Re:'the candidate lost but the campaign won'
on
Joe Trippi Interviewed
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
So, for example, Kerry may have been the winner of the 2004 primaries but the only thing anyone will remember is Joe Trippi and blogs and the cult-ish atmosphere the Dean campaign constructed.
Primaries? Remember? Hahah. The only people that remember primaries are wonks. It's like watching the full regular season of baseball. Who's doing that? Only the hardcore fans.
Of course, I don't see him talking about the other big conflict of interest: the millions of dollars in advertising kickbacks he walked off with.
I don't see it either. And in fact, I've never seen it, so if you would be so kind as to provide some backup to this unsubstatiated claim, that would be nice.
That "bizarre reason" is selflessness and an awareness of the greater good. If you want to boil it down to simple terms, Republicans would rather keep all of their money, while Democrats don't mind giving up a bit to help the less fortunate. Republicans are the party of business, and Democrats are the party of people. It just so happens that there are some businesspeople who still value people over money. It's sad that they are the minority.
Dunno how Rush is an authority on the Democratic party all of the sudden, but Trippi was not "stabed in the back" [sic], and has said so himself repeatedly since parting ways with the Dean campaign. It's just the nature of the game.
If you're in a position where you can seriously kill a bunch of people, you need to be regulated.
Parent did not argue against all regulations, but merely indicated that perhaps they should be revised to allow for greater deviations from what was considered "normal" when the regulations were developed, based on our further understanding of the human body.
That's why they don't offer members of the general public to fly commercial jets.
And parent specifically indicated that they felt these regulations were proper for commercial jets: "I accept being picky about choosing people to fly +400 people airliners, but please leave people alone who want to have some fun in a tiny 152."
The problem with the civil justice system in America today is not the fact that suits are brought. The GOP wants you to think this way, but it simply doesn't make sense. If the whole point is for the court to determine liability, why should the legislature specifically exempt large blocks of industries from liability? Why can't I be exempt from liability?
The reforms need to come in the courts. Part of the issue is that in many cases it is a jury determining liability. A judge cannot simply throw out a case because s/he doesn't think the company should be liable. That is up to the jury.
Corporations aren't helping themselves, either. Juries, and many American people, are fiercely anti-corporation. Maybe if corporations weren't always looking for the loophole, they would be treated nicer. Instead, if a jury sees a chance to get at a corporation, they will take it, because they know they are powerless otherwise. The fact that corporations whine about lawsuits while still making billions of dollars does not help their case. Also, corporations want it both ways. They want to use the courts, and tools like the DMCA, to push consumers around. However, they don't want consumers to be able to use the laws and courts to fight back.
For someone looking for pure Nintendo music, try here. A small Winamp plugin and you'll be listening to 'authentic' 8-bit NES music in no time. I recommend Solar Jetman, Faxanadu, Castlevanias, and Mega Mans, as a start. BTW, if anyone has better resources for ripping NSFs than the link, please let me know. I've been trying to rip a few but the instructions/tutorial on that page are unusable to me.
AFAIK, regulations on the title of "Engineer" are done at a state level. Professional Engineers are certified by the state, not NSPE.
I'm not a P.E., but I work at a firm full of them. Some engineers have 10-15 certificates on the wall, since each state requires that you publicly display your credentials at your place of work.
Behavior like that wont't help his cause regarding his 1992 match that was in violation of UN sanctions.
No, it won't help, but it shouldn't hurt, either. Those statements have no bearing on the issue at hand and Mr. Fischer is free to say whatever he likes.
Considering that public education already spends twice as much (on the average) per child than private education, and achieves comparatively poor results, yes, I consider it a very bad investment.
This link backs your assertion, but does indicate that the stats are misleading. Also, if you followed my lotto links, you'd see that New Jersey Lottery actually sends money to private schools to the tune of $57 million a year. Another good link.
As to performance, I think you're being tainted by the media. Are there bad public schools? Yes, that's clear. These are the schools covered in the media all the time. Are there good public schools? Yes. This is frequently glossed over.
Another crucial, crucial element that is frequently forgotten in the private v. public school debate is this: Private schools qualify their students. Public schools get the rest. If a private school doesn't want a bad student, they're out. Real easy for them. You can't throw a student who is having problems out of public school, you have to deal with the problem. When you get to pick and choose who you are going to teach, your students are going to be better. Duh.
