What Constitutes a "Right?"

[NYcarbineer]

Armed Rebellion Against Legal Government Is Unconstitutional, So is An Illegal Government that Ignores and Fails to Defend The Constitution. Why not Just say that You are a Statist, and when your kind are in control, they can do no wrong. It's Total Bullshit, Your God being the Consensus of the State, but you would at least be Honest about your convoluted views.

It's convoluted to believe that armed rebellion is unconstitutional? lol

There's no better way for a constitution to prove its legitimacy by encouraging armed rebellion against a government that violates the principles enshrined in the constitution. Does that make any sense? It does to me.

No, and our constitution does no such thing.

 

[rubberhead]

Armed Rebellion Against Legal Government Is Unconstitutional, So is An Illegal Government that Ignores and Fails to Defend The Constitution. .

I see.

So the Jews had no choice but to meekly march to the gas chambers, right?


What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? -- Thomas Jefferson



What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. -- Thomas Jefferson


.

Well, when tyranny returns, in a form more real than the fevered hallucinations of the wingnuts, then maybe Jefferson's quote will be applicable.

or as someone else put it, some people are confusing tyranny with losing an election.

Who said that tyranny has returned? Oh, I get it, you assume that we're anti-Obama because we believe in freedom and not violating the constitution. Congratulations on your election, dumbass. If you believe in social justice then why don't you just take all of your money and soak it into every lazy minority with their hand out and let the rest of us hang on to the evil, selfish notion that we are entitled to hold discretion over our own time and wealth (which is representative of time - "time is money" <=> "money is time"). Hey maybe if you make enough poor people dependent on you, then you too can be elected president! Then you can use the will of the majority to warp the constitution to whatever ends you seek! It's not totalitarianism yet, but we're moving in that direction. And people like you are helping. You disgust me.

 

[rubberhead]

You have yet to restate what I think in a way that shows you actually understand it, much less can form an argument against it. You are the intellectual equivalent of fast food. When faced with questions you cannot answer or that would reveal the gaping holes in whatever you call a view you change subjects or declare victory.
Total waste of DNA.

And again, the dissent of Rabbi Adolf fades further into the distance as he loses the will to fight what he now recognizes as an inevitable conclusion. It's as if the allied forces have arrived in Berlin and he is writing his suicide note. But this is not death, it is rebirth sweet Rabbi Adolf. You have realized that you are free and so you are. You are feeling the birth pangs now and in turn subjecting everyone who is still stopping to read your posts to your infantile whining. I will always stop to listen, because I am your father in this rebirth, Rabbi Adolf Hitler. Now let's get that foreskin snipped!

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Who said that tyranny has returned? Oh, I get it, you assume that we're anti-Obama because we believe in freedom and not violating the constitution. Congratulations on your election, dumbass. If you believe in social justice then why don't you just take all of your money and soak it into every lazy minority with their hand out and let the rest of us hang on to the evil, selfish notion that we are entitled to hold discretion over our own time and wealth (which is representative of time - "time is money" <=> "money is time"). Hey maybe if you make enough poor people dependent on you, then you too can be elected president! Then you can use the will of the majority to warp the constitution to whatever ends you seek! It's not totalitarianism yet, but we're moving in that direction. And people like you are helping. You disgust me.

See, Carter wasn't COMPLETELY wrong.

 

[rubberhead]

It's convoluted to believe that armed rebellion is unconstitutional? lol

There's no better way for a constitution to prove its legitimacy by encouraging armed rebellion against a government that violates the principles enshrined in the constitution. Does that make any sense? It does to me.

No, and our constitution does no such thing.

It doesn't need to, because a government that violates the constitution also does themselves the disservice of delegitimizing it and consequently, their own claim to power.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Excellent quote. I wonder why there weren't a bunch of Americans clamoring to get into the USSR? Maybe it was all the anti-communism propaganda that they were indoctrinated with. OR, maybe it's that people are naturally attracted to freedom and the best of us happily give our lives in its name. The rest of us humans call themselves Rabbi Hitler in hopes that our collectivist views and pathological hypocrisy will give us good standing with the overlords that methodically executed our ancestors. I'm glad those people will eventually be extinct because they give the human race a bad name and worse yet, they give me gas.

people go where there is MONEY...and FOOD...and where they can raise their families. People, largely, didn't go to the soviet union because there were no jobs, there was no food and you couldn't afford to live there.

hence them coming HERE...

do you really think "freedom" is the predominant reason people come here now? i suppose it was when the tsar's minions were breaking windows and doors on jewish homes during the pogroms, but I doubt it has muvh to do with anything now.

