[roeod4]

Believed bias? No, I'm afraid that this bias/racism is alive and well in 2009. Yes racism is a minority in this country among the population in general and that is a beautiful thing, but the problem with that is the fact that the most racist demographic in this country is older white men and they are the ones pulling the strings in this society. So I'm afraid that your conviction rate statistics are inherently skewed.

"A major factor contributing to racial disparity in prosecution and punishment is the discriminatory profiling of minorities-based on race, ethnicity, and sexual preference-as criminal suspects and, especially, as drug traffickers. In Maryland, state police statistics showed that 73% of cars stopped and searched on I-95 between Baltimore and Delaware in a two-year period were driven by African-Americans, while only 14% of those driving on that stretch of road were Black. Police found absolutely nothing in 70% of those searches. The use of Racial profiling has now been admitted in New Jersey, and evidence of its use elsewhere is widespread."

This is directly related to your conviction statistics. It shows that although overt racism is on the the decline, those in power are still allowed, to pretty much, do as they please (In the name of "justice", of course.) For the record: racial profiling=racism!

As for the death penalty:

"Statistical evidence, including that compiled by the Death Penalty Information Center, shows that African-American men are disproportionately represented among those on death row and those who have been executed in the last twenty years. Although people of color are the victims in more than half of all homicides, a White victim case is over four times more likely to result in a death sentence than a comparable Black victim case."

What is that saying other than under our great system of justice, white life is more valuable than black life? How do you exonerate the "the most fair and just system in the world" for that?

Please do me a favor. If you are going to compare apples, please compare them to other apples and not cheetos. Comparing death penalty cases and how often people get pulled over on the highway are 2 totally different things. The fact that you are using that as a comparison is laughable. Also, giving me some sort of source for the quotes you are making is only common courtesy. How am I supposed to take anything you quote as a serious thing if I have no idea where it came from.

On to the argument at hand...........

Ok, so I get this straight.

You said the death penalty is racist and that more black people are executed than white people. I proved that wrong by showing you hard numbers and the fact that the number of white people executed and on death row were higher than black people.

You said that those figures weren't fair because it didn't show a proper ratio per capita since black people make up only 12% (your number) of the population of the US. I proved that wrong by pointing out that even though a higher number of black people were convicted of murder, the number of white people sentenced to death was almost double that of black people.

Now, your new argument is that the death penalty is racist because black people get executed more often when white people are killed? Am I getting this right? Man, you are going to come up with a new spin on this argument every time I prove you wrong, aren't you? Are you a defense attorney or something? Well, I am not even going to bother looking up stats on that, they would be irrelevant anyway. To be honest, I just don't care. I don't think that that proves that anyone finds the life of a white person more valuable than the life of a black person at all. I think it proves that people who kill other people are going to be sentenced to death a lot of the time. Anyone could bring up a whole battery of stats about this trying to show that when the victim is white, then the murderer (let's not forget these are the people you are rooting for here) is more likely to get a death sentence. The fact of the matter is that each case has it's own mitigating circumstances. We have no idea what those are, unless we go through ever single case one at a time and I don't have the time or the want to do something like that.

You are talking about the death penalty, but who places that sentence on someone? The jury in some states and the judges in others. The jury is made up of average ordinary citizens like you and me. So calling the jury racist is calling the people of the country racist. Judges are made up of lawyers and lawyers are made up of....well, stuff that I can't talk about without being banned. Calling judges and lawyers racist can only be proven if there has never been a black judge or lawyer (Clarence Thomas and Johnny Cockren) and not a single black defendant has ever been declared innocent in a court of law (OJ Simpson). Can any of these people bring racial bias into a courtroom? Of course they can, but it is highly unlikely that every single one in the entire country does. So if the citizenship as a whole isn't racist and the judges and layers aren't racist then what makes the death penalty racist?

[bearkat38]

Please do me a favor. If you are going to compare apples, please compare them to other apples and not cheetos. Comparing death penalty cases and how often people get pulled over on the highway are 2 totally different things. The fact that you are using that as a comparison is laughable. Also, giving me some sort of source for the quotes you are making is only common courtesy. How am I supposed to take anything you quote as a serious thing if I have no idea where it came from.

