Tea Party

[Nutz]

Neither.

But you would be a member of a party that caters to racists and serves as recruiting platform for white nationalists?

Black Panthers and NAACP are racists. Do you condemn them? They also vote for Dem's.

There are racists in every group of people.

Yes, I do. Furthermore, if I don't associate with racists of any color or organization, and if I do...like participating on this forum (which is a hate forum)...I am very vocal about condemning racists. Why can't you condemn white racists in the tea party? Why won't you recognize the FACT that white nationalists use Tea Party events to recruit new members? Why won't you recognize the fact that many teapers want a race war or at the very least, an armed insurrection? Do you support an armed insurrection against the government?

Do yourself a favor and click on the links in the huffpo article to see what teapers really are.

 

[peach174]

But you would be a member of a party that caters to racists and serves as recruiting platform for white nationalists?

Black Panthers and NAACP are racists. Do you condemn them? They also vote for Dem's.

There are racists in every group of people.

Yes, I do. Furthermore, if I don't associate with racists of any color or organization, and if I do...like participating on this forum (which is a hate forum)...I am very vocal about condemning racists. Why can't you condemn white racists in the tea party? Why won't you recognize the FACT that white nationalists use Tea Party events to recruit new members? Why won't you recognize the fact that many teapers want a race war or at the very least, an armed insurrection? Do you support an armed insurrection against the government?

Do yourself a favor and click on the links in the huffpo article to see what teapers really are.

I don't either and many in this forum are not racists nor haters.
I think you have been reading too many huffpo articles.
Like I said before if they are not hurting anyone or breaking laws they have the right in this country to freedom of speech.

I see no evidence of a large amount of people in this country who want any armed insurrection.

 

[PratchettFan]

I don't recall whining about Walker... ever. I don't live in Wisconsin so it is not my problem. If I'm wrong, please do refer me to the post where I mentioned Walker.

Now, what I did was take the actual numbers from the CAFRs (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) from the Wisconsin State government website. Its easy to do. I gave you those numbers and you go off on this irrelevant tangent - but I'm the one not telling the truth? You brought up Wisconsin, so I am assuming you are claiming they reduced their budget and government. Back that up with actual, supported facts. Show me how it was reduced, or admit you don't know what you are talking about.

So, by the silence I think I can conclude no one was able to find a single state government in which a "conservative" majority actually did what they say they want to do. Now, I'll bet you I can find lots of examples of those folks doing everything they can to curtail personal liberty.

You pay attention to what they do, not what they say.

I'll toss up new york not much more needs to be said,a liberal run state if ever,the state is a mess financially has been for a very long time.

So who's the buggy man,pay attention to what they do not what they say works both ways sonny.

So, what you are saying is the it makes no difference whether the politicians are conservative or liberal. I would tend to agree. Except the liberals tend to be more in favor of personal liberty.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Two different groups under the same umbrella. Why don't you condemn the radicals? To me, if you don't condemn the radicals that live in your house...then you are one in the same.

That's the difference, you want them condemned, I say they have the right to freedom of speech be they left or right, so long as they are not breaking any laws or physically harming anyone.

They are not under the same umbrella. If you think that then you are very closed minded.

A Tea Party candidate runs against a liberal. The liberal is just a liberal but the Tea Party candidate has racist views. Who would you vote for?

Obviously the liberal candidate would be preferable, even if the TPM republican weren’t racist.

As a pragmatist the liberal candidate would be open to compromise in the interest of sound and responsible governance, where the TPM republican would not, given the fact most TPM republicans are blind adherents of conservative dogma, intransigent, and indeed unwilling to compromise; the propensity toward reckless and irresponsible extremism by TPM republicans in the House is evidence of that, such as their willingness to shutdown the government.

 

[BobPlumb]

Detroit anyone?

 

[peach174]

That's the difference, you want them condemned, I say they have the right to freedom of speech be they left or right, so long as they are not breaking any laws or physically harming anyone.

They are not under the same umbrella. If you think that then you are very closed minded.

A Tea Party candidate runs against a liberal. The liberal is just a liberal but the Tea Party candidate has racist views. Who would you vote for?

Obviously the liberal candidate would be preferable, even if the TPM republican weren’t racist.

