This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Left On Left

We often debate the seemingly increasing similarities between the two parties. Another interesting angle to ponder is how the parties differences can be so far apart that they agree. I'm reminded of the debates between Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan. They were polar opposites but agreed on many issues...for very different reasons. This article from the "Huffington Post" is long but I recommend it. President Obama has managed to alienate his base and the independents. He never had the right.

In our never ending quest for common ground we have joined hands with the opposition. Think about it. The base that's mad about no "public option" join those who are mad at too much "public option" in opposition to health care. The base who are upset about not withdrawing troops in Afghanistan rail against Obama along with those who think he's half-stepping in Afghanistan.

Any more anyone?


Bushrod Gentry said...

Rand Paul is running in the GOP primary for US Senate in Kentucky. I looked at his website and he seems to be our kind of guy. However, the Republican National Committee has been raising funds for his opponent who once supported Clinton! We know that the RNC supported a RINO in the 23rd district of NY. The Democrats are ticking off more people every day. The GOP, now, more than ever needs to show they are different from the Dems and they keep tripping over themselves. Maybe a 3rd party could be viable, but I worry that amnesty and census redistricting may entrench the Democrats in power until the country collapses.

guy faulkes said...

HD's excellent thread coupled with Bushrod's excellent post reveals a very interesting situation.

This situation is, as HD has indicated we now have people with views that differ 180 degrees united in their opposition to Obama's policies for diametrically different reasons. (One thing this proves is that Obama is the grand master of ineptitude.)

Let's take the health care issue for example. It seems the neither the left, the right, or the public as a whole supports this bill. The only support it appears to have are the Democrat politicians, who refuse to start over with the bill.

The left dislikes the bill because it is not socialist enough. The right dislikes the bill because it is to socialist. The general public also thinks it is to socialist and that it is a bad bill. Our ruling class politicians have said to hell with what their constituents think.

This opens up splits in both the Democrat and Republican parties. The Democrats have the far left against the moderate/conservative faction. The Republicans want to return to their conservative base over the objections of the liberal faction of the party. The Independents are wanting a party more conservative than the present Republican party that will listen to the people and offer a choice other than liberal lite.

We may have more than three parties because the factions are so slit. If the far left continues to run the Democrats , the moderate/ conservative members may go elsewhere. It may be that this will not be the Republican party. If the Republican party does not return to it's conservative base, then it will certainly lose the support of probably the majority of its members. The Independents want a party that will listen to them. Neither party is doing so now. The question is whether there will be one third party that will be able to satisfy those that are not supportive of either of the present parties, whether there will be multiple alternative parties, or whether those not satisfied with the present parties will just refrain from voting. Given the rage of the public over the state of the country, the latter is not likely.

Sarkazein said...

Related Left on Left:

( - Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said the White House and the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives have been pressuring him not to speak out on the "compromise" abortion language in the Senate version of the health care bill.

Honest Debate said...

Isn't this left on left thing we're seeing a direct result of Democrats lack of bi-partisanship? And BTW that's another thing they accuse us of. If the Dems weren't trying to shut out Republicans then they wouldn't have to snipe amongst themselves to get their beloved 6o votes.

Sarkazein said...

More Left on Left action: Activist Maurice Joseph Schwenkler, 24, pleaded guilty Monday to a second-degree misdemeanor for smashing windows at the Colorado Democratic Party headquarters last summer.
He received one year of probation and was ordered to pay $5,000 in restitution for the Aug. 25 incident at the party headquarters at West Eighth Avenue and Santa Fe Drive, according to the Denver district attorney's office.
Schwenkler and an accomplice, who was never identified, took a hammer to 11 plate-glass windows. Police caught them in the act, and Schwenkler was arrested.
Anarchist websites across the country raised money for Schwenkler's $5,000 bail, and identified him as "a transgendered anarchist" using the name Ariel Attack. Authorities have consistently identified him as male.
The gay, lesbian and transgender protest group Denver Bash Back characterized Schwenkler as one of its "friends and comrades."
Initially, Democratic Party officials blamed conservative opponents of health care reform for stoking animosity directed at Democrats.
Then it became known that Schwenkler had previously worked for a Democratic candidate. Conservatives characterized the attack as an attempt to frame Republicans with the blame.
Bash Back protested the Republican and Democratic national conventions last year.

