elect a government. The ideal outcome is, far and away, the least likely. And, indeed, if it does come about, it will also inflate many of those fears. Reinforce the wealth gap and erode education, for instance, and you have a recipe for increased crime and social instability. These effects will strike minority communities first, reinforcing the white phallic fears of brown people getting on white daughters and making peanut butter babies. And if those minority communities rally against these effects, it only reinforces other fears, like Sharia law or Spanish Christmas carols. So even success will inflate the neurosis.
But various degrees of failure—the more likely outcomes—will also inflate neurosis. The distrust of government will grow. The righteous sense that they are being attacked by disagreeable cultural elements will increase. The failures will be anybody's fault but theirs, reinforcing the idea that they are victims who need to fight back even harder.
We are witnessing the coalescence of a political, instead of religious, fundamentalism. The neurotic condition of the Tea Party movement is ideally positioned to follow Riesebrodt's pathway into fundamentalism:
Details from Martin Riesebrodt's Pious Passion, pp. 17, 19.
The Tea Party is obviously an attempt at what Riesebrodt identifies as world mastery; I would suggest they have achieved mythical regress in their outlook, but are in conflict between the literalist and experiential pathways. And that conflict could be occurring on a deep, personal level; or it may also be found in the argument between the organized Tea Party extension of the GOP and the scattered individuals who might enjoy certain benefits of that organization and the exposure it brings, but despise its tendency toward established traditionalism, as this would include much of the Beltway culture that the individuals disdain.
Putting the worst person forward, as such, is to some degree something we can expect of this movement. Almost any result will drive the Tea Party further along its fundamentalist path, but this is the most direct and immediately gratifying.
Some of these candidates will, of course, succeed at the ballot box, but like Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), they will likely find themselves in some way obliged to play the Beltway game. This betrayal, too, will push the Tea Party toward fundamentalism.
Those candidates who win at the ballot box, and stand rigid in Congress, will find themselves generally alienated, leading to failed advocacy of various policies. And this failure will also encourage the Tea Party toward their eventual fundamentalist neurotic outcome.
____________________
Notes:
Riesebrodt, Martin. Pious Passion: The Emergence of Modern Fundamentalism in the United States and Iran. (1990) Trans. Don Reneau. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993.
Tiassa,
Well now if only you could map how these things might go into remission and decline, so that some of us can hope.
Well now if only you could map how these things might go into remission and decline, so that some of us can hope.
No easy road
Not nearly so specifically. But education—that proverbial enlightenment—is the key.
Rapid social change is an identifiable starting point. The questions begin with whether or not the crisis consciousness perpetuates, and how stable that outlook is over time.
A simple path might be that the next generation rebels against the teaching, and finds new, different answers.
A more complex way might be that futility eventually catches up with the conscience, causing a new perception of crisis.
We see in various subsets of people the idea that a person can evolve. Many religious folk come away from faith because of changes in circumstance or knowledge. Racists reform because of knowledge. Partisans change because of information.
We cannot force people to acknowledge truth. But there is no rule that says they cannot perceive truth for themselves. And here I'm not referring to that truth that is in the eye of the beholder, but something more akin to the Platonic form of truth. Within any circumstance there exists a condition that accurately represents it. People generally don't hold that condition in their minds, but, rather, some adaptation, transmutation, or otherwise variant thereof. The further we find ourselves from that form, though, the less accurate our beholden "truth".
Six people witness a fiery crash. They all give slightly different accounts. Which one is correct? Or are they all correct? From the overlapping descriptions, we can assemble a fairly functional idea of what really happened, but maybe nobody ever finds out that the driver who ran the red light suffered a stroke that resulted from a unique combination of some medication he was taking and some other factor. We might say that the driver ran the light and plowed into the tanker truck, resulting in the explosion, and we would be somewhat accurate. But we would not necessarily be reciting the actual and essential truth.
But the way back toward truth is often—somewhat reliably—found in detail and data. The more the religious person knows about reality, and the more they understand the evolution of their faith, the less likely they are to be fundamentalist. The more a political person knows about reality, and the more they understand the evolution of political ideology, the less likely they are to flee into fundamentalist shadows.
Look at what various ideologies dismiss from consideration. In this case, we see a number of naîve presuppositions about the Tea Party. History is, indeed, subjective, but the way so many of these folks lay it out is nearly clueless. They are wrapped up in various historical and ideological myths. With the Tea Party, well, yes, the deficit is staggering, and the debt even more so. But it is hard to get any real idea of what these people want and expect will happen if they get it because they're building from a foundation where facts are not necessarily relevant. If facts are bricks, they're building a wall in which too many of their bricks are made of tofu.
One might be able to follow their bizarre path back to fiscal recovery, but it is doubtful. Still, even if that route works on paper, what will its effects be in practice? More severe stratification, erosion of education, a dramatic increase in violent crime, and so on. But at least the rich will be rich and we can spend ourselves into debt again building jails, missiles, and all the other stuff we're going to need to protect ourselves from chaos.