On to the argument at hand...........

Ok, so I get this straight.

You said the death penalty is racist and that more black people are executed than white people. I proved that wrong by showing you hard numbers and the fact that the number of white people executed and on death row were higher than black people.

You said that those figures weren't fair because it didn't show a proper ratio per capita since black people make up only 12% (your number) of the population of the US. I proved that wrong by pointing out that even though a higher number of black people were convicted of murder, the number of white people sentenced to death was almost double that of black people.

Now, your new argument is that the death penalty is racist because black people get executed more often when white people are killed? Am I getting this right? Man, you are going to come up with a new spin on this argument every time I prove you wrong, aren't you? Are you a defense attorney or something? Well, I am not even going to bother looking up stats on that, they would be irrelevant anyway. To be honest, I just don't care. I don't think that that proves that anyone finds the life of a white person more valuable than the life of a black person at all. I think it proves that people who kill other people are going to be sentenced to death a lot of the time. Anyone could bring up a whole battery of stats about this trying to show that when the victim is white, then the murderer (let's not forget these are the people you are rooting for here) is more likely to get a death sentence. The fact of the matter is that each case has it's own mitigating circumstances. We have no idea what those are, unless we go through ever single case one at a time and I don't have the time or the want to do something like that.

You are talking about the death penalty, but who places that sentence on someone? The jury in some states and the judges in others. The jury is made up of average ordinary citizens like you and me. So calling the jury racist is calling the people of the country racist. Judges are made up of lawyers and lawyers are made up of....well, stuff that I can't talk about without being banned. Calling judges and lawyers racist can only be proven if there has never been a black judge or lawyer (Clarence Thomas and Johnny Cockren) and not a single black defendant has ever been declared innocent in a court of law (OJ Simpson). Can any of these people bring racial bias into a courtroom? Of course they can, but it is highly unlikely that every single one in the entire country does. So if the citizenship as a whole isn't racist and the judges and layers aren't racist then what makes the death penalty racist?

It's really not apples and oranges at all. I used those examples as an indictment of the American justice system (and it's racism/corruption) as a whole. The bottom line is that my conviction rate/sentence is almost always more harsh than my white counterpart who commits the exact same crime. That is just a fact! If a white guy kills me, he's going to prison. If I kill that white guy, I'm going to death row!
You say that you don't care about the fact that the punishment is stiffer for killing whites than it is for killing blacks? You don't care because you don't have to care, bottom line. Walk a mile on the other side of the street, it may open your eyes. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine because we are products of our environments. You see the justice system as inherently good, and I see the justice system as inherently bad. It's sad, but I do. You named OJ Simpson/Johnnie Cochran and Clarence Thomas (HE'S A JOKE!!), these aren't the rules, these are the exceptions! I could name 10,000 people on the other side of the fence for every Clarence Thomas that you could name, easily!
And for the record, thank you for your responses! I really enjoy a healthy debate!!

[roeod4]

It's really not apples and oranges at all. I used those examples as an indictment of the American justice system (and it's racism/corruption) as a whole. The bottom line is that my conviction rate/sentence is almost always more harsh than my white counterpart who commits the exact same crime. That is just a fact! If a white guy kills me, he's going to prison. If I kill that white guy, I'm going to death row!
You say that you don't care about the fact that the punishment is stiffer for killing whites than it is for killing blacks? You don't care because you don't have to care, bottom line. Walk a mile on the other side of the street, it may open your eyes. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine because we are products of our environments. You see the justice system as inherently good, and I see the justice system as inherently bad. It's sad, but I do. You named OJ Simpson/Johnnie Cochran and Clarence Thomas (HE'S A JOKE!!), these aren't the rules, these are the exceptions! I could name 10,000 people on the other side of the fence for every Clarence Thomas that you could name, easily!
And for the record, thank you for your responses! I really enjoy a healthy debate!!

I never said that I didn't care if people were unjustly punished, I said that I don't care about the stats for that particular part of your argument. The fact that any number of variables can lead to a different conviction for any number of people committing the same crime is what I was referring to. I was not trying to imply that I didn't care what happened. Sorry, if that was not clear.

