Ann Coulter's Answer to Canada!

[Ravi]

Frass:

Coulter is not entitled to be a guest of Canada and break their laws.

The students of Canada are entitled to protest against someone they see as breaking their laws. There was no violence.

Your wall of words and labels of facism do not make it so.

 

[sitarro]

At a PREVIOUS speaking engagement Coulter expressed her opinion that all Muslims should be put on a no-fly list until mainstream Muslims publicly and unequivocally denounced the violence committed in the name of their religion by extremists and that until that happened no one should assume the religion had been hijacked by extremists at all.

I don't care how much you pro-fascist liberals want to twist in the wind on this one -this is NOT hate speech and it isn't racist either.

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." - Ann Coulter (12 Sept. 2001)

"Bring it on, *****." - Islam

islam is a joke without a sense of humor. Coulter is completely and totally correct........ **** muslim asswipes and the camels they rode in on.

 

[PoliticalChic]

]I don't excuse or condemn people because of their gender. Coulter isn't a coward because she's a woman, she's simply a coward.

Kind of like you...when's the last time you went to an Islamic country and told them to ride camels?

I'd think they'd find it funny

Actually, I've been in a Muslim country and rode a camel.

All concerned thought it was pretty funny!

 

[Ravi]

]I don't excuse or condemn people because of their gender. Coulter isn't a coward because she's a woman, she's simply a coward.

Kind of like you...when's the last time you went to an Islamic country and told them to ride camels?

I'd think they'd find it funny

Actually, I've been in a Muslim country and rode a camel.

All concerned thought it was pretty funny!

Please...spare us your sexual escapades.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'd think they'd find it funny

Actually, I've been in a Muslim country and rode a camel.

All concerned thought it was pretty funny!

Please...spare us your sexual escapades.

Ya' know, Kalam went down the same path when I said I
'don't join dangerous cults: I practice safe sects.'

You two have to get out more.

 

[Samson]

I'd think they'd find it funny

Actually, I've been in a Muslim country and rode a camel.

All concerned thought it was pretty funny!

Please...spare us your sexual escapades.

The story behind this pic is interesting enough for me to relate.

First, it is a real pic. The guy driving is a Bedouin driving the camels into the Palestinian East Bank hinderlands where they'll be slaughtered and sold in the local Safeway.

 

[Darkwind]

How can Coltface pick on anyone for talking mean?

I try to remember that some of our members require spoon-feeding of ideas, so forgive me for simply posting the Ann Coulter column.

Here is the breakdown so that you can understand, as " talking mean" actually has nothing
to do with the OP.

1. Ms. Coulter was invited to speak to students at the University.

2. Left wing 'scholars' looked into their well-worn compendium on civil discourse, and 'market place of ideas' strategies, and shouted and rioted so that Ms. Coulter could not deliver here talk.

3. No one was force to join the assembly who wished to hear ideas with which they might or might not agree.

Still with me?

4. Canada represents ersatz-EU, in that free speech means only if the left agrees with your speech content.

5. Those of us who honor the first amendment of the US Constitution, as see it as a higher level of social evolution than censorship, would champion Ms. Coulter's right to speak, and critique Canadian culture in this regard.

5a. Consider the this quote, attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Have someone explain it to you.

she chose not to speak on the advice of her bodygaurd..it is bullshit...there were no reported threats the university security or police expressed no concerns over her speaking...it is making something out of nothing

For those who are as handicapped as this individual in matters of critical thought.....Note the red highlighted text.

Does this mean that there were no threats against Coulter? Does it mean that the bodyguard caught wind of these threats and advised Coulter without first consulting the Canadian and University Press?

I do have to wonder though at reports that there were piles of stones and lumber all around the building in which she was to speak. Perhaps they were doing some remodeling?

Last. Answer this question progressives. If Howard Dean had been met with the kind of crowd that Coulter was met with, and he decided that it would be safer to withdraw, would you then be comparing him in similar light as you are Coulter? Or is only progressives that are permitted to behave badly?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I try to remember that some of our members require spoon-feeding of ideas, so forgive me for simply posting the Ann Coulter column.

