Perhaps you are right, but remember we've done this amnesty thing before, it didn't work out so well. So, where I'm not 100% opposed to this idea, I think there are prerequisites we need to get done first to make sure we don't have to do this ever again. If they come up with a plan that provides for viable border protection (a fence, wall or something that is effective) to be in place, where we have strict employment laws, systems and enforcement that make it extremely hard to employ workers who are not properly documented, and where we have PROOF positive that the measures have been implemented and are being enforced and maintained effectively. At that point, discussing the fate of those who are already here is something we can do. Until then? No sale, no amnesty.
So... What is the guy saying? As long as you are not trying to make a quick buck by building substandard stuff that uses their patent, then all is well? "Good Faith" is basically a judgment call about ones motives. Sometimes this judgment call is easy to make, but sometimes the issue is more obscured. What rights does Tesla wish to keep for these patents? The right to refuse because of "bad faith" is what he's saying, but in what ways could one use their patents in "bad faith"? If my stated goal was to ruin Tesla's business, would that be "bad faith"? (Not that I would)
But, this term still allows for subjective interpretation of what "Good Faith" is in terms of Tesla's patents. Would it be "bad faith" for someone to take the patent design a product and compete with Tesla? What if I managed to put them out of business in the process? How about just making a profit using their patent? Is Tesla just saying "don't' build junk" stuff and we are good or what? We don't know.
You see, if you don't have license terms spelled out, this whole thing is subjective, and you'd be stupid to use their patents.
I guess I'm saying that I would want to see the license terms, in writing, before I went with what the CEO said. Talk is cheap, lawyers on the other hand are expensive.
many people are still afraid of electric cars for one reason or another.
I'm not afraid of them, they just do not suit my daily driving needs and their TCO is still higher than the standard gasoline fueled cars available. It's not about fear, but economics and how impractical they are in practice. I need a car that can reliably go 200 miles at 30 - 70 MPH on a hot day without recharging, carry 4 comfortably and has a TCO that compares to the used Honda Accord I have now. Right now, such electric cars don't exist, or they are hugely expensive.
This press release is all fine and good, but what does the qualifier "In Good Faith" mean?
Until Tesla provides a license with the legal verbiage that describes "In Good Faith" I'm not so ready to start the celebrations. Without a license to use the patent, you are stupid to knowingly infringe on it, regardless of what some CEO says in a press release.
One of my best friends is a flaming liberal leftist (my description). He runs about Texas with Obama bumper stickers from both elections, and although we politically disagree on just about everything, there is one thing we both recognize is that both sides have their rhetoric, pet sayings and a lot of it is demeaning. Where he does NOT object to being called a liberal, progressive and such (because that's what he is) I don't go around bashing his head in with "Well you are a commie pinko!" because he's not, even if his ideas logically are the same. He generally refrains from calling me a "teabagger" and other such nonsense because we both enjoy intelligent discussion and thoughtful debate on the issues.
So you your comment, I see the other side engaged in similar behavior and you don't seem to see it. I ask you why? I don't discount the rhetoric issue, because if you *think* about it, the 10 second sound bite is what you get in today's media so if the nightly news is all you get, the over the top rhetoric is all you will hear.
I'll give you a few of the sound bites from your side "War on Women", "Dirty air and water", "Want Children to Starve", "the party of NO", "Homophobic", "Raciest" etc. None of these are remotely true, They don't represent the principles or position taken by the party or anybody in it, yet they get bantered about in liberal circles like the weather forecast.
So.. Grow up a bit and actually think about what's really being said on both sides. Yea it takes a bit of effort to get past the sound bites, but it's worth the effort to be informed. I don't expect you to see things my way, but at least we can talk about the issues without breaking down into the verbal equivalent of bashing each others' heads in.
BTW, your choice of objectionable terms are perhaps a bit over the top, but in general are true descriptions of the Democrats positions, or more to fact the RESULT of their actions. "Class Warfare" is an accurate description of tactics being used to paint Republicans as just an exclusive party of "rich white men" which it is obviously not. Obamacare is what the Democrats called the ACA when it was popular, now they want to back away from it because it's not popular. "Tax and Spend" describes the mentality of Democrats and their propensity to spend money on social programs and raise taxes, which they really do. "Job Killing" is a description of a side effect of various Democratic policies (Obamacare, raising taxes on the rich, minimum wage hike all do that). "Death Panels" are a necessary feature of ANY government run healthcare program that you intend to run on a budget and just because you don't like the term, doesn't mean the charge is untrue.