Such considerations are inconvenient to them, so they send the probable to the showers while calling fancy off the bench.
And yes, the prior sentence can be applied to many, even most, if not all political outlooks; after all, humans are, well, human. But there is a difference between recognizing our imperfection and holding it up as an excuse. With the Tea Party, it can be viewed as a question of just how many fancies are on the field, and how many substantial probabilities they've taken out of the game.
With more information, with more rational consideration, it is possible that they might find their fiscal goals, protect their liberties, and build a better future for themselves and the nation. But that's not what they're after. I cannot tell you what information will help them stop being afraid of brown people; I can't tell you what will make them trade identity politics for real political consideration; I can't tell you what will bring them back to reality—except in the most general terms: information, education ... enlightenment.
Part of the problem, of course, is that the Tea Party is still inchoate and protean. We might get through this and the 2012 election before finding any real identity resolution in the Tea Party. But at some point, the chaos will settle into some semblance of form and order, and at that point we'll know a little more about how to approach this determined and ungainly beast.
Remember that we, too, fear the unknown. And the Tea Party is a ferocious mystery. The more we learn about it over time, the less we will fear it, and the more functional our considerations of it will become.
ElectricFetus said:
Not nearly so specifically. But education—that proverbial enlightenment—is the key.
Rapid social change is an identifiable starting point. The questions begin with whether or not the crisis consciousness perpetuates, and how stable that outlook is over time.
A simple path might be that the next generation rebels against the teaching, and finds new, different answers.
A more complex way might be that futility eventually catches up with the conscience, causing a new perception of crisis.
We see in various subsets of people the idea that a person can evolve. Many religious folk come away from faith because of changes in circumstance or knowledge. Racists reform because of knowledge. Partisans change because of information.
We cannot force people to acknowledge truth. But there is no rule that says they cannot perceive truth for themselves. And here I'm not referring to that truth that is in the eye of the beholder, but something more akin to the Platonic form of truth. Within any circumstance there exists a condition that accurately represents it. People generally don't hold that condition in their minds, but, rather, some adaptation, transmutation, or otherwise variant thereof. The further we find ourselves from that form, though, the less accurate our beholden "truth".
Six people witness a fiery crash. They all give slightly different accounts. Which one is correct? Or are they all correct? From the overlapping descriptions, we can assemble a fairly functional idea of what really happened, but maybe nobody ever finds out that the driver who ran the red light suffered a stroke that resulted from a unique combination of some medication he was taking and some other factor. We might say that the driver ran the light and plowed into the tanker truck, resulting in the explosion, and we would be somewhat accurate. But we would not necessarily be reciting the actual and essential truth.
But the way back toward truth is often—somewhat reliably—found in detail and data. The more the religious person knows about reality, and the more they understand the evolution of their faith, the less likely they are to be fundamentalist. The more a political person knows about reality, and the more they understand the evolution of political ideology, the less likely they are to flee into fundamentalist shadows.
Look at what various ideologies dismiss from consideration. In this case, we see a number of naîve presuppositions about the Tea Party. History is, indeed, subjective, but the way so many of these folks lay it out is nearly clueless. They are wrapped up in various historical and ideological myths. With the Tea Party, well, yes, the deficit is staggering, and the debt even more so. But it is hard to get any real idea of what these people want and expect will happen if they get it because they're building from a foundation where facts are not necessarily relevant. If facts are bricks, they're building a wall in which too many of their bricks are made of tofu.
One might be able to follow their bizarre path back to fiscal recovery, but it is doubtful. Still, even if that route works on paper, what will its effects be in practice? More severe stratification, erosion of education, a dramatic increase in violent crime, and so on. But at least the rich will be rich and we can spend ourselves into debt again building jails, missiles, and all the other stuff we're going to need to protect ourselves from chaos.
Such considerations are inconvenient to them, so they send the probable to the showers while calling fancy off the bench.
And yes, the prior sentence can be applied to many, even most, if not all political outlooks; after all, humans are, well, human. But there is a difference between recognizing our imperfection and holding it up as an excuse. With the Tea Party, it can be viewed as a question of just how many fancies are on the field, and how many substantial probabilities they've taken out of the game.
With more information, with more rational consideration, it is possible that they might find their fiscal goals, protect their liberties, and build a better future for themselves and the nation. But that's not what they're after. I cannot tell you what information will help them stop being afraid of brown people; I can't tell you what will make them trade identity politics for real political consideration; I can't tell you what will bring them back to reality—except in the most general terms: information, education ... enlightenment.
Part of the problem, of course, is that the Tea Party is still inchoate and protean. We might get through this and the 2012 election before finding any real identity resolution in the Tea Party. But at some point, the chaos will settle into some semblance of form and order, and at that point we'll know a little more about how to approach this determined and ungainly beast.
Remember that we, too, fear the unknown. And the Tea Party is a ferocious mystery. The more we learn about it over time, the less we will fear it, and the more functional our considerations of it will become.