RT Sender said...

The Democrats seem united on the idea of compelling each citizen to buy a particular good or service. They call it historical. A few Republicans have questioned the Constitutionality of this, but not enough. It's obvious to me that Congress recognizes no limits on its authority. Maybe, just maybe, it is time for civil disobedience. They cannot imprison all the opponents of healthcare deform. I fully expect that some people that refuse will suffer draconian penalties, but maybe there are martyrs with the courage to stand against such tyranny. If enough people say "No!" then maybe liberty will catch on in this country once again.

Sarkazein said...

RT Sender- I feel ya.

Mikhail Silverwood said...

This is the politically worst bill the world.

It doesn't provide fairness and rights - so it doesn't attract the left.

It doesn't provide freedom and individuality - so it doesn't attract the right.

Not one likes this bill, except for Obama, Washington, and the big corporations, and the Republicans who know this bill will fail and want to point the finger at Obama for destroying the health industry.

Bushrod Gentry said...

I've seen a couple of polls where a Tea Party candidacy is more popular than the Republican party. The Democrats lead, but the Republican and Tea Party numbers combined outnumber the Democrats. I'm thinking that if Tea party candidates win a few elections, then conservatives can regain control of the GOP. I believe a third party is becoming more viable every day, but the risk is that the next census will redistrict this country in the Democrats' favor and may postpone any chance for that.

What do you think?

Honest Debate said...


I can't argue with "I believe a third party is becoming more viable every day." but I still don't think it's viable in that IMHO it would insure a Democrat majority for decades. Your point about the census rings true and complicates things. I don't think America as we know it would survive.

The Republicans are showing some unity and backbone. I'm encouraged. Maybe it's a little simplistic but if we want better Republicans then why don't we elect them? The people chose McCain, the Republican establishment didn't. The people chose Obama, some by voting and some by not voting.

The bottom line as I see it is that we have lost a debate that should not have been lost. It was not an honest debate, if it was the Dems and RINOs wouldn't stand a chance.

That's our bad.

Sarkazein said...


Honest Debate said...

Wow Sark, that's chilling.

One of these days I'm going to do some exhaustive research to find out how State and Municipal governments compare regarding who controls the Legislatures. My guess is that Democrats have ruined more than Detroit. New Orleans is another good example.

At the risk of riling my third party advocating friends, I would posit that a third party would secure a Detroit like America but would do so for the right reasons. That's little comfort.

I still come back to the question of why we think a third party candidate would be easier to elect than a Conservative Republican. Is there anyone more tough on immigration than Tom Tancredo or stronger on National defense that Duncan Hunter? How'd that work out?

The Republican party is full of great candidates. Until America is shown the light with honest debate we will continue to have politicians like Obama who say anything the disinformed public wants to hear and then after elected be accountable for none of it. It should not be so easy to swindle the people.

Anonymous said...

Tea Party or GOP? It may come down to the one that finds a charismatic leader that can withstand a media that serves as the attack dogs of the Democrats. I wonder which party will attract more Libertarians and Constitutionalists.

guy faulkes said...

It all depends on the makeup of the third party. A moderate one would draw from both Democrats and Republicans as well as Independents. In any case, I have voted for my last liberal Republican.

oatz said...

Democrats voted down the DeMint Amendment tonight 53-46. The amendment would have prohibited the practice of trading votes for pork and pet projects.
Jim DeMint reported:

Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, made the following statement after the Senate defeated his amendment to prohibit the practice of trading votes for earmarks in the United States Senate. Senator DeMint’s motion was defeated on a 53-46 vote.

“The American people are disgusted by the earmarks, kickbacks, and backroom deals that have been used to buy votes for this health care takeover,” said Senator DeMint. “We had a chance today to put an end to this practice but Senate Democrats voted for business as usual. 53 Democrats just gave their personal seal of approval to the Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback and other earmarks used to bribe senators into supporting this atrocious bill.”

