General Chat / "GOP doesn't reflect America"

K- I'm finally done. That was cathartic.

I'll quote ya on that there, 'Trix.

Anyway. Yeah, politics suck. It divides this nation.

WHO'S MOVIN TO BRITAIN? LOL

Horray for personal attacks!

The government doesn't give enough for people to climb anywhere. You need to admit that there are lazy people out there. If the government just gives you money because you don't have it what keeps you from just sittign there? Nothing does. A charity will stop giving a person money if they just expect money. So what causes inequality in society? If fate makes a person poor how do you protect them from it? If laziness is the cause then you have government protecting people from themselves.

I admit it, there are lazy people who are never going to be productive no matter what the government gives them. That is a problem. An even bigger problem is the other million plus people who aren't lazy, who work their asses off and still can't afford to live. You need to admit that laziness is not the only reason people are poor. It is a reason and applies to some people which are going to be a drain on the system no matter what. But the majority can and do produce. It's not something as obtuse as "fate" which keeps them from thriving in our society. It is gender and race discrimination, a crumbling school system, corporate downsizing. The people who are poor by choice (ie by laziness) no doubt would offend your sensibilities by benefitting from health care and education programs without giving anything back but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help the people who would produce and even do produce to live a better life.

My point is that TheOldGuy had his ideas about what those groups want are wrong. Hitler was a National Socialist and I stated the three main differences between National Socialism and Democratic Socialism. Nazism is a form of socialism whether you like it or not.

How can you list the three "main differences" without mentioning genocide? Umm yeah that is kind of a significant difference. He willfully ordered the deaths of 10 million people. You act like his social programs are why he's considered the most evil man in history. I may be wrong here, but I think the 10 million deaths play a part in that as well. Nazism today means white power. It means hate, bigotry, and violence. Nevermind that it may have once stood for national socialism cause it doesn't any more. There is a Nazi party in the U.S. They are not even close to socialist. And on top of that, you're just trying to avoid an argument based in logic by associating socialism with an evil regime. That's not logic, that's scare tactics.

Protecting people from poverty? Poverty is a condition. Poverty is incapable of acting. It is nothing more than an adjective.

You're right. Poverty is not what people should be protected from you semantic smart ass. People whould be protected from assholes like you who think poverty only exists because people are lazy.

Stop trying to appeal to me through democracy. I hate democracy. And I think democracy is part of the problem with all of this.

So then tell us what your better solution is. Talk about any issue you want and how to solve it without democracy. It's totally up to you.

The government system doesn't prevent people from cheating it. It doesn't matter if they aren't supposed to. The US offers public education. And racism is simply bad for business in the US. And people have a right to be racist when it comes to hiring people. But today its bad for business so they don't practice it.

Wake the fuck up! Public education in the U.S. is falling apart. How many public school students go to college? It's the rich private school educated kids filling the seats at Harvard and Yale. Most public schools use outdated textbooks. Most public schools cannot find enough teachers and classrooms to meet the demand. And on top of that, the government spent enough money last year building new fighter jets (somewhere in the realm of 500 million) to pay for the tuition of every college student in America. How many kids work their ass off in high school but can't afford an Ivy League school? A lot do. Meanwhile the government passes a budget which pays out 400 billion for defense and just under 60 billion for education. Glad to know they care.

As for racism, it is far from solved. The LA race riots were in 1992. How much has changed since then? Not much. It's still easier for a black man to get arrested than to get into college. If you don't believe racism is a problem in America or anywhere else, than the only conclusion I can come to is that you don't see it because you yourself are racist. Discrimination is a right you say? Free speech is a right. Telling someone they cannot work for you because you're afraid they might assault you because they're black is not a right. You do not have a right to deny someone a chance to work because you don't like the way they look.

I've tried to be civil, I've tried to debate you. It's like you live in a fantasy world or something. Maybe I could put more effort into making an argument if I didn't spend so much time explaining how your comments are not supported by facts. And besides, they do a much better job of explaining Socialism here than I ever could. I don't even want to have this debate with you until you read it. All of it. And I'll gladly read anything you want to post in favor of your political theory - which you still have not shared.

Racism in America is not as bad as it is made out to be. Call me a racist for all I care. The problem isn't there. The LA riots ended up destroying mostly Korean owned business. How were they against white opressors? And did you know the number of black people arrested is equal to the number of black people convicted?