Here is the breakdown so that you can understand, as " talking mean" actually has nothing
to do with the OP.

1. Ms. Coulter was invited to speak to students at the University.

2. Left wing 'scholars' looked into their well-worn compendium on civil discourse, and 'market place of ideas' strategies, and shouted and rioted so that Ms. Coulter could not deliver here talk.

3. No one was force to join the assembly who wished to hear ideas with which they might or might not agree.

Still with me?

4. Canada represents ersatz-EU, in that free speech means only if the left agrees with your speech content.

5. Those of us who honor the first amendment of the US Constitution, as see it as a higher level of social evolution than censorship, would champion Ms. Coulter's right to speak, and critique Canadian culture in this regard.

5a. Consider the this quote, attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Have someone explain it to you.

she chose not to speak on the advice of her bodygaurd..it is bullshit...there were no reported threats the university security or police expressed no concerns over her speaking...it is making something out of nothing

For those who are as handicapped as this individual in matters of critical thought.....Note the red highlighted text.

Does this mean that there were no threats against Coulter? Does it mean that the bodyguard caught wind of these threats and advised Coulter without first consulting the Canadian and University Press?

I do have to wonder though at reports that there were piles of stones and lumber all around the building in which she was to speak. Perhaps they were doing some remodeling?

Last. Answer this question progressives. If Howard Dean had been met with the kind of crowd that Coulter was met with, and he decided that it would be safer to withdraw, would you then be comparing him in similar light as you are Coulter? Or is only progressives that are permitted to behave badly?

Nice analysis and a comparison to the way it would be viewed by our friends on the left if the 'shoe was on the other foot.'

I didn't hear similar disclaimers from our friends on the left when sundry Democrats claimed all sorts of bad behavior by Tea Party members last week.

Related to that, did anyone see that Breitbart offered $10,000 for proof of the (euphemistically called ) n-word? No takers.

"It’s time for the allegedly pristine character of Rep. John Lewis to put up or shut up. Therefore, I am offering $10,000 of my own money to provide hard evidence that the N- word was hurled at him not 15 times, as his colleague reported, but just once. Surely one of those two cameras wielded by members of his entourage will prove his point….."http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2010/03/26/breitbart-offers-10k-reward-for-proof-that-n-word-was-hurled-at-john-lewis/

And even better, he offered another $10,000 if Representative Lewis would take a lie detector test!!!

"Rep. Lewis, if you can’t do that, I’ll give him a backup plan: a lie detector test. If you provide verifiable video evidence showing that a single racist epithet was hurled as you walked among the tea partiers, or you pass a simple lie detector test, I will provide a $10K check to the United Negro College Fund." Ibid.

Which will come first, Representative Lewis taking the lie detector test, of colleague Eots ranting that there is no proof of said behavior by the Tea Party'ers?

 

[Darkwind]

she chose not to speak on the advice of her bodygaurd..it is bullshit...there were no reported threats the university security or police expressed no concerns over her speaking...it is making something out of nothing

For those who are as handicapped as this individual in matters of critical thought.....Note the red highlighted text.

Does this mean that there were no threats against Coulter? Does it mean that the bodyguard caught wind of these threats and advised Coulter without first consulting the Canadian and University Press?

I do have to wonder though at reports that there were piles of stones and lumber all around the building in which she was to speak. Perhaps they were doing some remodeling?

Last. Answer this question progressives. If Howard Dean had been met with the kind of crowd that Coulter was met with, and he decided that it would be safer to withdraw, would you then be comparing him in similar light as you are Coulter? Or is only progressives that are permitted to behave badly?

Nice analysis and a comparison to the way it would be viewed by our friends on the left if the 'shoe was on the other foot.'

I didn't hear similar disclaimers from our friends on the left when sundry Democrats claimed all sorts of bad behavior by Tea Party members last week.

Related to that, did anyone see that Breitbart offered $10,000 for proof of the (euphemistically called ) n-word? No takers.