ROFLMNAO...

So people come here because of the money and the food...

Sweet Mother... you can't make this crap up kids.

These people are IMBECILES!

Money and FOOD A PLENTY are a direct function of FREEDOM... not vice versa.

Now let's take a look at one example where a LACK of freedom has changed what was for GENERATIONS... a valley of Vast wealth and FOOD A PLENTY, into a dust bowl...

Now this is a case where Communists, hiding behind the facade of ecology... have used the power of the US Government to prevent the farmers in California from getting WATER. And why are they preventing TENS OF MILLIONS OF ACRES OF PRIME FARM LAND? Why to save a 2" fish...

Now who are being sacrificed to save these fish? Why RICH FARMERS of course... and tens of thousands of people who work on those farms... Men, woman and (Brace yourself...) CHILDREN! Yep... children who depend upon the incomes which their parents used to recieve prior to the IDEOLOGICAL LEFT... and NO ONE BUT THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT... WHO HAVE IMPLEMENTED LEFT-THINK POLICY WHICH HAS TAKEN A ONCE PROSPEROUS LAND, WHICH PRODUCED BILLIONS OF TONS OF FOOD... FEEDING A FAIR CHUNK OF THE US AND THE WORLD... AND TURNED IT INTO A DESERT.

So by JUST removing FREEDOM... THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT: MEANING THE DEMOCRATS IN US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE DECIDED THAT THE FARMERS IN CALIFORNIA HAVE NO RIGHT TO USE WATER THAT IS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN A FISH!

Now all that means is that these people have DECIDED that a 2" FISH has rights which SUPERCEDE THE RIGHTS OF THE FARMERS TO USE THEIR LAND TO GROW FOOD AND YOUR RIGHT TO EAT THAT FOOD...

Thus demonstrating that FOOD and MONEY ARE A FUNCTION OF FREEDOM... and where FREEDOM IS LACKING, FOOD AND MONEY WILL BE LACKING.

 

[Intense]

natural rights
natural rights, political theory that maintains that an individual enters into society with certain basic rights and that no government can deny these rights. The modern idea of natural rights grew out of the ancient and medieval doctrines of natural law, i.e., the belief that people, as creatures of nature and God, should live their lives and organize their society on the basis of rules and precepts laid down by nature or God. With the growth of the idea of individualism, especially in the 17th cent., natural law doctrines were modified to stress the fact that individuals, because they are natural beings, have rights that cannot be violated by anyone or by any society. Perhaps the most famous formulation of this doctrine is found in the writings of John Locke. Locke assumed that humans were by nature rational and good, and that they carried into political society the same rights they had enjoyed in earlier stages of society, foremost among them being freedom of worship, the right to a voice in their own government, and the right of property. Jean Jacques Rousseau attempted to reconcile the natural rights of the individual with the need for social unity and cooperation through the idea of the social contract. The most important elaboration of the idea of natural rights came in the North American colonies, however, where the writings of Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Paine made of the natural rights theory a powerful justification for revolution. The classic expressions of natural rights are the English Bill of Rights (1689), the American Declaration of Independence (1776), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789), the first 10 amendments to the Constitution of the United States (known as the Bill of Rights, 1791), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations (1948).