Women have never been better off. Plenty of big wigs in Wall Street are women.

Cumbling schools has nothing to do with lack of funds. I live in Georgia. Georgia is ranked 50 out of 51 for its public schools. The only other area that is worse is Washington DC. The worst schools in Georgia are the Atlanta public schools. The best public schools in Georgia are in Cobb County. Guess who spends more money per student? Atlanta does. Most shitty public school systems in the US spend more money than the good ones. Lack of funds is obviously not the issue here. Did you the average SAT score in Barbados is 1345? Maybe it has more to do with the American mindset. And how exactly do you plan on changing the American mindset with government?

Hitler considered his genocide as part of war. The people of Germany were to be trained in war to expande lebensraum and protect the people from the "parasitic and niggerized races". I think I'm going to go with Hitler over you when it comes to what his political beliefs were.

So exactly how am I keeping people in poverty? Nothing I do forces people into poverty.

Maybe democracy isn't the sole form of free government. Ever heard of a republic? A system in which the whole enphasis isn't placed on the majority always being right. If everybody isn't preaching how everybody is always right maybe so many people wouldn't stray from their personal beliefs. Democracy is all about groups. You cannot protect minority rights without protecting individual rights.

And discrimination in one's private domain is a right. There is no arguing it. Government will not make people tolerate others.

You want a good read on the basis of socialist beliefs? Manifesto of the Communist Party

The 'Red Scare' is over. The House Un-American Activities Committee was disbanded in 1975. You missed your ideal time period by a few decades. Go ahead and call me a communist. It isn't accurate, which you would discover if you actually read what I posted, but I don't mind. I'd rather be labeled a Communist than a Capitalist. If there's ever any question, I will choose the working people of the world over those who stake their claim of ownership to the resources which belong to all of us any day. It's a good thing your government does regulate businesses or you too would be working 14 hours a day for meager wages with no alternative. Think about that the next time you denounce "big scary government". Capitalism, nationalism, world trade - these gave us World War I and World War II and the Cold War against the "evil" Communists (which by all acounts was not true Communism once Stalin took over anyway but dictatorship). That's quite a legacy to defend.

OOOOKAY..... Lazy Boy.

1. Read what CoasterEd posted
2. your article - Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, what is the name of the freaking document? 'Communist yes? but the whole Socialsim thing what is this all about? oh yes, some rhetoric about Beurgoise and Proletariat again. Yes this is where Socialism gets its start it seems as far as how old the document is. Really why agree with the creator of Communism, what was his point? the leveling of Proletariat and Beurgoise which is a great idea at the time, seeing how gap between poor and rich was huge. but make this assumtion also. his section Feudal Socialism okay.... is the world still feudal? is it Lazy Boy tell me. try to expand your horizon.

oh and by the way......

don't be a Nazi its bad for you.

I guess you'd rather have alll those people in Guantanamo Bay, in Abu Gharib be concentration camps, and maybe turn Najaf into a huge Ghetto, you know since this country is in war and all. haven't you even gotten a clear view of history, one that isn't black and white. find one, that is saw more level headed, this is sort of my problem with US's history books here in America, its so black and white, that no one gets a un-biased idea of America's history. like for examples you might have 2 pages or higher about Nazi's Descrimination of Jews, but you'll have a little article about America's Agent Orange use in Vietnam which has by the way affected FAR MORE then the 10 million people killed by the Nazi's, think of how many lives are fucked up because of their now disabled, retarded, or deformed or severly deformed. but you probably don't know that because you probably are like any old sterotypical American who ..... dosent give a shit for a Ty's Pleasure Domer.

Ed, you have just proven you don't bother to look at my posts and the links I post. If you had you would have realized that my link to the Communist Manifesto was at the same website that you had sent me to.
Ed's Link: http://www.anu.edu.a...el/sfb_main.htm
My Link: http://www.anu.edu.a.../manifesto.html
Seems to me that my placement of the link was rather spot on.

And what the hell is the lesson on US history books? That is rather irrelevant.

Great so you know how to post links but do you know how to read them? Socialism and Communism are not the same thing and I thought that site makes that pretty clear. I agree with a lot of the Communist Manifesto. It's still just a red herring. Too bad for you Communism isn't a dirty word anymore and Hitler wasn't a democratic socialist at all. And you still haven't described what opposing political philosophy you believe in which solves all of the problems you say socialism is incapable of solving. Do that and we might have something to discuss.