"It’s time for the allegedly pristine character of Rep. John Lewis to put up or shut up. Therefore, I am offering $10,000 of my own money to provide hard evidence that the N- word was hurled at him not 15 times, as his colleague reported, but just once. Surely one of those two cameras wielded by members of his entourage will prove his point….."http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2010/03/26/breitbart-offers-10k-reward-for-proof-that-n-word-was-hurled-at-john-lewis/

And even better, he offered another $10,000 if Representative Lewis would take a lie detector test!!!

"Rep. Lewis, if you can’t do that, I’ll give him a backup plan: a lie detector test. If you provide verifiable video evidence showing that a single racist epithet was hurled as you walked among the tea partiers, or you pass a simple lie detector test, I will provide a $10K check to the United Negro College Fund." Ibid.

Which will come first, Representative Lewis taking the lie detector test, of colleague Eots ranting that there is no proof of said behavior by the Tea Party'ers?

It will, of course, be promptly ignored. It will become part of the election talking points and I have little doubt that it will appear in a campaign ad or four. After all, proof is not a requirement when one hurls racist charges at opponents for political gain.

 

[PoliticalChic]

For those who are as handicapped as this individual in matters of critical thought.....Note the red highlighted text.

Does this mean that there were no threats against Coulter? Does it mean that the bodyguard caught wind of these threats and advised Coulter without first consulting the Canadian and University Press?

I do have to wonder though at reports that there were piles of stones and lumber all around the building in which she was to speak. Perhaps they were doing some remodeling?

Last. Answer this question progressives. If Howard Dean had been met with the kind of crowd that Coulter was met with, and he decided that it would be safer to withdraw, would you then be comparing him in similar light as you are Coulter? Or is only progressives that are permitted to behave badly?

Nice analysis and a comparison to the way it would be viewed by our friends on the left if the 'shoe was on the other foot.'

I didn't hear similar disclaimers from our friends on the left when sundry Democrats claimed all sorts of bad behavior by Tea Party members last week.

Related to that, did anyone see that Breitbart offered $10,000 for proof of the (euphemistically called ) n-word? No takers.

"It’s time for the allegedly pristine character of Rep. John Lewis to put up or shut up. Therefore, I am offering $10,000 of my own money to provide hard evidence that the N- word was hurled at him not 15 times, as his colleague reported, but just once. Surely one of those two cameras wielded by members of his entourage will prove his point….."http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2010/03/26/breitbart-offers-10k-reward-for-proof-that-n-word-was-hurled-at-john-lewis/

And even better, he offered another $10,000 if Representative Lewis would take a lie detector test!!!

"Rep. Lewis, if you can’t do that, I’ll give him a backup plan: a lie detector test. If you provide verifiable video evidence showing that a single racist epithet was hurled as you walked among the tea partiers, or you pass a simple lie detector test, I will provide a $10K check to the United Negro College Fund." Ibid.

Which will come first, Representative Lewis taking the lie detector test, of colleague Eots ranting that there is no proof of said behavior by the Tea Party'ers?

It will, of course, be promptly ignored. It will become part of the election talking points and I have little doubt that it will appear in a campaign ad or four. After all, proof is not a requirement when one hurls racist charges at opponents for political gain.

Ya' know, this sounds like one of the rules in the "Libral Libretto"...

"5. If you find yourself in a debating ‘box,’ where the true answer will sink a liberal talking point, either
a. Claim that the question is ‘above my pay grade.’
b. Look astounded, and claim that the questioner is a racist, sexist or homophobe. Or fascist, or, always good, nazi.
c. Make up any term as opprobrium, as long as it sounds ominous.
d. Learn phrases such as ‘it’s time to move on,” or ‘let’s put this behind us.”
e. This was started by a [conservative, republican, earlier] administration.
f. If all else fails, shrug your shoulders and say “I’m only interested in discourse.”
g. If and when totally busted, jam hands down into side pockets, gaze up at the sky, whistle softly, and amble off into the sunset."