So which side is using the most double speak? Who's pot is the dirtiest? I don't think it's the right....
So, a principled approach that protects the defenseless is a problem for you? You *do* understand that those who are pro-life out of principle are not a threat to *your* life or liberty? They are pro-life because they believe they are trying to protect life, not squash liberty. Again, I think your fearing them is inappropriate, unless you can come up with a logical argument that addresses how unrestricted abortions are a good thing.
On the Gay Marriage thing, personally I don't care about the issue, in as much as it is not my business. The problem is that the LGBT community has forced it to be my business by demanding their "natural right" to marry who or what they want and get it legally recognized by the state. The *real* goal has little to do with marriage, but has more to do with forcing those with private moral objections into having to accept the life style or face legal troubles. Their point is not about being "married" but about legally forcing acceptance. That is why we get court rulings that force some baker to make wedding cakes for weddings he morally objects to being involved with. So, in reality, this issue is about the reduction in liberty, and is being forced upon me. Where I didn't care about the two dudes living two doors up before (what they did on their property was there business) now they want me to be legally forced to acknowledge (and thus approve) in behavior I find morally wrong so on that basis I object. My freedoms are being infringed. Now if they want to call this "civil unions" or some such, and drop the pushing of making their life style choice my business, I have no issues. But that's not how this is going right now.
So you are OK with the Social liberal agenda where we are regulated on things as stupid as how big of a soft drink we can buy at 7-11?
I think you are confused. The Tea Party is about LESS intrusion of government in your life, both in taxes and regulation. So personally, I don't think your personal freedoms are at risk with them in control. You would find yourself with more freedom, with a smaller government which taxed you less.
Now if you are talking about social programs SPENDING then, yea, they would reduce this kind of spending, but I don't see them out to starve people or deny people who cannot work a living. But you have to admit that the government cannot be the supporter of those who could work, but choose not too, which is a huge portion of what we are spending on social programs.
I think liberals actually fear having to take personal responsibility for themselves when they say things like you say. People have an amazing ability to make it work when they are motivated. Well, I say we make it clear THEY are responsible for their own life, and stand back and see what they can accomplish. Liberals seem to fear that everybody will make the wrong choices or something. Now if you LET people be lazy, they will be, but if you expect them to provide for themselves, people will generally make out better than what welfare does for them now.
Finally, everybody would be better off if we didn't have to pay such high tax rates. There would be more economic activity each time a dollar cycled though when there was less scraped off the top by taxes. Plus, all the business that went overseas to chase lower tax rates might actually return if you cut taxes, not right away, but eventually. How bad is that?
The positions matter less than ending the corruption.
How about we do that with "Term Limits" ? Make it so you can server no more than 12 years in total between both houses, which is 2 senate terms or 6 house terms. After that, you go home.
You mean like how we had that for 2 years with the Democrats and all we got was Obamacare? I'm not so sure single party rule spells doom. Even at the extreme views, folks generally mean well, even if they are misguided in principle so neither side is going to do really go off the deep end, although, there is a strong case for the leftist in the White House to the contrary. Where I don't agree with the Democrats and their policy and see their principles as foolish, I don't ascribe malice to their motives.
But, back onto your point... Being that the Tea Party doesn't run candidates, your fears will never be realized. However, there seems to be a strong possibility that the Republicans will regain control of both houses in the next election, which will set up the 2016 presidential election that will be *very* interesting. Until we know who the candidates turn out to be in the middle of 2016 it's anybody's guess who wins, but w/o an incumbent and the "historical" Obama hype, one can easily see how the White House will change party hands. So, get prepared to deal with January 2017 and having zero say.. It could happen.
Where I see you point, I disagree. If the Tea Party really went third party, it would just empower the Democrats who would pretty much be running unchecked as the two waring parties split the Republican base. Of course, if you just want the Democrats in power, the third party would be your dream...
So, if you are thinking about this, what you do as the Tea Party is you pull the Republican party your direction by winning primaries and elections. But that takes getting votes, which means that this is really in the hands of the people. If the Tea Party candidates start winning elections, the Republican party gets pulled in their direction. If the Tea Party doesn't win elections, it ends up in the dust bin of history...