How is Marx a red herring? Even the site you sent me to is catagorized under Marx. There is no difference between Marxism and communism. Marxism is just a term used to seperate people from Soviets and Stalinists.

I never said Hitler was a Democractic Socialist. I said he was a National Socialist.

I never said socialism doesn't solve problems. I think it enslaves the people and forces them to solves social problems. The state becomes so powerful that the democractic government is no longer possible. The people have become so dependent on the government for their livelihood that dictatorship becomes inevitable.

Maybe I believe in capitalism. No government involvement in the life of individuals. The only things thar are illegal are those that infrindge the rights of others. All government programs would effect all citizens the same and ask the same from each citizen. Of course capitalism doesn't survive without an intelligent and moral people. But it is not the place of the government to shape these individuals. What is so wrong with that?

actually, socialism and marxism are not the same. You must not have read it, and if you did then you didn't understand it. Too bad I guess. And you still haven't given a solution, which ed has asked for many times. Plus, without government, you have no policing force and that leads to dictatorship anyway. You simply can't have a "hands free" society, it's a literal impossibility. In any group, no matter how large or small, there is always some form of governance going on. You can't escape the compromise, government is a compromise and it can't NOT exist, because all forms of anarchy lead to despotism, period. And stop saying such hypocritical things; you can't have a "hands free" society WITH a police force. It simply doesn't work. Those people aren't working for their own safety. Yet you say that it is fine to force THESE people to work for your safety, but not to force THOSE people, and you don't realize that they are the same people.

Lets see that again... first you say NO person should be forced, but then you say these OTHER people can be forced. Hypocrisy.

lazyboy, I hate your debate style. Instead of actually debating socialism vs. libertarianism, it seems like the main point of your posts is to proove that socialism = communism, or socialism = nazism.

First off, socialism is NOT communism. They have similarities, but also many, many differences. I assume you are aware of them? If so, then it is from hence unnaceptable for you to use the terms interchangably, or to criticize socialism via criticism of communism.

Second, socialism is NOT Nazism. Other than "socialist" in the title, Nazi's are on opposite ends of the political spectrum from socialists.

It would be just as easy to call you a Fascist or Reactionary, but we don't do it. So stop using Nazism and Communism and Marxism as a means to "insult" our political beleifs. It's kind of like republicans using "liberal" as an insult, to be honest, I don't care if I am called liberal. The difference is, the republicans are at least ACCURATE with that label, and you are innacurate with yours. And plus, liberal isn't an insult anyways, liberals abolished slavery, liberal thinking got us out of the great depression, liberals got Women the right to vote, etc.

Blitz, stop acting as if I am an anarchist. There is a difference between protection and aid. If a government is to aid people it must effect all those who fund it equally. Only those who fund it should benefit. If a government is going to give to people that do not pay all money should be voluntary. The HOPE Scholarship in Georgia is offered to anybody meeting the requirements and is paid for by the lottery.

There is a reason I mention the communists. They all realized and acknowledged one thing. Dictator of the Proletarian.. It is all supposed to be a natural progression. And the chances of a truly benevolent dictator or oligarchy are very slim.

The facsists really aren't that far from the socialists. Up until World War I Mussolini was a member of the Democractic Socialists Party. He was kicked out for supporting the war and being a nationalist. Even after he assumed power he gave about half of the top government jobs to Democratic Socialists. Mussolini's difference was rule and war. Hitler went a step further and went nuts over race.

okay... okay... whatever LazyBoy your right, now go on into the hole and believe what TV wants to tell you, okay?

now as for the rest of us i'll explain this to you..

Hitler used Economy Socialist and then used his Facist leadership. the difference between Facist and Soclialism is big.

Facist = Hateful Leader
Socialist = Leader who wants to balance things out.

Hitler used Socialist's ideas for economy and hence came of what? oh thats right, revived Germany quickly, even if it were a war machine buildup, and its the same with USA. both systems worked, and both nations were in economic trouble at the time before the war. it was Hitlers leadersihp and ideas that caused the genocide and war, not the Socialistic values. Facist values are just what Hitler embodied in his political career.

Facist government is where the country is more important than the individual person.
Facist leader is more important than anyone else in that country.


Karl Marx is the guy that thought up this communism. But there were problems, the lazy people would get the same amount of money as the people that were working their asses off.