There are a lot of poor parents who could send their children to a good private school for what they spend on lottery tickets. Instead, they send their children to inner-city slum schools and create another generation of dependency on public assistance programs.
You think there are people spending 5-10 grand a year on lotto? When their annual income, if they're lucky, is 30k? You have a seriously distorted view of how the poor live in this country. Maybe you should try living on some of the public assistance programs and see how much fun it is "freeloading" off of everyone else.
There's a problem with your theory. You think that there is an unmet demand for boats and that expansion is economically viable. In many markets, this is simply not the case. If the boatmaker can make a profit at the current production and staffing levels, how would he go bankrupt if he did not expand? The "always grow" school of economic thought is illogical. Demand has bounds.
Government doesn't really listen to the common people except once every four or so years but it listens to business all the time.
You know why? The cynical answer is money. And that is a part of it. However, do you know what businesses do when laws and regulations are promulgated that they don't agree with? They complain. Loudly. The percentage of businesses that are politically active is far greater than the percentage of people that are politically active. Did you see what happened the last time people complained loudly? IMO, the last occurence of that was with the "Do Not Call" list. Who won that argument, business or the people? The people did, because, for some reason, being called by a telemarketer was the worst thing that has happened to some people and they made sure that it won't happen again (or maybe it was just something our horribly divided electorate could agree on! ("I'm a uniter, not a divider" George W. Bush, 2000)).
Don't like a law? Write your local officials. They do listen, and they do have the power to change things. And if they don't listen? Vote for someone else.
I'm too lazy to link it now, but it came up after Reagan's death last month. Many people think that Reagan cut taxes. He did. However, many of the cuts were either reversed or simply offset through increases in other ways. For example, when you change the thresholds for exemptions and other tax code minutea, you can have the effect of making more people pay taxes. Reagan called this "Tax Reform" whenever he spoke about it in public. This isn't raising taxes, per se, but merely making the tax affect more people. It is an effective tax raise on a personal level, but politicians can point to the tax rate and say "Nope, didn't go up!" As we've seen from the election and possible re-election of Bush, people in this country are easily fooled.
I got unlazy, and here is one column that discusses this (among Reagan's many other non-conservative actions).
And poor people tend to spend their money poorly, like lottery tickets,
Do you know where lotto money goes? In New Jersey, it is split 36/56 between a mostly educational fund and the prize pool (The other 8% is overhead). Some of the money is spent by other government services, but only education or health services can be funded through the lottery. The NJ Lottery sent almost $400 million dollars to New Jersey's public universities and colleges in FY03. Is that really a bad way to spend money?
You're close, but Drudge's scoops more often come from the RNC, not the NYT. It doesn't take a genius to notice that Rush and Drudge are talking about the same thing every day. He got lucky with the Clinton scoop, and the RNC has been using him ever since. Whether or not he knows it, I can't say. He seems to view himself as a legitimate media source, but that just may be part of the act.
And probably LESS relevant than the sum total of whats available online - BBC, London Times, Die Zeit, Drudge, CNN.com, english.aljazeera.net, etc. etc.
Wow. You lump Drudge in with those other names? Please don't give him that much credit, considering 95% of his content is from those other names you list, plus the New York Times, Washington Post, and wire services.
If you're a typical outspoken, liberal New Yorker, then its your Bible.
ROFL! Go to any liberal blog, like DailyKos, and see how much bitching goes on about the NYT. Simply put, liberals are not happy with the NYT. They're a typical corporate media source like CNN, Fox, etc. Every once in a while they'll wake up with some real story or insight, but for the most part they're just doing their part to maintain the status quo and sell papers/ads. Maybe if Bush had a sex scandal they would start doing their job....
Just imagine if cars were sold with this many problems.
Head over to the NTSB (or FHWA, or NHTSA, I forget) site and look up manufacturer recalls for automobiles. While most recalls affect a small number of vehicles, there are many larger recalls that are not widely announced. Here is the list of recalls announced in just one month, March, of 2004. The total number of possible vehicles affected is 5,875,953. Note that the page says only 72% of vehicle owners actually have the recall work done. Looking over the list, it appears 20-30% of the vehicles affected have the possibility for serious problems, with most of the possible events being electrical fires. Again, this is just one month's worth of recalls.