BTW, I consider anybody who uses the "teabagger" name a dishonest broker and liberal robot.
And I find it hilarious that they originally called THEMSELVES that. Until folks hit them with a cluebat.
Funny as you find it, liberals have seen to educating the masses about the vulgar meaning of that term, then glory in their use of the term when referring to the group. Which turns out to be a sad commentary on the people who foster the vulgar use of the term to denigrate their political opponents.
You do realize that the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party does NOT support some of the things you think.
You are projecting onto them things you FEAR they might support or are TOLD they would support. I've never heard anybody at the Tea Party rallies I've been to discussing voter ID laws much less keeping women from voting. In fact, they would oppose changing women suffrage because it is a valid part of our constitution.
What the Tea Party WOULD support is the reading of the constitution as originally intended when it was written, including all the amendments which have been adopted by the states when they where written, which includes the 15th, 19th and 26th amendments. They are for less government, Smaller government, and lower taxes.... Which does NOT include much of what you fear they are for.
You know, normally I would agree that intentionally inflammatory speech is bad for discourse, but given your own use of intentionally inflammatory speech in your calling out GP's, I think he gets a pass.
Up to you.... However, in my defense, I was attempting to be clever and illustrate my point using a touch of sarcasm, illustrating stupidity by being stupid and all that.
On the other thing, it is certainly NOT the intention of liberals to identify the Tea Party with anything that approaches a discussion of their founding principles or guiding ideals and throwing tea bags into the crowd might lead folks to investigate that. Liberals cannot have that happen because most folks would generally agree with the Tea Party in principle, if not practice. Liberals know this, which is why almost everybody now knows what the vulgar meaning of the term is, which is generally why liberals choose to use the term. The thinking ones know why they use the term. The parrots don't care. No need to deal with either.
What he said.... All this talk about the Democrats trying to rig this is just talk that is trying to explain how the "radical right" could ever impact an election when it was supposed to be DEAD just a month ago. Wishful thinking and speculation... But this is also NOT proof that the Tea Party is taking over anything. This is JUST A PRIMARY folks, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter that much to either side.
Just like Obama's presidency then... Talk about being dead politically, He's going to face a Republican congress and withering abuse as he has to veto bill after bill they send his way, not to mention that unless something happens he's going to have the worst job approval numbers seen in modern history.
My question is how will the narcissistic guy handle it because those types don't do well in these situations... Will he go off the rails or just start playing a lot more golf.... I'm hoping for the latter, although the former would be more fun. Watching the Democrats deal with him would be fun, and pretty much seal the fate of the next candidate with a "D" after their name.
Romney was just right of center, just like Obama was left of center at least for the campaigns.
So, you may define the Tea Party as radical right, and in some ways it is, but the Republican party is not even close to being far right. Why? Everybody tries to capture the center, who are the people who really decide many of the elections anyway...
Those who loudly proclaim that this one primary is proof of anything (the Republican's going crazy or even its resurgence) are making a mountain out of a molehill. The party isn't dead, the Tea Party is still active and we all wait for November to find out if this is a good thing for Republicans or not.... However, it does seem that Obama's policies are going to be a huge drag on the Democrats this round, but the mid-terms in a lame duck presidency usually are bad news for the party that holds the white house, so I suppose even when the Republicans win all this will still be the subject of many debate.
OK. Just remember that at this point your opinion is not objective, but subjective. The elections are what really matter, and THAT is the real objective measure of the Tea Party's success or failure....
BTW, I consider anybody who uses the "teabagger" name a dishonest broker and liberal robot. If you start by trying to offend your opponent (and make no mistake, this term is intended to offend) you really must have nothing better to say than the standard liberal talking points, which I find boring on top of being offensive. You could at least try to be clever or somehow unique, other wise, I don't have the time for boring offensive leftist ideologues.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you are right, but remember we've done this amnesty thing before, it didn't work out so well. So, where I'm not 100% opposed to this idea, I think there are prerequisites we need to get done first to make sure we don't have to do this ever again. If they come up with a plan that provides for viable border protection (a fence, wall or something that is effective) to be in place, where we have strict employment laws, systems and enforcement that make it extremely hard to employ workers who are not properly documented, and where we have PROOF positive that the measures have been implemented and are being enforced and maintained effectively. At that point, discussing the fate of those who are already here is something we can do. Until then? No sale, no amnesty.