ThaGuardian is right lazyboy. Stalin and Hitler and Mao Tse Tung and even Fidel Castro are totalitarian leaders. Yes they employed socialist ecnomic principles as a cornerstone of their economic policies but that doesn't change the fact that they are totalitarian which is the exact opposite of democratic socialism. I had hoped you would just read the pamphlet I posted because it explains that quite clearly but since you still don't understand, here are a few quotes I picked out of it to help.

The idea of socialism:

Liberty is no more than an empty shell when one class
of men is allowed to condemn another to starvation
without any measures being taken against them. And
equality is also an empty shell when the rich, by
exercising their economic monopolies, have the power of
life or death over other members of the community.

--Jacques Roux during the French Revolution

"But a society of equality requires a state of abundance. So long as economic life remains relatively backward, equality can only mean the common hardship of shared poverty. A healthy and thriving popular democracy requires a state of prosperity in which all the basic needs of people can be satisfied. Without a certain level of economic development, therefore, the French revolutionaries' demand for liberty and equality remained utopian. It was only with the enormous economic development unleashed by the industrial revolution in England that a society based upon equality and abundance became a realistic possibility."

Anarchism:

"It is certainly true that anarchism developed in opposition to the growth of capitalist society. What's more, anarchist hostility to capitalism centered on defence of the liberty of the individual. But the liberty defended by the anarchists was not the freedom of the working class to make collectively a new society. Rather, anarchism defended the freedom of the small property owner--the shopkeeper, artisan and tradesman--against the encroachments of large-scale capitalist enterprise. Anarchism represented the anguished cry of the small property owner against the inevitable advance of capitalism. For that reason, it glorified values from the past: individual property, the patriarchal family, racism."

Even were democracy possible, the anarchist would still not support it ... Anarchists do not advocate political freedom. What they advocate is freedom from politics ...' That is to say, anarchists reject any decision-making process in which the majority of people democratically determine the policies they will support.

--Canadian anarchist writer George Woodcock

Marx's Communism:

We are not among those communists who are out to
destroy personal liberty, who wish to turn the
world into one huge barrack or into a gigantic
workhouse. There certainly are some communists who,
with an easy conscience, refuse to countenance
personal liberty and would like to shuffle it out
of the world because they consider that it is a
hindrance to complete harmony. But we have no desire
to exchange freedom for equality. We are convinced
that in no social order will freedom be assured as
in a society based upon communal ownership.

--Karl Marx

"Unlike the utopian socialists who looked to an elite to change things for the masses, Marx argued that the masses had to free themselves. Freedom could not be conquered for and handed over to the working masses. Socialism could only be brought into being through the mass democratic action of the oppressed."

"Economic emancipation, the elimination of class divisions and private ownership of the means of producing wealth, could only take place under the direct and democratic rule of the working class through its own state."

Communism in Russia:

"For the germ cell of socialism to grow, it required several essential ingredients. One was peace. The new workers' state could not establish a thriving democracy so long as it was forced to raise an army and wage war to defend itself. A second essential ingredient was abundance. Unless the basic material needs of all people could be satisfied, it would be impossible to keep alive a direct and active democracy. Hungry people can only keep their concern with politics alive for so long. Sooner or later, the more pressing need for bread intervenes. For these reasons, a third ingredient was indispensible--the spread of the revolution. Only successful workers' revolutions in Europe could remove the war threat and provide the economic assistance upon which workers in Russia depended. It was with these considerations in mind that Lenin stated, four months after the Russian revolution, 'The absolute truth is that without a revolution in Germany we shall perish . ' "

"Worker's Russia was not greeted by a revolution in Germany, by warm arms and offers of fraternal assistance. Instead, it was greeted by the invasion of 17 armies from 14 countries. Alone, isolated, encircled, revolutionary Russia undertook the heroic task of defending itself. Under the leadership of Trotsky, a Red Army was created that for nearly three years criss-crossed Russia battling the armies of world capitalism. In the end, the Red Army prevailed. But at a terrible price. Russia was bled dry. Its industry had collapsed. It could no longer feed its population. With economic and social collapse came political decay. As workers' democracy disintegrated, a new bureaucracy rose to power."