natural rights &mdash; Infoplease.com




natural law
natural law, theory that some laws are basic and fundamental to human nature and are discoverable by human reason without reference to specific legislative enactments or judicial decisions. Natural law is opposed to positive law, which is human-made, conditioned by history, and subject to continuous change. The concept of natural law originated with the Greeks and received its most important formulation in Stoicism. The Stoics believed that the fundamental moral principles that underlie all the legal systems of different nations were reducible to the dictates of natural law. This idea became particularly important in Roman legal theory, which eventually came to recognize a common code regulating the conduct of all peoples and existing alongside the individual codes of specific places and times (see natural rights). Christian philosophers such as St. Thomas Aquinas perpetuated this idea, asserting that natural law was common to all peoples&#8212;Christian and non-Christian alike&#8212;while adding that revealed law gave Christians an additional guide for their actions. In modern times, the theory of natural law became the chief basis for the development by Hugo Grotius of the theory of international law. In the 17th cent., such philosophers as Spinoza and G. W. von Leibniz interpreted natural law as the basis of ethics and morality; in the 18th cent. the teachings of Jean Jacques Rousseau, especially as interpreted during the French Revolution, made natural law a basis for democratic and egalitarian principles. The influence of natural law theory declined greatly in the 19th cent. under the impact of positivism, empiricism, and materialism. In the 20th cent., such thinkers as Jacques Maritain saw in natural law a necessary intellectual opposition to totalitarian theories.


natural law &mdash; Infoplease.com

 

[rubberhead]

[Who said that tyranny has returned? Oh, I get it, you assume that we're anti-Obama because we believe in freedom and not violating the constitution. Congratulations on your election, dumbass. If you believe in social justice then why don't you just take all of your money and soak it into every lazy minority with their hand out and let the rest of us hang on to the evil, selfish notion that we are entitled to hold discretion over our own time and wealth (which is representative of time - "time is money" <=> "money is time"). Hey maybe if you make enough poor people dependent on you, then you too can be elected president! Then you can use the will of the majority to warp the constitution to whatever ends you seek! It's not totalitarianism yet, but we're moving in that direction. And people like you are helping. You disgust me.

See, Carter wasn't COMPLETELY wrong.

Yeah, there are lazy minorities. There are also hard-working ones. Same goes for whites. The hard-working ones generally don't stand around with their hands out waiting for a hand-out. But why bother if the RACIST-in-chief Barack Obama is just going to take what you've earned and give it to the MINORITIES with their hands out? Carter and you, remain COMPLETELY wrong.

 

[Contumacious]

Armed Rebellion Against Legal Government Is Unconstitutional, So is An Illegal Government that Ignores and Fails to Defend The Constitution. .

I see.

So the Jews had no choice but to meekly march to the gas chambers, right?


What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? -- Thomas Jefferson



What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. -- Thomas Jefferson


.

Well, when tyranny returns, in a form more real than the fevered hallucinations of the wingnuts, then maybe Jefferson's quote will be applicable.

or as someone else put it, some people are confusing tyranny with losing an election.

Yes, indeed they are.

They are also hallucinating when they believe that government is going to provide them nationalized hellcare.

They are hallucinating when they believe that they have to fly from US airports wearing a hospital gown and flip flops.

They are hallucinating when they believe that the federal government has powerful standing armies ready to pounce of them just for looking at them cross-eyed.


.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

[The only thing threatening my rights is human power and there is no greater huan power than human governance... thus only an imbecile would rely upon the greatest threat to their rights, to defend them.

Here's the thing you need to understand dumbass... YOU and ONLY YOU are responsible for defending your human rights; and FYI: you're also responsible for defending your neighbors rights...

..

Such shrillness, very unbecoming.

So be it... Shrillness is the least that one can expect from an American, when one is contesting the immutable principles of nature, on which the very concept of America rests.

Actually there are several hundred thousand government employees overseas defending your rights, aren't there?

They're called soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.

Those troops are there to seek out, close with and destroy the enemies of the US; by fire and manuever... An enemy who, FYI; feels, as you feel: that human rights are determined by the government.

Those troops are there to IMPART THE AFOREMENTIONED PRINCIPLES, upon those who would contest that I have such rights; thus they are there NOT TO DEFEND MY RIGHTS... but to defend MY MEANS EXERCISE MY RIGHTS... not to defend the rights themselves.