So... What is the guy saying? As long as you are not trying to make a quick buck by building substandard stuff that uses their patent, then all is well? "Good Faith" is basically a judgment call about ones motives. Sometimes this judgment call is easy to make, but sometimes the issue is more obscured. What rights does Tesla wish to keep for these patents? The right to refuse because of "bad faith" is what he's saying, but in what ways could one use their patents in "bad faith"? If my stated goal was to ruin Tesla's business, would that be "bad faith"? (Not that I would)
But, this term still allows for subjective interpretation of what "Good Faith" is in terms of Tesla's patents. Would it be "bad faith" for someone to take the patent design a product and compete with Tesla? What if I managed to put them out of business in the process? How about just making a profit using their patent? Is Tesla just saying "don't' build junk" stuff and we are good or what? We don't know.
You see, if you don't have license terms spelled out, this whole thing is subjective, and you'd be stupid to use their patents.
I guess I'm saying that I would want to see the license terms, in writing, before I went with what the CEO said. Talk is cheap, lawyers on the other hand are expensive.
many people are still afraid of electric cars for one reason or another.
I'm not afraid of them, they just do not suit my daily driving needs and their TCO is still higher than the standard gasoline fueled cars available. It's not about fear, but economics and how impractical they are in practice. I need a car that can reliably go 200 miles at 30 - 70 MPH on a hot day without recharging, carry 4 comfortably and has a TCO that compares to the used Honda Accord I have now. Right now, such electric cars don't exist, or they are hugely expensive.
This press release is all fine and good, but what does the qualifier "In Good Faith" mean?
Until Tesla provides a license with the legal verbiage that describes "In Good Faith" I'm not so ready to start the celebrations. Without a license to use the patent, you are stupid to knowingly infringe on it, regardless of what some CEO says in a press release.
One of my best friends is a flaming liberal leftist (my description). He runs about Texas with Obama bumper stickers from both elections, and although we politically disagree on just about everything, there is one thing we both recognize is that both sides have their rhetoric, pet sayings and a lot of it is demeaning. Where he does NOT object to being called a liberal, progressive and such (because that's what he is) I don't go around bashing his head in with "Well you are a commie pinko!" because he's not, even if his ideas logically are the same. He generally refrains from calling me a "teabagger" and other such nonsense because we both enjoy intelligent discussion and thoughtful debate on the issues.
So you your comment, I see the other side engaged in similar behavior and you don't seem to see it. I ask you why? I don't discount the rhetoric issue, because if you *think* about it, the 10 second sound bite is what you get in today's media so if the nightly news is all you get, the over the top rhetoric is all you will hear.
I'll give you a few of the sound bites from your side "War on Women", "Dirty air and water", "Want Children to Starve", "the party of NO", "Homophobic", "Raciest" etc. None of these are remotely true, They don't represent the principles or position taken by the party or anybody in it, yet they get bantered about in liberal circles like the weather forecast.
So.. Grow up a bit and actually think about what's really being said on both sides. Yea it takes a bit of effort to get past the sound bites, but it's worth the effort to be informed. I don't expect you to see things my way, but at least we can talk about the issues without breaking down into the verbal equivalent of bashing each others' heads in.
BTW, your choice of objectionable terms are perhaps a bit over the top, but in general are true descriptions of the Democrats positions, or more to fact the RESULT of their actions. "Class Warfare" is an accurate description of tactics being used to paint Republicans as just an exclusive party of "rich white men" which it is obviously not. Obamacare is what the Democrats called the ACA when it was popular, now they want to back away from it because it's not popular. "Tax and Spend" describes the mentality of Democrats and their propensity to spend money on social programs and raise taxes, which they really do. "Job Killing" is a description of a side effect of various Democratic policies (Obamacare, raising taxes on the rich, minimum wage hike all do that). "Death Panels" are a necessary feature of ANY government run healthcare program that you intend to run on a budget and just because you don't like the term, doesn't mean the charge is untrue.
So which side is using the most double speak? Who's pot is the dirtiest? I don't think it's the right....