"Grouped around Joseph Stalin were those forces that represented the rising Soviet bureaucracy. Stalin's group argued that the Russian government should go about the task of building 'socialism in one country'. For this group, 'socialism' lost all foundation in organs of workers' democracy, soviets, and the international economy of abundance. They came increasingly to identify socialism with a bureaucratic monopoly of power which allowed no place for organs of mass democracy. Further, they began to define socialism as a state-controlled and planned economy which would industrialise backward Russia on the basis of ruthless labour discipline and starvation wages."

"International socialism had thus been supplanted by state capitalism. All of economic life was subordinated to the objective of competing with western capitalism. The satisfaction of human needs was not the aim of production. Rather, production was geared to constructing steel mills and tank factories that could rival those of the West. After all, the price of survival for any state caught up in the world capitalist system is that it incessantly expand the industrial and military resources at its command. The living standards of the working class are, therefore, continually subordinated to the aim of endless expansion. For it is impossible to build ever more factories and produce ever more weapons unless workers are continually turning out more and more unpaid labour.

For Russia, competition is primarily military. But, in order to equal the West in sophisticated weaponry, Russia must be capable of matching the growth of western capitalism in all areas: in steel, electrical goods, industrial chemicals and so on. The pressure of world capitalist competition -- both military and economic-- shapes the structure and direction of Russian society. Russia is thereby reduced to little more than a state-owned economy that has adapted itself to the capitalist system as a whole.

It is for this reason that Russia, both in Stalin's day and today, can be described as state capitalist. For the defining feature of capitalism is not that individual businessmen produce for their own gain. Rather it is that owners of 'capital' (resources produced by workers) exploit workers who are forced to sell their ability to work in order to make a living. In a capitalist system, that exploitation takes place with a view to expanding the wealth and power at the disposal of a corporation or state so that they can hold their own in a world system of competition."

Communism in Cuba and China:

"Today in the period after World War II, revolutionary socialism was everywhere in retreat. What passed itself off as 'socialism' was generally an elitist and authoritarian doctrine strongly resembling the anti-democratic visions of socialism from above. There were, of course, major national liberation struggles, such as those in China and Cuba, which freed colonial nations from the oppressive grip of a major world power. As victories against imperialism, these movements were justly deserving of support. But the claims of the Chinese and Cuban regimes to be 'socialist' have stained the image of genuine socialism everywhere.

The national liberation movement in China was led by a guerrilla army that had no base among the organised working class. When Mao's army rolled into China's major cities, workers were told to stay at work and obey the orders of their managers. At most, some owners and managers were replaced by officials of the new government. In no sense was there a working class reshaping of society from below. In Cuba, a small band of guerrillas were fortunate enough to confront a regime so weak and corrupt that it fell under the first assault. Again, workers played no serious role in the Cuban revolution of 1959. By no stretch of the imagination can either the Chinese or Cuban revolutions be said to represent working class movements for self-emancipation.

What's more, in both China and Cuba, the new regime modelled themselves on the totalitarian state capitalist structure of Russia. A one-party state was created in which all elections were a meaningless ritual. Opposition parties -- workers' parties included--were outlawed. Trade unions were put under rigorous state control. Strict press censorship was introduced. Left-wing critics were thrown in jail. All of industry and finance was put into state hands. No organs of democratic social control were encouraged or tolerated. The fact that these state capitalist dictatorships passed themselves off as 'socialist' was an enormous blight against the most democratic and revolutionary movement ever created."

Socialism in the world today (the important part):

"the world capitalist system is sliding once more into depression. In the major capitalist countries, this economic crisis means massive unemployment, particularly for young people; it means a life of poverty and despair for millions. In the underdeveloped nations, the crisis means death--on a horrifying scale. According to the World Bank, some 800 million people now live in a state of 'absolute poverty'. Every day hunger and hunger-related diseases kill 41,000 human beings. That's 28 victims of hunger per minute--two-thirds of them children-- while more than a million dollars per minute is spent on armaments.

So none of this has to be. The means exist to banish forever hunger, poverty and starvation. The wealth devoted annually to producing weapons of destruction could easily solve the problem of food production. The problem is not a material one, it is social in nature; it is a result of the barbaric priorities of a system founded on economic and military competition.

The same goes for the multitude of other problems that threaten lives, that distort and mutilate human existence. Whether it is the alarming rise in industrial accidents and diseases, the terrifying spread of nuclear power, or the near-catastrophic destruction of our natural environment, the cause--the capitalist organisation of world society-- remains the same.