Microsoft doesn't necessarily have to advertise competing products, but the rules are different when the market is not totally or even mostly free.
This sentiment is highly un-american and anti-free market. You're a good company unless you do too well? I mean, that's fucking silly. If a company can create a monopoly through good products and business strategy, there is no reason to punish them. The monopoly itself is not the problem here, and just about everyone here has forgotten that. The rules should NOT be different. The market is still free. You want to release an OS for x86? Go right ahead. You can even bundle a browser with it if you like.
You overestimate the knowledge of the general public when it comes to cars. When you see cars driving around with plumes of oil smoke coming out the back, and the driver does not appear concerned, it says that some people do not know a thing about the vehicle. As long as it is still moving them to their destination, they couldn't care less. It's the same thing with computers and Windows/IE.
The only way that laws like this will be overturned is if politicians start asking themselves "Is this law something that will benefit ALL the people or just some of the people?"
It's simple for a closet-minded individual to ask this question of the USA PATRIOT Act and come up with the answer of "this helps everyone! No terra!" The reduction of argument to black and white in this nation is what has ruined political discourse. When issues are boiled down to black and white questions like yours, no one wins. It's too simple for anyone to argue either side of your question, on any bill.
Take welfare. Clearly, it helps the people recieving welfare? Not according to some right-wingers. They would argue that giving people welfare makes them reliant on government and that they will never become self-reliant once they are on welfare.
Okay, well does welfare help everybody? A left-winger would say yes. It helps society as a whole because having extremely poor people leads to crime, homelessness, health issues and other social problems.
Aside from the black and white problem, it is simply becoming fact that the two parties in America disagree on almost every core issue. Abortion (GOP: Never? Well, *maybe*, if the mother is going to die. Dems: Safe, rare and legal), foreign policy (GOP: War, whenever we want. Dems: Hello, allies?), fiscal policy (GOP: Taxes are bad. Dems: Without taxes, gov't has no money), social policy (GOP: Corporations above people. Dems: People first), constitutional issues (GOP: States rights, but only when we like it. Dems: Strong central Government assures fairness for all citizens), the environment (GOP: Industry can't be harmed. Dems: The Environment can't be harmed), health care (GOP: Get it yourself, privatization is great. Dems: Everyone is entitled to health care). Anyone who thinks the parties are the same, such as Ralph Nader, needs to have their head examined.
Yes, everyone but Russ Feingold of Wisconsin voted for USA PATRIOT. However, the USA PATRIOT Act has a "sunset provision" that comes into effect 5 years after the bill is enacted. This basically means that the bill will go away after 5 years, unless Congress amends the bill to remove the sunset provision. The Democrats are wholly against removing this provision from the bill. There are few, if any, Republicans calling for the sunset provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act to remain.
Actually, while the naming was done to promote "unity" or some such (it was passed after the 9/11 attacks after all), it is actually an acronym. The real name is "USA PATRIOT Act" and the "USA PATRIOT" stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism."
Sorry, but some of Congress does get it. However, I don't think they get it quite the way you or I would want them to. The right wing has adjusted the 'southern strategy' (the name given to the strategy developed by Nixon and others during the 60s and 70s. They used fear to scare white southerners into voting Republican.. 'welfare queens' and all the associated racism and classism (which is ironic since most of the people swayed by this strategy were also poor)). This time, instead of making people think that all black people will just start rioting, they try to make us fear terra and terrists. Same concept, just a slightly different color skin. They use this fear to get power, and then use that power to erode freedoms and assist their special interests. You don't think we need a PATRIOT ACT? Unpatriotic! Unamerican! Weak! French! Vote Republican! Vote Strong Defense!
The right wing knows that the american public is still woefully ignorant and easily swayed by illogical, but emotional, arguments. They understand that all too well. It is the job of anyone who is against the right wing, be they democrats, greens, libertarians, anything, to educate fellow citizens to what is actually occurring in this nation. You don't need to suggest anyone to vote for, but you should be trying to get them to see why the right wing is not what it claims to be.
Slashdot Mirror
So, for example, Kerry may have been the winner of the 2004 primaries but the only thing anyone will remember is Joe Trippi and blogs and the cult-ish atmosphere the Dean campaign constructed.