You are right in some of your last points. I am not going to change your mind and you won't change mine. I never said the the justice system is inherently good, but I do disagree with it being inherently bad. Justice is supposed to be blind. The fact that it isn't is a sad but true one. Creations of man are inherently flawed and always will be (unless you are an apple fanboy and then creations by Steve Jobs are 100% perfect, but he is God so never mind). The founding fathers of this country tried to make a "perfect" and uncorrupted system of justice. At the time this did not include black people because, at the time, black people were not considered people. The constitution and the judicial system were supposed to be updated to correct these flaws in our society. However, these systems are run by men (meaning human beings, ladies) and that does bring flaws into the equation. Some of the biase that you are referring to may be simple stereotyping and some of it may be based on years and years of being involved in the system. I have no idea personally because I have never worked in the judicial system and never even been selected for jury duty.

The one part of your argument that I don't understand and that you will not come right out and say is whether or not you think the US as a whole is racist. I have pointed out, a couple of times, that the judicial system is made up of "We the People" and that if there is a racial flaw in that system it is coming directly from us. If you agree with that, then aren't you saying that the country in and of itself is racist? If you disagree with that, then what particular part or group in the justice system do you find racist?

Also, for the record I also love a good debate and thank you for your responses.

[vinnie_dugan]

Olberman is a clown, hannity is a joke, rush is a drug addict. These guys are all a class losers.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[BigBadWulf]

Sheesh did this thread get on a tangent! Fun read, I must say.

First off, yes I listen to Hannity. I listen to conservative radio all day long. Hannity is not my favorite, that would be Boortz and Beck, in that order. If any of you who said Hannity didn't say anything negative about Bush had actually listened for the last 8 years, you'd know you're wrong. Conservative radio has been railing against the liberal slide Republicans have been on for as long as Boortz has been on the air. Hannity has been one of Bush's most outspoken critics when he disagrees, and that has been often. The drug program, border enforcement, leave no child behind, bailouts, Dubai ports, justice nominations, election reform.... the list goes on and on. If your not going to listen, don't comment!
Now, with regard to the tangent. All you have to do is look at what happened in Oakland, CA to understand what's happening to the black population. A "man" kills 4 good cops in cold blood, and they treat him as a hero. With that mentality, it's a small wonder why there's unbalance in jails. I say have the police pull out of communities where they are unwanted, (G_d help the good people left behind) and let them have at it. Stop thinking your a victim, and start listening to "outcasts" like Cosby and the BOND organization. They're the ones trying to actually solve the problems, yet they are treated like they are the problem.
This country and it's communities were a lot stronger, when it was the communities themselves in control. The grand mother of all, the nanny state, our Federal Government has slowly crept into every aspect of our lives, supposedly to solve problems, and because it is so disconnected with what the problems actually are, only adds to them. Then it gives you yet another solution, to create another problem to solve. They've made an entire party platform out of it. Want good schools? It's simple. March your happy a$$es down to your local school, and demand they educate your children. If the parents would put the pressure on, they would get results. Instead they think they need to get more money from people outside their community, and spend spend spend. More money isn't the solution, and programs like putting condoms on cucumbers, and not making little Johnny feel bad cause he didn't get an answer right, that have contributed to the downfall of education. Mandates from the Federal State. Add to that the protection of the teacher's union from anyone tenured fearing for their job. Let the schools compete in the market place for their customers, and see how quickly things get better.
Neither major political party has done this country much service in a long, long time. That's why I'm a Libertarian, and that's why conservative radio is conservative, not Republican. The big time hosts are not shills for a political party. They believe what they believe, and express those beliefs on a daily basis. If you disagree with them, turn the dial. I'm sure you can find a nice rap station, that will give you the views your in line with. This country has suffered the belief in equal outcome since the Mayflower. Read your history, socialism never works. I prefer equal opportunity, hence my signature. We do best when the Federal Government is at it's smallest, and the individual is the one with power.
Well, enough ranting from me for one morning. I'm grabbing my gun and my G_d, and I'm out of here!