The solution also remains the same. The democratic and socialist restructuring of society remains, as it was in Marx's day, the most pressing task confronting humanity. And such a reordering of society can only take place on the basis of the principles of socialism from below. Now more than ever, the liberation of humanity depends upon the self- emancipation of the world working class. And the transition to a new society of freedom and abundance depends upon the construction of a world federation of workers' states, each based on the principles of workers' democracy.

The vital task confronting all those who desire the creation of such a new society is to raise up the banner of socialism from below, to establish once again in the popular consciousness the inextricable connection between socialism and democracy. The challenge is to restore to socialism its democratic essence, its passionate concern with human freedom.

Equal rights for ALL:

"Socialist emancipation in the modern world must also be women's liberation. It must embrace struggle of women to free themselves from a second-class existence, from the ties that bind them to the endless drudgery of housework, from the images and ideology that try to reduce them to mindless sex-objects. Socialist emancipation must be black liberation. It must centrally involve the battles of black people against institutionalised discrimination and injustice; against racial harassment and ghetto existence. Socialist emancipation must also be gay liberation. It must include the struggles of gay men a women to live their lives free to love those whom they choose, free from the fear of harassment and victimisation."

"Last time humanity entered a similar period of crisis, during the 1930s, the result was fascism in Europe and the immeasurable suffering and barbarism of a world war that saw the explosion the first nuclear bomb. Yet there is an alternative. WorkersS democracy, an end to poverty and oppression--these are the prospects held out by an advance towards international socialism."

Now -- did you read any of that?

Since that last post is just quoting an article, I'll start a new post to try to answer Mkylspknt's question.

Karl Marx is the guy that thought up this communism. But there were problems, the lazy people would get the same amount of money as the people that were working their asses off.

Under our current system, the people who are working their asses off are at the bottom of society. The people who work the least are the ones who own the means of production. They just hire other people to work for them and reap all of the profits. Or they get a job in the beauracracy pushing papers around and get paid more for that than the guys actually doing the real work which allows society to thrive - construction and agriculture workers for example.

Many of the people who are not working cannot find jobs or they do not want to sell their work for a few bucks to someone who is making millions for doing nothing. Or they are physically incapable of working or they are uneducated and won't get any job they apply for. Under a Marxist system, all of those people would now have an incentive to work. They would see immediate benefits from it for one thing. They would have health care and education which is what makes people willing to contribute to a society for another thing. If you get these people working with society by including them, than you leave a much smaller percentage of people who aren't working because they are lazy.

Of those remaining people who refuse to contribute, naturally they should not benefit from society because they are not willing members of that society. So they get seperated. They still get some kind of health care because all people deserve to live and they get rehabilitation programs which show them how much better their life can be if they do choose to rejoin society.

So now do you see that it isn't about letting people skate by and live off everyone else? It's about people working together for the benefit of mankind not people working to generate wealth for a group of elites who decide when and where they will be "generous" enough to provide things like healthcare and education which they only have in the first place because of the hard work done by other people.

How do you plan on having government legislate everybody working for each other? Obviously you must cut off those who refuse to work.

How the hell does a law end racism?

How does a law end sexism?

Laws, laws, laws. Laws mean shit when it comes to what people think. Unless you destroy free thought you will not change people's minds.

You're right. Laws don't change people's minds. That takes time. But I think you'd be surprised how much people are willing to work when they are working for their own benefit not somebody else's. As for racism and sexism, education is the answer to that. Educate other people about thinking for themselves rather than furthering the same old stereotypes. Educate people about other cultures and what we all have in common. And it isn't about government legislating right and wrong either. It's about the people realizing they are being exploited and doing something about it. Maybe the answer is simple after all....

His name is Robert Paulson.

Working for one's own benefit? Isn't that the very aspect of capitalism you despise? That everybody is just working for himself. Where one can do whatever he pleases to better himself. Of course the golden rule still applies. You can't go around screwing others. Those that screw others are criminals.

Horray for personal attacks!

Horray for ignoring everything everyone has tried to say to you in this thread. I personally find that more offensive than anything they could have accused you of, simply due to the time and effort they put in not to make you change your opinion, but acknowledge the fact that there are other opinions that are viable answers. Open up your ears and listen to what they have to say. Maybe then the rest of us will take you seriously.