My rights will not be affected in the slightest by whether or not those troops prevail in that fight... Win or lose, I will have every right I was born with... as my rights are endowed by my Creator and are not affected by the opinions of those who believe otherwise.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

[Who said that tyranny has returned? Oh, I get it, you assume that we're anti-Obama because we believe in freedom and not violating the constitution. Congratulations on your election, dumbass. If you believe in social justice then why don't you just take all of your money and soak it into every lazy minority with their hand out and let the rest of us hang on to the evil, selfish notion that we are entitled to hold discretion over our own time and wealth (which is representative of time - "time is money" <=> "money is time"). Hey maybe if you make enough poor people dependent on you, then you too can be elected president! Then you can use the will of the majority to warp the constitution to whatever ends you seek! It's not totalitarianism yet, but we're moving in that direction. And people like you are helping. You disgust me.

See, Carter wasn't COMPLETELY wrong.

Sweet Non sequitur...

It implies that one can't be lazy if one is a minority... a presumption that is as absurd, as it is racist.

 

[The Rabbi]

There's no better way for a constitution to prove its legitimacy by encouraging armed rebellion against a government that violates the principles enshrined in the constitution. Does that make any sense? It does to me.

No, and our constitution does no such thing.

It doesn't need to, because a government that violates the constitution also does themselves the disservice of delegitimizing it and consequently, their own claim to power.

So you're saying that our government has been the model of upholding the Constitution, right?
Once again, you post nonsense that runs counter to history.

 

[Liability]

No, and our constitution does no such thing.

It doesn't need to, because a government that violates the constitution also does themselves the disservice of delegitimizing it and consequently, their own claim to power.

So you're saying that our government has been the model of upholding the Constitution, right?
Once again, you post nonsense that runs counter to history.

On one level the answer is "OF COURSE." What OTHER country would uphold our constitution? None. Thus, by definition, we HAVE to be "the model" for upholding our Constitution.

You will, no doubt, object and declare that that is not what you meant. Fair enough.

But that's not much help to you. For the truth is that while we may not be perfect at it (or even all that good at it) our government unquestionably DOES regularly make stern efforts to uphold our Constitution. I mean contemplate some examples:

President Richard Nixon got IMPEACHED for trying to cover up a crime in violation of his Constitutional duty to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Many here take it for granted. But I think that what America (via the Legislative Branch) did in that case is a remarkable example of our government doing something few other countries would EVER dream of.

Or, let's contemplate the Judicial System. We SAY that people have a right to remain silent. But in the days of yore, that was just lip service. And even though I happen to believe that the Miranda decision actually goes too far, it still serves as a fair example of our GOVERNMENT correcting a practice and forbidding itself from behaving in a particular way -- giving additional muscle to a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

Or, how about the Pentagon Papers case? Again, I think the actual judicial decision was misguided. But nevertheless, it cannot be seriously disputed that it is the GOVERNMENT giving TEETH to the First Amendment in a way that was quite contrary to the expressed desire OF a coordinate branch of that same government. And the Executive Branch -- in compliance with that Judicial Branch determination -- acquiesced.

I bet if you thought about if for a while you could probably come up with dozens of such examples.

 

[rubberhead]

No, and our constitution does no such thing.

It doesn't need to, because a government that violates the constitution also does themselves the disservice of delegitimizing it and consequently, their own claim to power.

So you're saying that our government has been the model of upholding the Constitution, right?
Once again, you post nonsense that runs counter to history.

No, quite to the contrary I think especially in the 20th and this young 21st century, our government has far exceeded its constitutional power and continues to do so. That's why I'm posting nonsense here, because I'm hoping to find others that agree with me or can be convinced to agree with me. Is your butt still sore from that sound rogering I gave you? Let me recommend a chill pill and some anal douche. Here take two of these and post me in the morning.

 

[rubberhead]

It doesn't need to, because a government that violates the constitution also does themselves the disservice of delegitimizing it and consequently, their own claim to power.

So you're saying that our government has been the model of upholding the Constitution, right?
Once again, you post nonsense that runs counter to history.

On one level the answer is "OF COURSE." What OTHER country would uphold our constitution? None. Thus, by definition, we HAVE to be "the model" for upholding our Constitution.

You will, no doubt, object and declare that that is not what you meant. Fair enough.