So, a principled approach that protects the defenseless is a problem for you? You *do* understand that those who are pro-life out of principle are not a threat to *your* life or liberty? They are pro-life because they believe they are trying to protect life, not squash liberty. Again, I think your fearing them is inappropriate, unless you can come up with a logical argument that addresses how unrestricted abortions are a good thing.
On the Gay Marriage thing, personally I don't care about the issue, in as much as it is not my business. The problem is that the LGBT community has forced it to be my business by demanding their "natural right" to marry who or what they want and get it legally recognized by the state. The *real* goal has little to do with marriage, but has more to do with forcing those with private moral objections into having to accept the life style or face legal troubles. Their point is not about being "married" but about legally forcing acceptance. That is why we get court rulings that force some baker to make wedding cakes for weddings he morally objects to being involved with. So, in reality, this issue is about the reduction in liberty, and is being forced upon me. Where I didn't care about the two dudes living two doors up before (what they did on their property was there business) now they want me to be legally forced to acknowledge (and thus approve) in behavior I find morally wrong so on that basis I object. My freedoms are being infringed. Now if they want to call this "civil unions" or some such, and drop the pushing of making their life style choice my business, I have no issues. But that's not how this is going right now.
Have you been to DC? Chicago? Oh.. Sorry, Obviously not.
So you are OK with the Social liberal agenda where we are regulated on things as stupid as how big of a soft drink we can buy at 7-11?
I think you are confused. The Tea Party is about LESS intrusion of government in your life, both in taxes and regulation. So personally, I don't think your personal freedoms are at risk with them in control. You would find yourself with more freedom, with a smaller government which taxed you less.
Now if you are talking about social programs SPENDING then, yea, they would reduce this kind of spending, but I don't see them out to starve people or deny people who cannot work a living. But you have to admit that the government cannot be the supporter of those who could work, but choose not too, which is a huge portion of what we are spending on social programs.
I think liberals actually fear having to take personal responsibility for themselves when they say things like you say. People have an amazing ability to make it work when they are motivated. Well, I say we make it clear THEY are responsible for their own life, and stand back and see what they can accomplish. Liberals seem to fear that everybody will make the wrong choices or something. Now if you LET people be lazy, they will be, but if you expect them to provide for themselves, people will generally make out better than what welfare does for them now.
Finally, everybody would be better off if we didn't have to pay such high tax rates. There would be more economic activity each time a dollar cycled though when there was less scraped off the top by taxes. Plus, all the business that went overseas to chase lower tax rates might actually return if you cut taxes, not right away, but eventually. How bad is that?
No, I think you fear the wrong party here..
If you think so, I'll change it to socialist when addressing you then... Unless you prefer communist?
You on the other hand are not clever.... Too bad you use AC to post so I don't know who to ignore from now on...
From a Canadian perspective, the Democrats are radically to the right, and the Tea Party is somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun or Mussolini.
Attila the Hun was right wing? How so?
Mussolini was anything but a conservative right winger...
Finally, what on earth do they teach you people up north about history these days..
The positions matter less than ending the corruption.
How about we do that with "Term Limits" ? Make it so you can server no more than 12 years in total between both houses, which is 2 senate terms or 6 house terms. After that, you go home.
Love the user name...
You mean like how we had that for 2 years with the Democrats and all we got was Obamacare? I'm not so sure single party rule spells doom. Even at the extreme views, folks generally mean well, even if they are misguided in principle so neither side is going to do really go off the deep end, although, there is a strong case for the leftist in the White House to the contrary. Where I don't agree with the Democrats and their policy and see their principles as foolish, I don't ascribe malice to their motives.
But, back onto your point... Being that the Tea Party doesn't run candidates, your fears will never be realized. However, there seems to be a strong possibility that the Republicans will regain control of both houses in the next election, which will set up the 2016 presidential election that will be *very* interesting. Until we know who the candidates turn out to be in the middle of 2016 it's anybody's guess who wins, but w/o an incumbent and the "historical" Obama hype, one can easily see how the White House will change party hands. So, get prepared to deal with January 2017 and having zero say.. It could happen.
Where I see you point, I disagree. If the Tea Party really went third party, it would just empower the Democrats who would pretty much be running unchecked as the two waring parties split the Republican base. Of course, if you just want the Democrats in power, the third party would be your dream...