As a pragmatist the liberal candidate would be open to compromise in the interest of sound and responsible governance, where the TPM republican would not, given the fact most TPM republicans are blind adherents of conservative dogma, intransigent, and indeed unwilling to compromise; the propensity toward reckless and irresponsible extremism by TPM republicans in the House is evidence of that, such as their willingness to shutdown the government.

This is what our Government is all about, this is why we are a Republic so that certain ideologies can get their views of representation and laws.

We would not have abortion rights if the left had not shut down the Government 7 times and was unwilling to compromise when they wanted their reckless and irresponsible extremism of their rights to want to kill innocent little babies who have no voice. Your argument goes both ways C Clayton Jones.

It was the Democrats who would not compromise with working towards a reasonable delay of the Health Care Law that shut the Government down. Then did a delay anyway and blamed the Republicans for the shut down.

 

[peach174]

So, by the silence I think I can conclude no one was able to find a single state government in which a "conservative" majority actually did what they say they want to do. Now, I'll bet you I can find lots of examples of those folks doing everything they can to curtail personal liberty.

You pay attention to what they do, not what they say.

I'll toss up new york not much more needs to be said,a liberal run state if ever,the state is a mess financially has been for a very long time.

So who's the buggy man,pay attention to what they do not what they say works both ways sonny.

So, what you are saying is the it makes no difference whether the politicians are conservative or liberal. I would tend to agree. Except the liberals tend to be more in favor of personal liberty.

What personal liberty?
This Administration is closing down personnel bank accounts.

 

[Pennywise]

Fair enough (and true)...lets say it is Steinlight.

Sorry to say I have no idea what that means.

The anti-Jew, anti-Black member of this forum...

Lets just say that candidate denies the holocaust and believes that all blacks should be segregated.

It depends on how exactly these ideas are expressed. For instance, anyone who questions anything at all about the voracity of "holocaust" claims of numbers of dead, or the use of gas chambers, etc. is called a "denier" by the ADL and many members of this board. To me this does not represent a "denier", but a person who feels the need to search for the truth, and not a fantasy laden horror show. Any person who flat out claims that Jews(and many other groups) were not targeted as a group and put in camps, is delusional and I would never vote for such a person.

On segregation, if this phantom candidate simply believes that people who share more commonalities usually get along better than groups of people with few common traits, that is not espousing segregationist views, but merely pointing out the reality of human nature and I have no problem with that. However, if this candidate says we should institute government mandated segregation, they are again delusional because they could never do anything about it anyway and I wouldn't vote for them because they are flat out stupid.

 

[PratchettFan]

I'll toss up new york not much more needs to be said,a liberal run state if ever,the state is a mess financially has been for a very long time.

So who's the buggy man,pay attention to what they do not what they say works both ways sonny.

So, what you are saying is the it makes no difference whether the politicians are conservative or liberal. I would tend to agree. Except the liberals tend to be more in favor of personal liberty.

What personal liberty?
This Administration is closing down personnel bank accounts.

I have no idea what you are talking about on "personnel bank accounts". However, on the state level we have so called "conservatives" who are doing all in their power to restrict the personal liberty of citizens. Severe restrictions on abortions, limitations on access to voting, gerrymandering, laws regarding sexual contact between consenting adults, laws against same sex marriage. It all boils down to them telling us how we can or cannot live our lives.

I am always amazed (perhaps disenheartened is a better word) at people who will scream if someone tells them they can't buy a particular thing but think nothing of someone telling them who they can love or what control they are allowed over their own body. Those are some seriously screwed up priorities. Or perhaps when they talk about liberty they only mean their liberty, not anyone else's.

 

[peach174]

So, what you are saying is the it makes no difference whether the politicians are conservative or liberal. I would tend to agree. Except the liberals tend to be more in favor of personal liberty.

What personal liberty?
This Administration is closing down personnel bank accounts.

I have no idea what you are talking about on "personnel bank accounts". However, on the state level we have so called "conservatives" who are doing all in their power to restrict the personal liberty of citizens. Severe restrictions on abortions, limitations on access to voting, gerrymandering, laws regarding sexual contact between consenting adults, laws against same sex marriage. It all boils down to them telling us how we can or cannot live our lives.