“Democrats have truly hit the bottom on their reckless pursuit of a government takeover of health care. The Democrat majority just voted to retain the culture of corruption in Congress. Just two years ago, Democrats bragged about draining the swamp, but now they’re endorsing political bribery. This is Washington at its worst.”

Reader said...

Good story for the people who want to be fed. If only everyone would work hard and love our country, like this gentleman.

Honest Debate said...

Evidently McCain had a hand in convincing Parker Griffith to switch parties. Now the word is he's working on another, Chris Carney.

This is interesting on a couple of levels. Are former Democrats the kind of politicians Republicans want? Arlen Spector seems to be a good Democrat can the opposite happen? As Guy points out in regards to a third party candidate, "A moderate one would draw from both Democrats and Republicans as well as Independents". Will a third party made up of moderate Democrats, Republicans and Independents attract a disillusioned conservative base? I can't see how.

It does not surprise me that McCain wants Democrats in the Republican party, that's the way he rolls. I am fascinated with the politics of it all, it sends a very strong message.

With McCain making news it reminds me how much better off we would now be if he had won. For one thing he would not have gone on this despicable spending spree. He voted against Bush's tax cuts because they were tied to too much spending. It pissed me off at the time but that's a man standing by his principals. As I understand it he has never put earmarks in any legislation. McCain also would not have dithered in Afghanistan. I suspect our enemies would be much more fearful of McCain than buffoon Obama. We'd be drilling off shore. The government would not be in the auto business. No "cash for clunkers". No "cap and trade". No Sonya Sotomeyer. McCain would not have turned Europe against us as Obama is doing. He would have stood with the freedom loving people of Georgia, Iran and Honduras. He's an adult. Sarah Palin would be up next.

McCain was not my first choice, not even my second, third or fourth. Obama however is an utter and complete disaster. Our country may already be beyond rescue.

RT Sender said...

I can appreciate that the GOP has stood united against the Democrats' idea of healthcare reform, but we all know many of them are as guilty of pork barrel spending as their opponenents. The Tea Party concept has the ideal of one issue that attracts both Republicans and many Democrats: STOP THE SPENDING! They are clear in this message. The Republicans have trouble making their principles known and many forgot them entirely during the Bush administration. McCain once supported cap & trade. He has moved to the right of where he was. If nothing else is accomplished by the Tea Parties, they have at least awakened the GOP's conservative base to action with some effect.

Johnny Rico said...

Guy Faulks said:

"It all depends on the makeup of the third party. A moderate one would draw from both Democrats and Republicans as well as Independents. In any case, I have voted for my last liberal Republican."


What you have written is very important. I too will no longer vote for the "lesser of two evils" like I felt compelled to do in the past. Foxx and gang and maybe even Burr had better watch out in 2010 and beyond!! With the internet and other technological advances, it would seem that candidates would run a little more scared than they are. The health care vote is a prime example. Do left fringe politicians not realize that over 60 percent of Americans do not want the government telling them they have to purchase a good and service? Anyone know how Hagen voted on the health care issue?

Johnny Rico

Honest Debate said...


I love the effect the tea parties have had. I love the fact that the "Tea Party" is polling so well when it doesn't even exist. This is what America needs, an honest debate. The tea parties brought that honesty. The concept is not new. Remember killing the immigration bill or the Harriet Meyers nomination? The people, when informed, have the power to control our government. Unfortunately this is also true when the people are not informed.

The tea parties have indeed "awakened the GOP's conservative base to action with some effect" but we are the ones that went to sleep. We sat around and let ourselves be defined and chose politicians based on those definitions. We debated false premises. As soon as we try to convince people we're not racist or we don't hate the environment or we're not warmongers who relish the thought of torture, we validate those premises and loose.

I think the system is just too corrupt. If the people are silent it does not matter who is in office, we suffer. Washington skews reality for anyone who is there too long. There are some good politicians but I would sacrifice them if we could replace all of them. With very few exceptions any party in power whether it be Democrats, Republicans, Green, Constitutional, Conservative, Reform, Tea or any other will become tainted by too much time in office.

I realize the tea partiers include Democrats and Independents but I believe the vast majority are Republicans. I would like to see the "Tea Party" take over the Republican party. I think that's far easier and more likely than competing with them.

Sarkazein said...