But, would that be considered as part of rule #5d or rule #5g?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually, I've been in a Muslim country and rode a camel.

All concerned thought it was pretty funny!

Please...spare us your sexual escapades.

The story behind this pic is interesting enough for me to relate.

First, it is a real pic. The guy driving is a Bedouin driving the camels into the Palestinian East Bank hinderlands where they'll be slaughtered and sold in the local Safeway.

I thought that pic showed the latest in Middle East side-crash protection???

Who knew?

 

[Darkwind]

Nice analysis and a comparison to the way it would be viewed by our friends on the left if the 'shoe was on the other foot.'

I didn't hear similar disclaimers from our friends on the left when sundry Democrats claimed all sorts of bad behavior by Tea Party members last week.

Related to that, did anyone see that Breitbart offered $10,000 for proof of the (euphemistically called ) n-word? No takers.

"It’s time for the allegedly pristine character of Rep. John Lewis to put up or shut up. Therefore, I am offering $10,000 of my own money to provide hard evidence that the N- word was hurled at him not 15 times, as his colleague reported, but just once. Surely one of those two cameras wielded by members of his entourage will prove his point….."http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2010/03/26/breitbart-offers-10k-reward-for-proof-that-n-word-was-hurled-at-john-lewis/

And even better, he offered another $10,000 if Representative Lewis would take a lie detector test!!!

"Rep. Lewis, if you can’t do that, I’ll give him a backup plan: a lie detector test. If you provide verifiable video evidence showing that a single racist epithet was hurled as you walked among the tea partiers, or you pass a simple lie detector test, I will provide a $10K check to the United Negro College Fund." Ibid.

Which will come first, Representative Lewis taking the lie detector test, of colleague Eots ranting that there is no proof of said behavior by the Tea Party'ers?

It will, of course, be promptly ignored. It will become part of the election talking points and I have little doubt that it will appear in a campaign ad or four. After all, proof is not a requirement when one hurls racist charges at opponents for political gain.

Ya' know, this sounds like one of the rules in the "Libral Libretto"...

"5. If you find yourself in a debating ‘box,’ where the true answer will sink a liberal talking point, either
a. Claim that the question is ‘above my pay grade.’
b. Look astounded, and claim that the questioner is a racist, sexist or homophobe. Or fascist, or, always good, nazi.
c. Make up any term as opprobrium, as long as it sounds ominous.
d. Learn phrases such as ‘it’s time to move on,” or ‘let’s put this behind us.”
e. This was started by a [conservative, republican, earlier] administration.
f. If all else fails, shrug your shoulders and say “I’m only interested in discourse.”
g. If and when totally busted, jam hands down into side pockets, gaze up at the sky, whistle softly, and amble off into the sunset."


But, would that be considered as part of rule #5d or rule #5g?

Given the mulit-faceted propensity of the progressives to lie and obfuscate, I would have to say.........yes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It will, of course, be promptly ignored. It will become part of the election talking points and I have little doubt that it will appear in a campaign ad or four. After all, proof is not a requirement when one hurls racist charges at opponents for political gain.

Ya' know, this sounds like one of the rules in the "Libral Libretto"...

"5. If you find yourself in a debating ‘box,’ where the true answer will sink a liberal talking point, either
a. Claim that the question is ‘above my pay grade.’
b. Look astounded, and claim that the questioner is a racist, sexist or homophobe. Or fascist, or, always good, nazi.
c. Make up any term as opprobrium, as long as it sounds ominous.
d. Learn phrases such as ‘it’s time to move on,” or ‘let’s put this behind us.”
e. This was started by a [conservative, republican, earlier] administration.
f. If all else fails, shrug your shoulders and say “I’m only interested in discourse.”
g. If and when totally busted, jam hands down into side pockets, gaze up at the sky, whistle softly, and amble off into the sunset."


But, would that be considered as part of rule #5d or rule #5g?

Given the mulit-faceted propensity of the progressives to lie and obfuscate, I would have to say.........yes.

Just a friendly warning, you're fine with 'obfuscate,' but the left has 'lie' and 'liar' trademarked.