I am always amazed (perhaps disenheartened is a better word) at people who will scream if someone tells them they can't buy a particular thing but think nothing of someone telling them who they can love or what control they are allowed over their own body. Those are some seriously screwed up priorities. Or perhaps when they talk about liberty they only mean their liberty, not anyone else's.

States have the right to do so, when the majority of the people vote them in on those issues.
Same can be said with liberal states who ban people from buying large sodas or ban their rights to guns or force little kids to get expensive permits to run lemonade stands.
Both parties do gerrymandering. The left is all upset about it because the last census favored the Republicans instead of them.
Feds don't.
Feds duties are listed in the Constitution.

I'm talking about Operation choke point where the Feds are forcing banks to not do business with legal businesses which they deem as a risk.
I hope these people win in court.
DOJ's 'Operation Choke Point' May Be Root of Porn Star Bank Account Closings - Hit & Run : Reason.com

 

[PratchettFan]

What personal liberty?
This Administration is closing down personnel bank accounts.

I have no idea what you are talking about on "personnel bank accounts". However, on the state level we have so called "conservatives" who are doing all in their power to restrict the personal liberty of citizens. Severe restrictions on abortions, limitations on access to voting, gerrymandering, laws regarding sexual contact between consenting adults, laws against same sex marriage. It all boils down to them telling us how we can or cannot live our lives.

I am always amazed (perhaps disenheartened is a better word) at people who will scream if someone tells them they can't buy a particular thing but think nothing of someone telling them who they can love or what control they are allowed over their own body. Those are some seriously screwed up priorities. Or perhaps when they talk about liberty they only mean their liberty, not anyone else's.

States have the right to do so, when the majority of the people vote them in on those issues.
Same can be said with liberal states who ban people from buying large sodas or ban their rights to guns or force little kids to get expensive permits to run lemonade stands.
Both parties do gerrymandering. The left is all upset about it because the last census favored the Republicans instead of them.
Feds don't.
Feds duties are listed in the Constitution.

I'm talking about Operation choke point where the Feds are forcing banks to not do business with legal businesses which they deem as a risk.
I hope these people win in court.
DOJ's 'Operation Choke Point' May Be Root of Porn Star Bank Account Closings - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Then you agree that these people are attempting to curb personal liberty.

 

[Derideo_Te]

A Tea Party candidate runs against a liberal. The liberal is just a liberal but the Tea Party candidate has racist views. Who would you vote for?

Obviously the liberal candidate would be preferable, even if the TPM republican weren’t racist.

As a pragmatist the liberal candidate would be open to compromise in the interest of sound and responsible governance, where the TPM republican would not, given the fact most TPM republicans are blind adherents of conservative dogma, intransigent, and indeed unwilling to compromise; the propensity toward reckless and irresponsible extremism by TPM republicans in the House is evidence of that, such as their willingness to shutdown the government.

This is what our Government is all about, this is why we are a Republic so that certain ideologies can get their views of representation and laws.

We would not have abortion rights if the left had not shut down the Government 7 times and was unwilling to compromise when they wanted their reckless and irresponsible extremism of their rights to want to kill innocent little babies who have no voice. Your argument goes both ways C Clayton Jones.

It was the Democrats who would not compromise with working towards a reasonable delay of the Health Care Law that shut the Government down. Then did a delay anyway and blamed the Republicans for the shut down.

 

[peach174]

Obviously the liberal candidate would be preferable, even if the TPM republican weren’t racist.

As a pragmatist the liberal candidate would be open to compromise in the interest of sound and responsible governance, where the TPM republican would not, given the fact most TPM republicans are blind adherents of conservative dogma, intransigent, and indeed unwilling to compromise; the propensity toward reckless and irresponsible extremism by TPM republicans in the House is evidence of that, such as their willingness to shutdown the government.

This is what our Government is all about, this is why we are a Republic so that certain ideologies can get their views of representation and laws.

We would not have abortion rights if the left had not shut down the Government 7 times and was unwilling to compromise when they wanted their reckless and irresponsible extremism of their rights to want to kill innocent little babies who have no voice. Your argument goes both ways C Clayton Jones.

It was the Democrats who would not compromise with working towards a reasonable delay of the Health Care Law that shut the Government down. Then did a delay anyway and blamed the Republicans for the shut down.