[amazinglygraceless]

All Hannity quotes from Hannity and Colmes unless otherwise noted.

HANNITY: "You're not listening, Susan. You've got to learn something. He had weapons of mass destruction. He promised to disclose them. And he didn't do it. You would have let him go free; we decided to hold him accountable." (4/13/04)

FACT: Hannity's assertion comes more than six months after Bush Administration weapons inspector David Kay testified his inspection team had "not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material" and had not discovered any chemical or biological weapons. (Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03)

HANNITY: "Colin Powell just had a great piece that he had in the paper today. He was there [in Iraq]. He said things couldn't have been better." (9/19/03)

FACT: "Iraq has come very far, but serious problems remain, starting with security. American commanders and troops told me of the many threats they face--from leftover loyalists who want to return Iraq to the dark days of Saddam, from criminals who were set loose on Iraqi society when Saddam emptied the jails and, increasingly, from outside terrorists who have come to Iraq to open a new front in their campaign against the civilized world." (Colin Powell, 9/19/03)

HANNITY: "And in northern Iraq today, this very day, al Qaeda is operating camps there, and they are attacking the Kurds in the north, and this has been well-documented and well chronicled. Now, if you're going to go after al Qaeda in every aspect, and obviously they have the support of Saddam, or we're not." (12/9/02)

FACT: David Kay was on the ground for months investigating the activities of Hussein's regime. He concluded "But we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all." He called a speech where Cheney made the claim there was a link "evidence free." (Boston Globe, 6/16/04)

HANNITY: "[After 9-11], liberal Democrats at first showed little interest in the investigation of the roots of this massive intelligence failure...[Bush and his team] made it clear that determining the causes of America's security failures and finding and remedying its weak points would be central to their mission." (Let Freedom Ring, by Sean Hannity)

TRUTH: Bush Opposed the creation of a special commission to probe the causes of 9/11 for over a year. On 5/23/02 CBS News Reported "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." Bush didn't relent to pressure to create a commission, mostly from those Hannity would consider "liberal" until September 2002. (CBS News, 5/23/02)

HANNITY: "First of all, this president -- you know and I know and everybody knows -- inherited a recession...it was by every definition a recession" (11/6/02)

HANNITY: "Now here's where we are. The inherited Clinton/Gore recession. That's a fact." (5/6/03)

HANNITY: "The president inherited a recession." (7/10/03)

HANNITY: "He got us out of the Clinton-Gore recession." (10/23/03)

HANNITY: "They did inherit the recession. They did inherit the recession. We got out of the recession." (12/12/03)

HANNITY: "And this is the whole point behind this ad, because the president did inherit a recession." (1/6/04)

HANNITY: "Historically in every recovery, because the president rightly did inherit a recession. But historically, the lagging indicator always deals with employment." (1/15/04)

HANNITY: "Congressman Deutsch, maybe you forgot but I'll be glad to remind you, the president did inherit that recession." (1/20/04)

HANNITY: "He did inherit a recession, and we're out of the recession." (2/2/04)

HANNITY: "The president inherited a recession." (2/23/04)

HANNITY: "The president inherited a recession." (3/3/04)

HANNITY: "Well, you know, we're going to show ads, as a matter of fact, in the next segment, Congressman. Thanks for promoting our next segment. What I like about them is everything I've been saying the president ought to do: is focusing in on his positions, on keeping the nation secure in very difficult times, what he's been able to do to the economy after inheriting a very difficult recession, and of course, the economic impact of 9/11." (3/3/04)

HANNITY: "All right. So this is where I view the economic scenario as we head into this election. The president inherited a recession." (3/16/04)

HANNITY: "First of all, we've got to put it into perspective, is that the president inherited a recession." (3/26/04)

HANNITY: "Clearly, we're out of the recession that President Bush inherited." (4/2/04)

HANNITY: "Stop me where I'm wrong. The president inherited a recession, the economic impact of 9/11 was tremendous on the economy, correct?" (4/6/04)

HANNITY: "[President George W. Bush] did inherit a recession." (5/3/04)

HANNITY: "[W]e got [the weak U.S. economy] out of the Clinton-Gore recession." (5/18/04)