Primaries? Remember? Hahah. The only people that remember primaries are wonks. It's like watching the full regular season of baseball. Who's doing that? Only the hardcore fans.
Of course, I don't see him talking about the other big conflict of interest: the millions of dollars in advertising kickbacks he walked off with.
I don't see it either. And in fact, I've never seen it, so if you would be so kind as to provide some backup to this unsubstatiated claim, that would be nice.
That "bizarre reason" is selflessness and an awareness of the greater good. If you want to boil it down to simple terms, Republicans would rather keep all of their money, while Democrats don't mind giving up a bit to help the less fortunate. Republicans are the party of business, and Democrats are the party of people. It just so happens that there are some businesspeople who still value people over money. It's sad that they are the minority.
"Compassionate Conservatism" is a red herring.
Considering there's only one winner every 4 years, it's hard to look at *any* career campaign manager and see a winning record.
Dunno how Rush is an authority on the Democratic party all of the sudden, but Trippi was not "stabed in the back" [sic], and has said so himself repeatedly since parting ways with the Dean campaign. It's just the nature of the game.
If you're in a position where you can seriously kill a bunch of people, you need to be regulated.
Parent did not argue against all regulations, but merely indicated that perhaps they should be revised to allow for greater deviations from what was considered "normal" when the regulations were developed, based on our further understanding of the human body.
That's why they don't offer members of the general public to fly commercial jets.
And parent specifically indicated that they felt these regulations were proper for commercial jets: "I accept being picky about choosing people to fly +400 people airliners, but please leave people alone who want to have some fun in a tiny 152."
The problem with the civil justice system in America today is not the fact that suits are brought. The GOP wants you to think this way, but it simply doesn't make sense. If the whole point is for the court to determine liability, why should the legislature specifically exempt large blocks of industries from liability? Why can't I be exempt from liability?
The reforms need to come in the courts. Part of the issue is that in many cases it is a jury determining liability. A judge cannot simply throw out a case because s/he doesn't think the company should be liable. That is up to the jury.
Corporations aren't helping themselves, either. Juries, and many American people, are fiercely anti-corporation. Maybe if corporations weren't always looking for the loophole, they would be treated nicer. Instead, if a jury sees a chance to get at a corporation, they will take it, because they know they are powerless otherwise. The fact that corporations whine about lawsuits while still making billions of dollars does not help their case. Also, corporations want it both ways. They want to use the courts, and tools like the DMCA, to push consumers around. However, they don't want consumers to be able to use the laws and courts to fight back.
For someone looking for pure Nintendo music, try here. A small Winamp plugin and you'll be listening to 'authentic' 8-bit NES music in no time. I recommend Solar Jetman, Faxanadu, Castlevanias, and Mega Mans, as a start. BTW, if anyone has better resources for ripping NSFs than the link, please let me know. I've been trying to rip a few but the instructions/tutorial on that page are unusable to me.
AFAIK, regulations on the title of "Engineer" are done at a state level. Professional Engineers are certified by the state, not NSPE.
I'm not a P.E., but I work at a firm full of them. Some engineers have 10-15 certificates on the wall, since each state requires that you publicly display your credentials at your place of work.
Awww.. a girl drawn to aesthetics! Just what I was looking for!
Behavior like that wont't help his cause regarding his 1992 match that was in violation of UN sanctions.
No, it won't help, but it shouldn't hurt, either. Those statements have no bearing on the issue at hand and Mr. Fischer is free to say whatever he likes.
Typical drek.
Considering that public education already spends twice as much (on the average) per child than private education, and achieves comparatively poor results, yes, I consider it a very bad investment.
This link backs your assertion, but does indicate that the stats are misleading. Also, if you followed my lotto links, you'd see that New Jersey Lottery actually sends money to private schools to the tune of $57 million a year. Another good link.
As to performance, I think you're being tainted by the media. Are there bad public schools? Yes, that's clear. These are the schools covered in the media all the time. Are there good public schools? Yes. This is frequently glossed over.
Another crucial, crucial element that is frequently forgotten in the private v. public school debate is this: Private schools qualify their students. Public schools get the rest. If a private school doesn't want a bad student, they're out. Real easy for them. You can't throw a student who is having problems out of public school, you have to deal with the problem. When you get to pick and choose who you are going to teach, your students are going to be better. Duh.