Sorry I tend to forget that many here was not alive back then and assume that many should know U.S. History.
In other words this stuff should be taught in our schools.

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.607992087390259012&pid=15.1

O’Neill presided over a total of seven government shutdowns under Reagan, and five during the Jimmy Carter administration, meaning that he played a role in precisely two-thirds of all the government shutdowns since the modern budgeting process has been in place.

Interestingly, nearly all of the shutdowns that took place during the Carter administration, when Democrats also controlled the Senate under Senate majority leader Robert Byrd (D., W.Va.), were the result of disagreements over abortion policy, and lasted more than ten days on average. In several instances between 1977 and 1979, the Democratic House resisted the Democratic Senate’s efforts to expand the number of cases for which federal funds, via Medicaid, could be used to pay for abortion. The government partially shut down three times for a total of 28 days between September and December 1977 as lawmakers negotiated a compromise on the issue, although it would be revisited several times during subsequent shutdowns.

The point being that the liberals took a stand on their issue and refused to back down on abortion in the 70's and back then they were the minority in the party.

 

[Ernie S.]

So, what you are saying is the it makes no difference whether the politicians are conservative or liberal. I would tend to agree. Except the liberals tend to be more in favor of personal liberty.

What personal liberty?
This Administration is closing down personnel bank accounts.

I have no idea what you are talking about on "personnel bank accounts". However, on the state level we have so called "conservatives" who are doing all in their power to restrict the personal liberty of citizens. Severe restrictions on abortions, limitations on access to voting, gerrymandering, laws regarding sexual contact between consenting adults, laws against same sex marriage. It all boils down to them telling us how we can or cannot live our lives.

I am always amazed (perhaps disenheartened is a better word) at people who will scream if someone tells them they can't buy a particular thing but think nothing of someone telling them who they can love or what control they are allowed over their own body. Those are some seriously screwed up priorities. Or perhaps when they talk about liberty they only mean their liberty, not anyone else's.

Social Conservatives believe that abortion is murder, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
Gerrymandering is something that is done by the party in charge of state governments to enhance their chances to win districts. It is temporary, except for places like Connecticut, California and New York where Liberals have a permanent lock on control of state government. If you truly do want to end gerrymandering, end it in Democrat controlled states and gain control of GOP controlled states and redraw their districts impartially.

Access to voting? You want me to submit to background checks and registration to exercise my protected right, but are unwilling to present ID proving your eligibility to vote? How friggin disingenuous is THAT?

 

[Derideo_Te]

This is what our Government is all about, this is why we are a Republic so that certain ideologies can get their views of representation and laws.

We would not have abortion rights if the left had not shut down the Government 7 times and was unwilling to compromise when they wanted their reckless and irresponsible extremism of their rights to want to kill innocent little babies who have no voice. Your argument goes both ways C Clayton Jones.

It was the Democrats who would not compromise with working towards a reasonable delay of the Health Care Law that shut the Government down. Then did a delay anyway and blamed the Republicans for the shut down.

Sorry I tend to forget that many here was not alive back then and assume that many should know U.S. History.
In other words this stuff should be taught in our schools.

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.607992087390259012&pid=15.1

O’Neill presided over a total of seven government shutdowns under Reagan, and five during the Jimmy Carter administration, meaning that he played a role in precisely two-thirds of all the government shutdowns since the modern budgeting process has been in place.

Interestingly, nearly all of the shutdowns that took place during the Carter administration, when Democrats also controlled the Senate under Senate majority leader Robert Byrd (D., W.Va.), were the result of disagreements over abortion policy, and lasted more than ten days on average. In several instances between 1977 and 1979, the Democratic House resisted the Democratic Senate’s efforts to expand the number of cases for which federal funds, via Medicaid, could be used to pay for abortion. The government partially shut down three times for a total of 28 days between September and December 1977 as lawmakers negotiated a compromise on the issue, although it would be revisited several times during subsequent shutdowns.

The point being that the liberals took a stand on their issue and refused to back down on abortion in the 70's and back then they were the minority in the party.

For starters your link does not go to your source at all.

Secondly the total number of shutdowns that were abortion related was 5 rather than 7.