If there was going to be a new Third Party, it should have started by the first of this year, and it hasn't. I for one, probably will not vote for a Third Party candidate that started his party on the rebound of being jilted by Republican Party Primary voters. All other "Third Parties" need to win some local elections,including Senatorial and Gubernatorial elections. If they can't even do that, they certainly won't be able to win a Presidential election unless by fluke. I am still calling for a hostile take-over of the RNC by libertarians.

Honest Debate said...

Johnny Rico,

The Democrats got their 60 votes so Hagen must have voted with them.

Guy and I have respectfully agreed to disagree on the "lesser of two evils" thing but I'd like to ask you the same question I asked him. I get the impression that McCain was the last straw regarding voting for the lesser of two evils. My question assumes you voted for McCain. Do you regret that vote?

Johnny Rico said...

Honest Debate said:

"Guy and I have respectfully agreed to disagree on the "lesser of two evils" thing but I'd like to ask you the same question I asked him. I get the impression that McCain was the last straw regarding voting for the lesser of two evils. My question assumes you voted for McCain. Do you regret that vote?"

Honest Debate, I have keep abreast of your sane disagreement with Guy Faulks over the past few months. I lean more toward Faulks line of reasoning. I did not vote for McCain. With no worthy contenders, I did not vote at all. I refuse to vote for a liberal, anti-gun, crazy, anti-American wacko like him. I think those years at Hanoi Hilton jarred something loose in his already pea sized brain. About the only way I could have justified voting for him would have been if he had terminal cancer during the election. That way Palin would have been able to assume the leadership role she deserved. Back to McCain - I started formulating a good solid portrait of what he would be like as President when he lobbied several years back to limit boxing from 15 to 12 rounds. With a handful of fighters ever dying during the championship rounds (13-15), his efforts at making a once proud sport "safer" translated to one thing - the government sticking its' nose into the business of the common citizenry. Then, to add injury to insult, McCain tried to outlaw the Ultimate Fighting Championship by saying it was "human cockfighting". Please. I sure don't need some do- gooder politician like liberal John McCain telling me what he thinks I should and shouldn't watch. And this idiot for President. Hell no!!! Ponder this - Rocky Marciano, under McCains rules, would never have beaten Jersey Joe Walcott in the 13th round to become the best heavyweight fighter ever (49-0).

So yes, I have went along the same lines as what Guy Faulks originally said - let's "rebuild it from the ashes" once the libertards destroy it. Voting for the lesser of two evils is, now that I look back on it, worse than voting for the more evil one as the demise is only prolonged. In the long run it will do the country good to have government run health care shoved down our well worn throats, illegal aliens made citizens without earning it, guns confiscated, and a plethora of other government mandated outrages so that we might reflect upon how utterly stupid we are in going with "the lesser of two evils". Evil is evil, pure and simple, and sugercoating it with a liberals such as McCain is not the way to go.

The last time I voted for the lesser of two evils, it was for George Bush. He too, is an anti-gun, pro illegal alien, liberal Republican who would have signed another Assault Weapons ban had it come across his desk JUST THE SAME AS HUSSEIN OBAMA! No way I should vote the lesser of two evils. When I go to the Health Department and gaze upon the multitudes of illegal aliens recieving free health care at my expense, i can only think of George Bush and his love for illegal aliens.

Now let me ask you Honest Debate, how could you think that voting for the lesser of two evils is the right thing to do?


guy faulkes said...

Merry Christmas to all, even my liberal friends that think there is no reason for the season.

Honest Debate said...

Johnny Rico you wrote: "Now let me ask you Honest Debate, how could you think that voting for the lesser of two evils is the right thing to do?"

I hear you on McCain but my answer is simple. IMHO McCain, as bad as you describe him to be, would be infinitely better for our country than Obama. Not even close. I would rather not see our country reduced to ashes. I am not sure that as a strategy it would work in the long run. We could end up with something worse.

I understand that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. The thing is, that's the choice. I wish it weren't true and I've said it before: You can crap in one hand and wish in the other, see which fills up first. I'd rather deal with the crap in front of me than wish it were different.

So back atcha'. It seems to me that the bottom line you are implying is that it's good that McCain lost. Is that true or are you indifferent?