There are a lot of poor parents who could send their children to a good private school for what they spend on lottery tickets. Instead, they send their children to inner-city slum schools and create another generation of dependency on public assistance programs.
You think there are people spending 5-10 grand a year on lotto? When their annual income, if they're lucky, is 30k? You have a seriously distorted view of how the poor live in this country. Maybe you should try living on some of the public assistance programs and see how much fun it is "freeloading" off of everyone else.
There's a problem with your theory. You think that there is an unmet demand for boats and that expansion is economically viable. In many markets, this is simply not the case. If the boatmaker can make a profit at the current production and staffing levels, how would he go bankrupt if he did not expand? The "always grow" school of economic thought is illogical. Demand has bounds.
Government doesn't really listen to the common people except once every four or so years but it listens to business all the time.
You know why? The cynical answer is money. And that is a part of it. However, do you know what businesses do when laws and regulations are promulgated that they don't agree with? They complain. Loudly. The percentage of businesses that are politically active is far greater than the percentage of people that are politically active. Did you see what happened the last time people complained loudly? IMO, the last occurence of that was with the "Do Not Call" list. Who won that argument, business or the people? The people did, because, for some reason, being called by a telemarketer was the worst thing that has happened to some people and they made sure that it won't happen again (or maybe it was just something our horribly divided electorate could agree on! ("I'm a uniter, not a divider" George W. Bush, 2000)).
Don't like a law? Write your local officials. They do listen, and they do have the power to change things. And if they don't listen? Vote for someone else.
I'm too lazy to link it now, but it came up after Reagan's death last month. Many people think that Reagan cut taxes. He did. However, many of the cuts were either reversed or simply offset through increases in other ways. For example, when you change the thresholds for exemptions and other tax code minutea, you can have the effect of making more people pay taxes. Reagan called this "Tax Reform" whenever he spoke about it in public. This isn't raising taxes, per se, but merely making the tax affect more people. It is an effective tax raise on a personal level, but politicians can point to the tax rate and say "Nope, didn't go up!" As we've seen from the election and possible re-election of Bush, people in this country are easily fooled.
I got unlazy, and here is one column that discusses this (among Reagan's many other non-conservative actions).
And poor people tend to spend their money poorly, like lottery tickets,
Do you know where lotto money goes? In New Jersey, it is split 36/56 between a mostly educational fund and the prize pool (The other 8% is overhead). Some of the money is spent by other government services, but only education or health services can be funded through the lottery. The NJ Lottery sent almost $400 million dollars to New Jersey's public universities and colleges in FY03. Is that really a bad way to spend money?
You're close, but Drudge's scoops more often come from the RNC, not the NYT. It doesn't take a genius to notice that Rush and Drudge are talking about the same thing every day. He got lucky with the Clinton scoop, and the RNC has been using him ever since. Whether or not he knows it, I can't say. He seems to view himself as a legitimate media source, but that just may be part of the act.
And probably LESS relevant than the sum total of whats available online - BBC, London Times, Die Zeit, Drudge, CNN.com, english.aljazeera.net, etc. etc.
Wow. You lump Drudge in with those other names? Please don't give him that much credit, considering 95% of his content is from those other names you list, plus the New York Times, Washington Post, and wire services.
If you're a typical outspoken, liberal New Yorker, then its your Bible.
ROFL! Go to any liberal blog, like DailyKos, and see how much bitching goes on about the NYT. Simply put, liberals are not happy with the NYT. They're a typical corporate media source like CNN, Fox, etc. Every once in a while they'll wake up with some real story or insight, but for the most part they're just doing their part to maintain the status quo and sell papers/ads. Maybe if Bush had a sex scandal they would start doing their job....
Just imagine if cars were sold with this many problems.
Head over to the NTSB (or FHWA, or NHTSA, I forget) site and look up manufacturer recalls for automobiles. While most recalls affect a small number of vehicles, there are many larger recalls that are not widely announced. Here is the list of recalls announced in just one month, March, of 2004. The total number of possible vehicles affected is 5,875,953. Note that the page says only 72% of vehicle owners actually have the recall work done. Looking over the list, it appears 20-30% of the vehicles affected have the possibility for serious problems, with most of the possible events being electrical fires. Again, this is just one month's worth of recalls.