Then we come to this utterly bogus allegation of yours;

We would not have abortion rights if the left had not shut down the Government 7 times and was unwilling to compromise when they wanted their reckless and irresponsible extremism of their rights to want to kill innocent little babies who have no voice.

The disputes were over Federal funding for abortions only. They had nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitutional privacy right to obtain an abortion.

So your entire diatribe was nothing but a red herring.

 

[peach174]

Sorry I tend to forget that many here was not alive back then and assume that many should know U.S. History.
In other words this stuff should be taught in our schools.

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.607992087390259012&pid=15.1

O’Neill presided over a total of seven government shutdowns under Reagan, and five during the Jimmy Carter administration, meaning that he played a role in precisely two-thirds of all the government shutdowns since the modern budgeting process has been in place.

Interestingly, nearly all of the shutdowns that took place during the Carter administration, when Democrats also controlled the Senate under Senate majority leader Robert Byrd (D., W.Va.), were the result of disagreements over abortion policy, and lasted more than ten days on average. In several instances between 1977 and 1979, the Democratic House resisted the Democratic Senate’s efforts to expand the number of cases for which federal funds, via Medicaid, could be used to pay for abortion. The government partially shut down three times for a total of 28 days between September and December 1977 as lawmakers negotiated a compromise on the issue, although it would be revisited several times during subsequent shutdowns.

The point being that the liberals took a stand on their issue and refused to back down on abortion in the 70's and back then they were the minority in the party.

For starters your link does not go to your source at all.

Secondly the total number of shutdowns that were abortion related was 5 rather than 7.

Then we come to this utterly bogus allegation of yours;

We would not have abortion rights if the left had not shut down the Government 7 times and was unwilling to compromise when they wanted their reckless and irresponsible extremism of their rights to want to kill innocent little babies who have no voice.

The disputes were over Federal funding for abortions only. They had nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitutional privacy right to obtain an abortion.

So your entire diatribe was nothing but a red herring.

Two of them were very small and was over the weekend.
Where did I say Constitutional privacy right?

Abortion is not in our Constitution. The Courts ruled on it and it can be overturned in the future like many Supreme Court rulings have been done before.

My point was that the liberals who were a small amount in the 70's shut the government down over their ideology.

Tea Party did not shut down the government.
The Dem's refused to negotiate over a delay in the implementing of the Health Care Law.
Dem's shut it down.
The Government did not shut down over the Tea Party wanting to repeal the Health Care Law.


Sorry here is the link
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/360135/when-tip-did-it-andrew-stiles

 

[Derideo_Te]

Sorry I tend to forget that many here was not alive back then and assume that many should know U.S. History.
In other words this stuff should be taught in our schools.

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.607992087390259012&pid=15.1

O’Neill presided over a total of seven government shutdowns under Reagan, and five during the Jimmy Carter administration, meaning that he played a role in precisely two-thirds of all the government shutdowns since the modern budgeting process has been in place.

Interestingly, nearly all of the shutdowns that took place during the Carter administration, when Democrats also controlled the Senate under Senate majority leader Robert Byrd (D., W.Va.), were the result of disagreements over abortion policy, and lasted more than ten days on average. In several instances between 1977 and 1979, the Democratic House resisted the Democratic Senate’s efforts to expand the number of cases for which federal funds, via Medicaid, could be used to pay for abortion. The government partially shut down three times for a total of 28 days between September and December 1977 as lawmakers negotiated a compromise on the issue, although it would be revisited several times during subsequent shutdowns.

The point being that the liberals took a stand on their issue and refused to back down on abortion in the 70's and back then they were the minority in the party.

For starters your link does not go to your source at all.

Secondly the total number of shutdowns that were abortion related was 5 rather than 7.

Then we come to this utterly bogus allegation of yours;

We would not have abortion rights if the left had not shut down the Government 7 times and was unwilling to compromise when they wanted their reckless and irresponsible extremism of their rights to want to kill innocent little babies who have no voice.

The disputes were over Federal funding for abortions only. They had nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitutional privacy right to obtain an abortion.

So your entire diatribe was nothing but a red herring.

Two of them were very small and was over the weekend.
Where did I say Constitutional privacy right?

Abortion is not in our Constitution. The Courts ruled on it and it can be overturned in the future like many Supreme Court rulings have been done before.