 

[MaggieMae]

Under Canadian law, things Coulter says can probably be construed as violating hate speech laws.

For example.

More than 2,000 students showed up to protest her telling a Muslim student Monday to "take a camel" as an alternative to flying. Security at the University of Ottawa feared students would riot over racist remarks she made to Muslims. Coulter has said all terrorists are Muslims and has suggested all Muslims be barred from airlines and use flying carpets. When the student said she didn't have a flying carpet, Coulter told her to "take a camel."

American Right-Winger Ann Coulter's Speech Cancelled Because of Her Racist Remarks

Again, if you don't want to follow another country's rules, don't be their guest.

And if you are AFRAID of Canadian college students exercising THEIR freedom of speech you look like a coward.

Coulter was both a bad guest and a coward.

That is all.

The problem with Ann Coulter is simply that she started out being just a smart-mouth, having written a couple of anti-liberalism books and feeling like she could get away with anything (during that time). Well she soon found out that her reputation was getting the best of her. Even civil conservative gatherings began to bar her from speaking because she was viewed as a troublemaker. At one time she probably DID have a lot of persuasive power, just like other writers who have written about liberalism: Bernie Goldberg, Jonah Goldberg. Those guys don't get banned from speaking engagements.

 

[MaggieMae]

Under Canadian law, things Coulter says can probably be construed as violating hate speech laws.

For example.

More than 2,000 students showed up to protest her telling a Muslim student Monday to "take a camel" as an alternative to flying. Security at the University of Ottawa feared students would riot over racist remarks she made to Muslims. Coulter has said all terrorists are Muslims and has suggested all Muslims be barred from airlines and use flying carpets. When the student said she didn't have a flying carpet, Coulter told her to "take a camel."

American Right-Winger Ann Coulter's Speech Cancelled Because of Her Racist Remarks

Again, if you don't want to follow another country's rules, don't be their guest.

And if you are AFRAID of Canadian college students exercising THEIR freedom of speech you look like a coward.

Coulter was both a bad guest and a coward.

That is all.

"Under Canadian law, things Coulter says can probably be construed as violating hate speech laws."

Indeed... JUST as the existence of Canadian Law is construed to be a valid means to usurp Human Rights... just as the existence of the Jews was construed to be a threat to humanity, by your ideological predecessors... And the way the nation of Israel is construed to be a threat to Middle-east peace... by YOU and your Pro-terrorist comrades... and the way that the US GWOT was construed to be US IMPERIALISM... By you and your pro-terrorist, anti-American comrades.

'Construed' is synonymous with 'rationalization'... and that's what the Left is doing here.

And it's the same sort of rationalization which was used to design the recent illicit parlamentary ruse for the Democrats in Congress to 'pass' a bill which they never voted on; in direct contradiction to the US Constitution...

Humanism... Moral Relativism... deceit... fraud.

Recognize friends that what we're looking at here is a group of people who imparted violence to restrict someone's speech, all under the rationalization that this persons IDEAS may potentially lead to violence...

They imparted an irrationally strong dislike for Miss Coulter; who they claim advocates an irrationally strong dislike for people...

Seeing the pattern here?

As is ALWAYS the case; the left comes to LAMENT; THAT WHICH THEY HAVE PROVEN THEMSELVES TO BE...

Of course those on the far right "construe" Obama to be a Socialist.

 

[Kalam]

islam is a joke without a sense of humor. Coulter is completely and totally correct........ **** muslim asswipes and the camels they rode in on.

Do you have the balls to act on your words or are you an armchair warrior?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Under Canadian law, things Coulter says can probably be construed as violating hate speech laws.

For example.

More than 2,000 students showed up to protest her telling a Muslim student Monday to "take a camel" as an alternative to flying. Security at the University of Ottawa feared students would riot over racist remarks she made to Muslims. Coulter has said all terrorists are Muslims and has suggested all Muslims be barred from airlines and use flying carpets. When the student said she didn't have a flying carpet, Coulter told her to "take a camel."