But that's not much help to you. For the truth is that while we may not be perfect at it (or even all that good at it) our government unquestionably DOES regularly make stern efforts to uphold our Constitution. I mean contemplate some examples:

President Richard Nixon got IMPEACHED for trying to cover up a crime in violation of his Constitutional duty to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Many here take it for granted. But I think that what America (via the Legislative Branch) did in that case is a remarkable example of our government doing something few other countries would EVER dream of.

Or, let's contemplate the Judicial System. We SAY that people have a right to remain silent. But in the days of yore, that was just lip service. And even though I happen to believe that the Miranda decision actually goes too far, it still serves as a fair example of our GOVERNMENT correcting a practice and forbidding itself from behaving in a particular way -- giving additional muscle to a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

Or, how about the Pentagon Papers case? Again, I think the actual judicial decision was misguided. But nevertheless, it cannot be seriously disputed that it is the GOVERNMENT giving TEETH to the First Amendment in a way that was quite contrary to the expressed desire OF a coordinate branch of that same government. And the Executive Branch -- in compliance with that Judicial Branch determination -- acquiesced.

I bet if you thought about if for a while you could probably come up with dozens of such examples.

There are also instances where the government has overstepped or distorted constitutional bounds. Two examples: declaration of war and welfare programs

Declaration of war: Typically done by congress, but as we saw with Iraq and Korea (and Vietnam I believe) this responsibility was deferred to the president who only takes control of a military campaign after war has been declared. This is to ensure that the people believe that war is necessary (and then effective once declared). Unfortunately, this practice has become the norm.

Welfare: The "general welfare" clause has been significantly distorted to deprive people of their property rights so that their wealth could be more "justly" allocated. This practice is reaching astonishing extremes and shows no sign of letting up.

Both of these institutionalized constitutional breaches should, in my opinion, be sufficient to delegitimize lawmaker or law interpreter that supports these ideas. Unfortunately, the debate has been shifted away from the constitution because no one really reads the constitution until they're feverishly searching for some obscure phrase that can be distorted for their own ends.

 

[Liability]

So you're saying that our government has been the model of upholding the Constitution, right?
Once again, you post nonsense that runs counter to history.

On one level the answer is "OF COURSE." What OTHER country would uphold our constitution? None. Thus, by definition, we HAVE to be "the model" for upholding our Constitution.

You will, no doubt, object and declare that that is not what you meant. Fair enough.

But that's not much help to you. For the truth is that while we may not be perfect at it (or even all that good at it) our government unquestionably DOES regularly make stern efforts to uphold our Constitution. I mean contemplate some examples:

President Richard Nixon got IMPEACHED for trying to cover up a crime in violation of his Constitutional duty to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Many here take it for granted. But I think that what America (via the Legislative Branch) did in that case is a remarkable example of our government doing something few other countries would EVER dream of.

Or, let's contemplate the Judicial System. We SAY that people have a right to remain silent. But in the days of yore, that was just lip service. And even though I happen to believe that the Miranda decision actually goes too far, it still serves as a fair example of our GOVERNMENT correcting a practice and forbidding itself from behaving in a particular way -- giving additional muscle to a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

Or, how about the Pentagon Papers case? Again, I think the actual judicial decision was misguided. But nevertheless, it cannot be seriously disputed that it is the GOVERNMENT giving TEETH to the First Amendment in a way that was quite contrary to the expressed desire OF a coordinate branch of that same government. And the Executive Branch -- in compliance with that Judicial Branch determination -- acquiesced.

I bet if you thought about if for a while you could probably come up with dozens of such examples.

There are also instances where the government has overstepped or distorted constitutional bounds. Two examples: declaration of war and welfare programs

Declaration of war: Typically done by congress, but as we saw with Iraq and Korea (and Vietnam I believe) this responsibility was deferred to the president who only takes control of a military campaign after war has been declared. This is to ensure that the people believe that war is necessary (and then effective once declared). Unfortunately, this practice has become the norm.

Welfare: The "general welfare" clause has been significantly distorted to deprive people of their property rights so that their wealth could be more "justly" allocated. This practice is reaching astonishing extremes and shows no sign of letting up.