Honest Debate said...


Speaking of the lesser of two evils, did you vote for the gay girl?

Honest Debate said...

"Voting for the lesser of two evils is, now that I look back on it, worse than voting for the more evil one as the demise is only prolonged." -Johnny Rico

This assumes that demise is inevitable. If so, wouldn't it still be better to prolong the demise so that we could rebuild from something more than ashes on the off chance we survive? Is it crazy of me to believe that prosperity and the return of American exceptionalism is the thing that's inevitable as long as we can keep the truly radical zealots out of office?

RT Sender said...

During the Republican presidential primary, I saw, on television, some first time young Republican voters that had difficulty deciding which candidate to vote for because no one seemed to be in the lead! Obviously, something is wrong if that is their only basis for voting in the primary. Yes, it's our fault that the conservative message is not getting through. We know we have the media to fight, but the uber-liberals are, in a strange way doing our work for us. Let's try to never let this happen again. If third party candidates with good principles win, occasioally, it might help us with the RINOs in the Republican National Committee. Moderates are of little help. They do not lead. They simply watch for which way the populace is going and then try to get in front of the crowd. I believe their time is coming to an end. If we don't do it, then the Democrats will.

guy fauleks said...

Voting for the lesser of two evils is a loss. Voting for evil is never a win, regardless of degrees. To postpone the hurt is analogous to saying it is better fro a rapist to kiss his victim before he has intercourse because it delays the more serious harm. The problem is the harm is inevitable if it is not fought as hard as possible at every opportunity.

Sarkazein said...


I like gay girls. I did vote for her. Talking about the lesser of two evils... there were two Democrats only in the run-off. Houston has a non-party affiliation mayoral election. They all claim conservatism in their campaigns, then go back to their liberal roots and spend and spend, and pass laws like the police have to use "widow-maker" holsters, and no high speed chases, hand-cuffs can only be carried in pouches, all so as not to offend the general publics sensitivities.

BTW, this will be our third gay mayor. The other two, were before the gay bragging started.

Honest Debate said...

If evil is the only choice then evil is what we will have, vote or not. It is what it is. That's my thing.

I still have trouble referring to McCain as evil, but I realize it's just a metaphor. I have no problem calling Obama evil because I believe it's literally true. I also have trouble agreeing that degree doesn't matter. I disagree with McCain on many issues but I don't believe he would trash America, I just think he would do things I disagree with.

The rape analogy is interesting. If the rape is inevitable (leaving aside my view that McCain would not make America's destruction inevitable or slower) then yes, if a kiss or two slowed the rapist down until help arrives then it's good. Anything the victim can do to put off the crime should be done. Once it's done it's done. It doesn't make sense to me for the victim to just go along with the rape. And to continue with the analogy I believe if you had a choice between evils then you would choose a tax cheat over a burgler, a burgler instead of a rapist, a rapist instead of a murderer. They're all evil. While I wouldn't say choosing the burgler is a win I would say that degree matters.

I'm no profit so I could be wrong. It's all speculation anyway. What's not is what we are seeing now and it's very very bad with implications that may be impossible to overcome.

guy faulkes said...

Maybe I am to optimistic, but I think things are going very well. The third party threat is forcing the Republicans back to their conservative base. If it dos not, then I will have someone to support rather than immolating Rico and not voting at all. I have to believe that there are many others that feel as I do.

As a matter of fact, I do not find it unlikely that Obama may have the fight of his life in the Democrat primary in 2012. In spite of the incumbent advantage and the worship of the media, he may lose.

Johnny Rico said...

Honest Debate said:

"So back atcha'. It seems to me that the bottom line you are implying is that it's good that McCain lost. Is that true or are you indifferent?"

I am not indifferent or else I would not be a registered voter ready to wield the ultimate power - voting. The bottom line is that it is good John McCain lost and Hussein Obama won. I would rather know who my enemy is than have them stab me in the back as did McCain on several occasions. Bush number 1 did the same thing when he quit the NRA and went against the gun owner who voted him in office. I believe GW Bush would have done the same thing given the opportunity.