Microsoft doesn't necessarily have to advertise competing products, but the rules are different when the market is not totally or even mostly free.
This sentiment is highly un-american and anti-free market. You're a good company unless you do too well? I mean, that's fucking silly. If a company can create a monopoly through good products and business strategy, there is no reason to punish them. The monopoly itself is not the problem here, and just about everyone here has forgotten that. The rules should NOT be different. The market is still free. You want to release an OS for x86? Go right ahead. You can even bundle a browser with it if you like.
You overestimate the knowledge of the general public when it comes to cars. When you see cars driving around with plumes of oil smoke coming out the back, and the driver does not appear concerned, it says that some people do not know a thing about the vehicle. As long as it is still moving them to their destination, they couldn't care less. It's the same thing with computers and Windows/IE.
Why is Ford to blame for any of those things? What if people just like Ford?
The only way that laws like this will be overturned is if politicians start asking themselves "Is this law something that will benefit ALL the people or just some of the people?"
It's simple for a closet-minded individual to ask this question of the USA PATRIOT Act and come up with the answer of "this helps everyone! No terra!" The reduction of argument to black and white in this nation is what has ruined political discourse. When issues are boiled down to black and white questions like yours, no one wins. It's too simple for anyone to argue either side of your question, on any bill.
Take welfare. Clearly, it helps the people recieving welfare? Not according to some right-wingers. They would argue that giving people welfare makes them reliant on government and that they will never become self-reliant once they are on welfare.
Okay, well does welfare help everybody? A left-winger would say yes. It helps society as a whole because having extremely poor people leads to crime, homelessness, health issues and other social problems.
Aside from the black and white problem, it is simply becoming fact that the two parties in America disagree on almost every core issue. Abortion (GOP: Never? Well, *maybe*, if the mother is going to die. Dems: Safe, rare and legal), foreign policy (GOP: War, whenever we want. Dems: Hello, allies?), fiscal policy (GOP: Taxes are bad. Dems: Without taxes, gov't has no money), social policy (GOP: Corporations above people. Dems: People first), constitutional issues (GOP: States rights, but only when we like it. Dems: Strong central Government assures fairness for all citizens), the environment (GOP: Industry can't be harmed. Dems: The Environment can't be harmed), health care (GOP: Get it yourself, privatization is great. Dems: Everyone is entitled to health care). Anyone who thinks the parties are the same, such as Ralph Nader, needs to have their head examined.
dont pretend the Dems are any better.
I don't have to pretend, I know.
Yes, everyone but Russ Feingold of Wisconsin voted for USA PATRIOT. However, the USA PATRIOT Act has a "sunset provision" that comes into effect 5 years after the bill is enacted. This basically means that the bill will go away after 5 years, unless Congress amends the bill to remove the sunset provision. The Democrats are wholly against removing this provision from the bill. There are few, if any, Republicans calling for the sunset provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act to remain.
Someone posted this below, but was karma'd out:
Actually, while the naming was done to promote "unity" or some such (it was passed after the 9/11 attacks after all), it is actually an acronym. The real name is "USA PATRIOT Act" and the "USA PATRIOT" stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism."
Sorry, but some of Congress does get it. However, I don't think they get it quite the way you or I would want them to. The right wing has adjusted the 'southern strategy' (the name given to the strategy developed by Nixon and others during the 60s and 70s. They used fear to scare white southerners into voting Republican.. 'welfare queens' and all the associated racism and classism (which is ironic since most of the people swayed by this strategy were also poor)). This time, instead of making people think that all black people will just start rioting, they try to make us fear terra and terrists. Same concept, just a slightly different color skin. They use this fear to get power, and then use that power to erode freedoms and assist their special interests. You don't think we need a PATRIOT ACT? Unpatriotic! Unamerican! Weak! French! Vote Republican! Vote Strong Defense!
The right wing knows that the american public is still woefully ignorant and easily swayed by illogical, but emotional, arguments. They understand that all too well. It is the job of anyone who is against the right wing, be they democrats, greens, libertarians, anything, to educate fellow citizens to what is actually occurring in this nation. You don't need to suggest anyone to vote for, but you should be trying to get them to see why the right wing is not what it claims to be.