Both of these institutionalized constitutional breaches should, in my opinion, be sufficient to delegitimize lawmaker or law interpreter that supports these ideas. Unfortunately, the debate has been shifted away from the constitution because no one really reads the constitution until they're feverishly searching for some obscure phrase that can be distorted for their own ends.

As I already said, we may not be perfect at it or even all that good at it, but we are a damn sight better at it than any other government you can probably name.

Yes, sometimes governments overstep bounds. It's easier to overstep bounds where bounds have actually been set.

Our government has overstepped some bounds, too. Nobody is disputing it. But if we can justly criticize the government for those instances, we should probably also take a step back and recognize the instances where it has WORKED -- and worked much better in that regard than any other government. And we would do well to bear in mind that our government has BUILT INTO IT the method for correcting such "out of bounds" transgressions.

That doesn't work in a vacuum, however. A government is not a machine nor a person. It is a collection of people. In OUR case, the government is what we say it is -- or perhaps what we are willing to permit it to become. And I say that latter with more than just a little bit of pessimism.

 

[The Rabbi]

It doesn't need to, because a government that violates the constitution also does themselves the disservice of delegitimizing it and consequently, their own claim to power.

So you're saying that our government has been the model of upholding the Constitution, right?
Once again, you post nonsense that runs counter to history.

No, quite to the contrary I think especially in the 20th and this young 21st century, our government has far exceeded its constitutional power and continues to do so. That's why I'm posting nonsense here, because I'm hoping to find others that agree with me or can be convinced to agree with me. Is your butt still sore from that sound rogering I gave you? Let me recommend a chill pill and some anal douche. Here take two of these and post me in the morning.

But the government is still in power. And shows no signs of leaving.
So you have, yet again for the umpteenth time, contradicted yourself.
Of course being rather thick, you no doubt won't understand that.

 

[rubberhead]

As I already said, we may not be perfect at it or even all that good at it, but we are a damn sight better at it than any other government you can probably name.

Yes, sometimes governments overstep bounds. It's easier to overstep bounds where bounds have actually been set.

Our government has overstepped some bounds, too. Nobody is disputing it. But if we can justly criticize the government for those instances, we should probably also take a step back and recognize the instances where it has WORKED -- and worked much better in that regard than any other government. And we would do well to bear in mind that our government has BUILT INTO IT the method for correcting such "out of bounds" transgressions.

That doesn't work in a vacuum, however. A government is not a machine nor a person. It is a collection of people. In OUR case, the government is what we say it is -- or perhaps what we are willing to permit it to become. And I say that latter with more than just a little bit of pessimism.

Careful there. You're becoming a bit of a Liability

Just kidding, but I do think it's dangerous to let violations of the constitution go, just because it works sometimes. It is just as serious if not more when our sovereignty is threatened from within than from without in my opinion.

 

[rubberhead]

So you're saying that our government has been the model of upholding the Constitution, right?
Once again, you post nonsense that runs counter to history.

No, quite to the contrary I think especially in the 20th and this young 21st century, our government has far exceeded its constitutional power and continues to do so. That's why I'm posting nonsense here, because I'm hoping to find others that agree with me or can be convinced to agree with me. Is your butt still sore from that sound rogering I gave you? Let me recommend a chill pill and some anal douche. Here take two of these and post me in the morning.

But the government is still in power. And shows no signs of leaving.
So you have, yet again for the umpteenth time, contradicted yourself.
Of course being rather thick, you no doubt won't understand that.

"In power" does not mean "legitimate"

 

[The Rabbi]

No, quite to the contrary I think especially in the 20th and this young 21st century, our government has far exceeded its constitutional power and continues to do so. That's why I'm posting nonsense here, because I'm hoping to find others that agree with me or can be convinced to agree with me. Is your butt still sore from that sound rogering I gave you? Let me recommend a chill pill and some anal douche. Here take two of these and post me in the morning.

But the government is still in power. And shows no signs of leaving.
So you have, yet again for the umpteenth time, contradicted yourself.
Of course being rather thick, you no doubt won't understand that.

"In power" does not mean "legitimate"

So you think the government of the US is not legitimate? You would be pretty much alone in that opinion. Not that it would bother you much.