So, if you are thinking about this, what you do as the Tea Party is you pull the Republican party your direction by winning primaries and elections. But that takes getting votes, which means that this is really in the hands of the people. If the Tea Party candidates start winning elections, the Republican party gets pulled in their direction. If the Tea Party doesn't win elections, it ends up in the dust bin of history...
BTW, I consider anybody who uses the "teabagger" name a dishonest broker and liberal robot.
And I find it hilarious that they originally called THEMSELVES that. Until folks hit them with a cluebat.
Funny as you find it, liberals have seen to educating the masses about the vulgar meaning of that term, then glory in their use of the term when referring to the group. Which turns out to be a sad commentary on the people who foster the vulgar use of the term to denigrate their political opponents.
You do realize that the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party does NOT support some of the things you think.
You are projecting onto them things you FEAR they might support or are TOLD they would support. I've never heard anybody at the Tea Party rallies I've been to discussing voter ID laws much less keeping women from voting. In fact, they would oppose changing women suffrage because it is a valid part of our constitution.
What the Tea Party WOULD support is the reading of the constitution as originally intended when it was written, including all the amendments which have been adopted by the states when they where written, which includes the 15th, 19th and 26th amendments. They are for less government, Smaller government, and lower taxes.... Which does NOT include much of what you fear they are for.
You know, normally I would agree that intentionally inflammatory speech is bad for discourse, but given your own use of intentionally inflammatory speech in your calling out GP's, I think he gets a pass.
Up to you.... However, in my defense, I was attempting to be clever and illustrate my point using a touch of sarcasm, illustrating stupidity by being stupid and all that.
On the other thing, it is certainly NOT the intention of liberals to identify the Tea Party with anything that approaches a discussion of their founding principles or guiding ideals and throwing tea bags into the crowd might lead folks to investigate that. Liberals cannot have that happen because most folks would generally agree with the Tea Party in principle, if not practice. Liberals know this, which is why almost everybody now knows what the vulgar meaning of the term is, which is generally why liberals choose to use the term. The thinking ones know why they use the term. The parrots don't care. No need to deal with either.
Ah, now THAT was clever enough to be interesting.... LOL
What he said.... All this talk about the Democrats trying to rig this is just talk that is trying to explain how the "radical right" could ever impact an election when it was supposed to be DEAD just a month ago. Wishful thinking and speculation... But this is also NOT proof that the Tea Party is taking over anything. This is JUST A PRIMARY folks, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter that much to either side.
I guess that 50/50 chance of immigration reform coming up for a vote has greatly diminished then.
Just like Obama's presidency then... Talk about being dead politically, He's going to face a Republican congress and withering abuse as he has to veto bill after bill they send his way, not to mention that unless something happens he's going to have the worst job approval numbers seen in modern history.
My question is how will the narcissistic guy handle it because those types don't do well in these situations... Will he go off the rails or just start playing a lot more golf.... I'm hoping for the latter, although the former would be more fun. Watching the Democrats deal with him would be fun, and pretty much seal the fate of the next candidate with a "D" after their name.
Romney was just right of center, just like Obama was left of center at least for the campaigns.
So, you may define the Tea Party as radical right, and in some ways it is, but the Republican party is not even close to being far right. Why? Everybody tries to capture the center, who are the people who really decide many of the elections anyway...
Then our political perspectives differ.
Those who loudly proclaim that this one primary is proof of anything (the Republican's going crazy or even its resurgence) are making a mountain out of a molehill. The party isn't dead, the Tea Party is still active and we all wait for November to find out if this is a good thing for Republicans or not.... However, it does seem that Obama's policies are going to be a huge drag on the Democrats this round, but the mid-terms in a lame duck presidency usually are bad news for the party that holds the white house, so I suppose even when the Republicans win all this will still be the subject of many debate.
OK. Just remember that at this point your opinion is not objective, but subjective. The elections are what really matter, and THAT is the real objective measure of the Tea Party's success or failure....
BTW, I consider anybody who uses the "teabagger" name a dishonest broker and liberal robot. If you start by trying to offend your opponent (and make no mistake, this term is intended to offend) you really must have nothing better to say than the standard liberal talking points, which I find boring on top of being offensive. You could at least try to be clever or somehow unique, other wise, I don't have the time for boring offensive leftist ideologues.