So if we had just sit back and learned more about the Nazis, our fear would have diminished? I'm not saying the Tea party are Nazis, but it possible it will grow stronger over the years and consume the nation driving whats left of it into the ground.
Welll the latest poll indicates that voters in Alaska may not be as insaine as previously thought. It looks like Murkowski is pulling ahead of the Tea Partier...mr. miller.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Bells, debate? what joe engages in, you call debate?
Point of fact there is very little debate that is taking place, joe spams his political biased laced, muck racking, hyperbolic rhetoric, and some one points out that His holier than thou Democrats have a long and inglorious record of their own bigotry, deceit, lie's, implementation of failed public policies and failure to address the dangers cause by those failed policies.
And joe and you respond with, well the Tea Party is nothing but a bunch of Nazis, waiting to steal grandmas social security, make grandpa make the choice of medicine or dog food for lunch, set up concentration camps, make every one slaves, and all the other hyperbolic hype you can find below the level of Whale Sh!!t at the bottom of the ocean, and you call that debate?
Bells, yes, Bells, hyperbolic rhetoric, and hype, and failure to even attempt to debate.......Bells clean up your own actions and just maybe we can have a debate.
Kudos for Asguard for confirming that you are from the land of Oz, and so since you don't have a dog in this fight, except you own bias, butt out.
But you do want to hand Grandma's Social Security to Wall Street hustlers.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), decided on the same day as Steward, upheld the program because "The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way". That is, the Social Security Tax was constitutional as a mere exercise of Congress's general taxation powers.
Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960),
The 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time.
The Supreme Court disagreed, saying;
"To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands." The Court went on to say, "It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you want us to entrust Grandmas money with Government Politicians??????
And guess what, Grandma wouldn't have to put into Wall Street, there would be a range of options that could be chosen from, th emoney woyuld still be by law removed to one of these options and the same age range of retirements would still exist, and when Grandma died, the money would be still be their to pass on to the family, not just disappear into the maw of the Government.
Last edited:
It is a hard choice, give it to the corrupt inept government or the evil blood sucking corporations. Personally maybe a 3rd option would be better, like de-centrialized finance pooling or something.
Ahh Feudalism. I believe people should earn their keep on their own, not get rich the old fashion way by inheriting it.
Bells
Staff member
Buffalo, as you have proven time and again, any attempt to debate you on any issue results in you running away. That is how you have operated for years on this forum and we are all aware of it. In fact, you have been directly challenged to debates and each time you have either refused or run away. So I would suggest you clean up your act.
You want to debate this? No problem. We even have a forum dedicated to debates. Just you and me. Make the proposal of what you want to debate in regards to the Tea Party movement and their candidate's actions in this election cycle, etc, and I will debate you. Just the facts. No invocation of 9/11, etc as you have done in the last couple of weeks, no colourful and bolded text because it makes you look like a pre-schooler given free reign of the magic markers. Just a plain old fashion debate with the topic centering on the actions of the Tea Party members in the election.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Bells, nice Gobbels propaganda technique, yes keep telling the big lie.
If it's just the facts, you have already lost.....
Your insistence that Mizz Vallles face was stomped on is clearly not demonstrable by any video in evidence.........you are the only one forwarding that allegation, and that is from a seat 12700+ Km away.
Now Bells to show just how little you read my post, I have not invoked anything about 9/11 in the current thread........You are the only one to bring up 9/11;
just more of your telling of the big lie, why would 9/11 come up?
And why limit the debate to only the Tea Party Actions? How about the SEIU, and Moveon.org, Mizz Valle and Her actions, deliberate provocation.
Because then you don't have to defend the actions of the liberals involved in this and other actions, political street theater, slander, and down right violence, from the left liberals.
I invoked assassination, and the fact that many a political and public figure have been murdered in just such a manner, and that is pertinent to the debate.
And because I don't debate you in the manner you demand doesn't equal running away for Debate.
You are the one running because you insist on the Debate being conducted to your own satisfaction and account.
That is what the Forums are for, that is why they are supposedly in existence, and you don't need a special thread to debate, the debate is already in progress in the Political Forum.
This incident didn't take place in a vacuum, there was intentional actions take by the supposed victim, (Mizz Valleand) the result of those acts, and those act were intended to create a reaction, and one of the reactions wanted was a physical response, so Mizz Valle knew exactly what She was about, and intended to achieve, so She carries as much blame for the results of the evening as any one.
Personal Responsibility, when you place yourself in a bad situation, that you have created, and it goes south, you have no one to blame but your self.
So, don't be so full of yourself, and get off, but then it does suite you.
WOW, you have been listening to limbaugh, levin, etc again.
I challenge you to support any of this with evidence.
Do you ever read any of your posts? Do you know what you are writting? This is you mr. roam, " hyperbolic rhetoric, and hype, and failure to even attempt to debate" buffalo roam.
You never write reasoned pieces. You just repeat the latest Tea Party/Republican talking points. And when you are challenged, you drop feces like you just did and run.
You seem to think if you can burry people in feces no one will notice the gapping holes in your manny unsupported and false allegations.