The SCOTUS ruling for RvW cited the Constitutional right to privacy as the basis for abortion. Overturning RvW would require negating your right to privacy. That means that the government will have the right to search your home at any time it likes, look into your personal medical history at will and have access to your bank accounts, credit card records, etc, etc. Are you willing to give all that up because that is what it will take.

My point was that the liberals who were a small amount in the 70's shut the government down over their ideology.

Tea Party did not shut down the government.
The Dem's refused to negotiate over a delay in the implementing of the Health Care Law.
Dem's shut it down.
The Government did not shut down over the Tea Party wanting to repeal the Health Care Law.


Sorry here is the link
When Tip Did It | National Review Online

The latest government shutdowns were driven entirely by the Tea Party ideologues. Neither the Speaker nor the Senate Minority leader were in favor of those shutdowns. However they allowed the Tea Party to shut down the government to make a point about spending. They drew the line when the Tea Party threatened to violate the creditworthiness of the US government.

 

[PratchettFan]

What personal liberty?
This Administration is closing down personnel bank accounts.

I have no idea what you are talking about on "personnel bank accounts". However, on the state level we have so called "conservatives" who are doing all in their power to restrict the personal liberty of citizens. Severe restrictions on abortions, limitations on access to voting, gerrymandering, laws regarding sexual contact between consenting adults, laws against same sex marriage. It all boils down to them telling us how we can or cannot live our lives.

I am always amazed (perhaps disenheartened is a better word) at people who will scream if someone tells them they can't buy a particular thing but think nothing of someone telling them who they can love or what control they are allowed over their own body. Those are some seriously screwed up priorities. Or perhaps when they talk about liberty they only mean their liberty, not anyone else's.

Social Conservatives believe that abortion is murder, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
Gerrymandering is something that is done by the party in charge of state governments to enhance their chances to win districts. It is temporary, except for places like Connecticut, California and New York where Liberals have a permanent lock on control of state government. If you truly do want to end gerrymandering, end it in Democrat controlled states and gain control of GOP controlled states and redraw their districts impartially.

Access to voting? You want me to submit to background checks and registration to exercise my protected right, but are unwilling to present ID proving your eligibility to vote? How friggin disingenuous is THAT?

You are assuming what I want you to do and you assume wrong. But let me turn that around. You object to restrictions on your ability to purchase an inanimate object but you think you have the right to tell a woman what is going to happen to her own body? How friggin disingenuous is THAT?

So let me make this clear, I am not defending anything the democrats or any other politicians might do. And to point to other politicians doing wrong to justify doing the same thing is also "friggin disingenuous". If they think abortion is murder or same sex marriage is wrong, they are free not to do it. But when they attempt to impose that upon others and insist that only their opinion is allowed, then that is an assault upon personal liberty. To claim one is for freedom in one breath and then submit and support bills like that is simply lying. They do not believe in freedom.

Do other politicians do the same? Absolutely. And I object to them just as much. But don't even try to tell me these folks are only about fiscal responsibility when they do nothing to promote fiscal responsibility and do so much to curtail freedom. They are about imposing their own social agenda upon the rest of us.

 

[Nutz]

Teapers aren't about personal liberty. Those are just talking points and diversions from what they really believe...which, as you have seen in this thread, is a big secret. The truth of the matter is, as I have shown through numerous links and has been proven by the very comments of teapers on this forum, is that the teaper ideology is all based on hate for minorities and hate for the government. They create scandals and elevate innocence to conspiracies in their effort to start an armed insurrection.

Trying to curb pornography is a violation of personal liberty but abortions are a no no. Gay marriage is wrong, but shooting a black kid for walking in the wrong neighborhood is right. They want law and order, but Cliven Bundy doesn't apply. The hypocrisy is sickening and proof of dishonesty.

(And just to point out, I am against abortion, gay marriage and I could give a shit about Trayvon...but I am not a hypocrite about it...I don't make excuses or manufacture a lie to justify my belief system.

 

[ScienceRocks]

You fight the tea party by rising science, infrastructure and educational funding by 10% into the 2014-2016 platform!

Get out of the middle east completely by 2016 to pay for it.

Time to attack fire with more fire! Fight it....