By McCain losing a race he could have won, it will help us in the end by teaching a lesson to those fence sitting moderates who end up being the worst traitors. The voters, by having their grandchildren's children pay for massive debt will be sure not to make the same mistake again. So I stand by what I say in that the lesser of two evils may, in the long run, be the greater of two evils.

I admire your hope and positive attitude, however I share none of that after bearing witness to being stabbed in the back by RINOs. Take Virginia Foxx and Richard Burr for instance. They were elected by conservative gun owners. Then what do they do? Enter into secret negotiations with the Town of Blowing Rock to stop hunting on a parcel of land that has been open to hunting since the beginning of time. Instead of listening to the taxpaying public, they represented another form of government (a municipality). Government for the government by the government as opposed to government by the people for the people. Catch my drift Honest Debate?

Virginia Foxx will have a tough time be re elected in 2010, that much is evident. I would rather a liberal get the vote than have a back stabbing Foxx back in office. At least we know who the enemy is!!!!!! I wonder what Aaron Whitener will say when his boss is out of a job and he has to answer questions on why he and Foxx wouldn't listen to the electorate concerning the land exchange in which the Town of Blowing Rock spent half a million of taxpayer dollars to preserve the view of a certain town councilwoman who owns a 1.3 million dollar home overlooking the land in question?

No, i won't vote for the lesser of two evils from here on out. Let the house fall in - it is on now. Sound the bugle.

Johnny Rico


Johnny Rico said...

Honest Debate said:

"If so, wouldn't it still be better to prolong the demise so that we could rebuild from something more than ashes on the off chance we survive?"

I don't believe so Honest Debate as doing this is incrementalist in nature. Right now the time is far past for incrementalism which has not worked out for us since WWII. We need rapid and sudden change towards the right. A sudden change that brings about the intended action will become a resounding success as it will be something tangible that people can see and feel. The Democrats are trying to do the same thing with healthcare, however the see and feel part is skewed. If we do the same thing with far right policies intended to bolster the freedom and prosperity of Americans, the see and feel will be immediately noticed thus proving our point. We need "good change" and need it fast.

John Rico

Honest Debate said...

Well Ms. Rico, you have the courage to be intellectually honest by answering the question honestly. It takes guts to admit Obama's victory is good. You are consistent because when push comes to shove that is the position you have taken. I, of course, disagree, cool. We will see. I would very much like to be wrong.

You made it look easy. Libs could take a lesson.

Honest Debate said...

Johnny Rico,

Remind me (I'd rather not google), I remember Bush 1 quitting the NRA but don't remember the exact circumstances. All I can recall is the phrase "jack-booted thugs".

Johnny Rico said...

Honest Debate,

Perhaps it is I who will ultimately be proven wrong. At any rate, we disagree on this small point which is no big deal. You have your opinion which you forcefully and eloquently stated and I have mine. I respect your opinion as you respect mine.

What I have never understood about liberal socialist sheep is that when you disagree with something they believe in, they whine, scream and gnash teeth. You and I disagreed, but it never came to an emotional discord. This is because you and I are secure in our beliefs and can project valid arguements to this effect. Liberals, with their skewed belief system, (yes I am trying to bait in Liberal Socialist Sheep POV and Cheerleader)are unable to do this and must resort to illegal, immoral and questionable tactics to push their agenda.

I suppose time will tell on our debate topic - it will be intersting to see which theory, if any, hold up.

Merry Christmas!!!!

Johnny Rico

guy faulkes said...

Bush 1 quit the NRA for two reasons. The first was he courted the gun control vote. He did this to the point he passed an import ban on semi-automatic "assault rifles" and semi-automatic pistols. This lead to the second reason. A petition (which I signed) was circulated to have him thrown out of the NRA because of this. I heard it gained 400,000 signatures. He quit before this could be accomplished to forestall the bad press that would have followed. He tried to give lip service to being pro-gun after this, but this issue more than any other cost him his re- election. This is the first time gun owners boycotted the polls as they had no candidate to support.

The jack booted thugs comment was made by Wayne Lapiere (sp.) of the NRA when speaking about abuses by the BATF. I believe it may ahve ben in relation to the Ruby Ridge incident or maybe Waco.

Honest Debate said...

Thanks Guy.