American Right-Winger Ann Coulter's Speech Cancelled Because of Her Racist Remarks

Again, if you don't want to follow another country's rules, don't be their guest.

And if you are AFRAID of Canadian college students exercising THEIR freedom of speech you look like a coward.

Coulter was both a bad guest and a coward.

That is all.

The problem with Ann Coulter is simply that she started out being just a smart-mouth, having written a couple of anti-liberalism books and feeling like she could get away with anything (during that time). Well she soon found out that her reputation was getting the best of her. Even civil conservative gatherings began to bar her from speaking because she was viewed as a troublemaker. At one time she probably DID have a lot of persuasive power, just like other writers who have written about liberalism: Bernie Goldberg, Jonah Goldberg. Those guys don't get banned from speaking engagements.

Maggie, I know you are far too reputable to mention that Ms. Coulter has "written a couple of anti-liberalism books" without reading them...

here they are, all NYTimes best sellers

* High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton (Regnery 1998)
* Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (Crown, 2002)
* Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (Crown Forum, 2003)
* How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter (Crown Forum, 2004)
* Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, 2006)
* If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans (Crown Forum, 2007)
* Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America (Crown Forum, 2009)


which ones did you read? Any critiques you would offer?

 

[PoliticalChic]

islam is a joke without a sense of humor. Coulter is completely and totally correct........ **** muslim asswipes and the camels they rode in on.

Do you have the balls to act on your words or are you an armchair warrior?

Now calm down boys, dueling is outlawed in all 57 states.

 

[MaggieMae]

Under Canadian law, things Coulter says can probably be construed as violating hate speech laws.

For example.
American Right-Winger Ann Coulter's Speech Cancelled Because of Her Racist Remarks

Again, if you don't want to follow another country's rules, don't be their guest.

And if you are AFRAID of Canadian college students exercising THEIR freedom of speech you look like a coward.

Coulter was both a bad guest and a coward.

That is all.

The problem with Ann Coulter is simply that she started out being just a smart-mouth, having written a couple of anti-liberalism books and feeling like she could get away with anything (during that time). Well she soon found out that her reputation was getting the best of her. Even civil conservative gatherings began to bar her from speaking because she was viewed as a troublemaker. At one time she probably DID have a lot of persuasive power, just like other writers who have written about liberalism: Bernie Goldberg, Jonah Goldberg. Those guys don't get banned from speaking engagements.

Maggie, I know you are far too reputable to mention that Ms. Coulter has "written a couple of anti-liberalism books" without reading them...

here they are, all NYTimes best sellers

* High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton (Regnery 1998)
* Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (Crown, 2002)
* Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (Crown Forum, 2003)
* How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter (Crown Forum, 2004)
* Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, 2006)
* If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans (Crown Forum, 2007)
* Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America (Crown Forum, 2009)


which ones did you read? Any critiques you would offer?

I did read "Slander" and "Treason," but then decided any further reads of hers would be a form of self-flagellation and dangerous to my physical wellbeing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The problem with Ann Coulter is simply that she started out being just a smart-mouth, having written a couple of anti-liberalism books and feeling like she could get away with anything (during that time). Well she soon found out that her reputation was getting the best of her. Even civil conservative gatherings began to bar her from speaking because she was viewed as a troublemaker. At one time she probably DID have a lot of persuasive power, just like other writers who have written about liberalism: Bernie Goldberg, Jonah Goldberg. Those guys don't get banned from speaking engagements.

Maggie, I know you are far too reputable to mention that Ms. Coulter has "written a couple of anti-liberalism books" without reading them...

here they are, all NYTimes best sellers

* High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton (Regnery 1998)
* Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (Crown, 2002)
* Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (Crown Forum, 2003)
* How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter (Crown Forum, 2004)
* Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, 2006)
* If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans (Crown Forum, 2007)
* Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America (Crown Forum, 2009)


which ones did you read? Any critiques you would offer?

I did read "Slander" and "Treason," but then decided any further reads of hers would be a form of self-flagellation and dangerous to my physical wellbeing.

Touche.