HANNITY: "We got out of the Clinton-Gore recession." (5/27/04)

HANNITY: "We got out of the Clinton-Gore recession." (6/4/04)

FACT: "The recession officially began in March of 2001 -- two months after Bush was sworn in -- according to the universally acknowledged arbiter of such things, the National Bureau of Economic Research. And the president, at other times, has said so himself." (Washington Post, 7/1/03)

HANNITY: "The Hispanic community got to know him in Texas. They went almost overwhelming for him. He more than quadrupled the Hispanic vote that he got in that state." (9/16/03)

FACT: Exit polls varied in 1998 governors race, but under best scenario he increased his Hispanic vote from 24 to 49 percent – a doubling not a quadrupling. He lost Texas Hispanics to Gore in 2000, 54-43 percent. (Source: NCLR, NHCSL)

HANNITY: "Look, we've had these reports, very disturbing reports -- and I have actually spoken to people that have confirmed a lot of the reports -- about the trashing of the White House. Pornographic materials left in the printers. They cut the phone lines. Lewd and crude messages on phone machines. Stripping of anything that was not bolted down on Air Force One. $200,000 in furniture taken out." (1/26/01)

TRUTH: According to statements from the General Services Administration that were reported on May 17, little if anything out of the ordinary occurred during the transition, and "the condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy." (FAIR)

HANNITY: "I never questioned anyone's patriotism." (9/18/03)

FACT:

HANNITY: (to attorney Stanley Cohen) "Is it you hate this president or that you hate America?" (4/30/03)

HANNITY: "Governor, why wouldn't anyone want to say the Pledge of Allegiance, unless they detested their own country or were ignorant of its greatness?" (6/12/03)

HANNITY: "You could explain something about your magazine, [the Nation]. Lisa Featherstone writing about the hate America march, the [anti-war] march that took place over the weekend..." (1/22/03)

HANNITY: "'I hate America.' This is the extreme left. There is a portion of the left -- not everybody who's left -- that does hate this country and blame this country for the ills of the world..." (1/23/02)

HANNITY: (speaking to Sara Flounders co-director of the International Action Center) "You don't like this country, do you? You don't -- you think this is an evil country. By your description of it right here, you think it's a bad country." (9/25/01)

HANNITY: "It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution this idea of the separation of church and state." (8/25/03)

FACT: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (1st Amendment)

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (Article VI)

HANNITY: "You want to refer to some liberal activist judge..., that's fine, but I'm going to go directly to the source. The author of the Bill of Rights [James Madison] hired the first chaplain in 1789, and I gotta' tell ya' somethin', I think the author of the Bill of Rights knows more about the original intent--no offense to you and your liberal atheist activism--knows more about it than you do." (9/4/02)

TRUTH: The first congressional chaplains weren't hired by James Madison--they were appointed by a committee of the Senate and House in, respectively, April and May, 1789, before the First Amendment even existed. James Madison's view: "Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative." (James Madison)

HANNITY: "But the Alabama Constitution, which Chief Justice Roy Moore is sworn to uphold, clearly it says, as a matter of fact that the recognition of God is the foundation of that state's Constitution." (8/21/03)

FACT: While the preamble of the Alabama Constitution does reference "the Almighty," section three provides: "That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles." (Alabama Constitution, Section 3)

HANNITY: Betsy, they're not going to lose it [public housing], because if you work less than 30 hours a week -- if you work more than 30 hours a week, you don't have to do it. If you're between the ages of 18 and 62 and you're not legally disabled and you have free housing -- in other words...

BETSY MCCAUGHEY: No. Wait a second, Sean. Let me correct you. Most people in public housing are not receiving free housing. Many of them are paying almost market rates.

HANNITY: Betsy, that is so ridiculous and so false, it's hardly even worth spending the time. (10/23/03)

FACT: Residents of public housing pay rent scaled to their household's anticipated gross annual income, less deductions for dependents and disabilities. The basic formula for rent is 30 percent of this monthly adjusted income. There are exceptions for extremely low incomes, but the minimum rent is $25 per month. No one lives in public housing for free. (Department of Housing and Urban Development)

HANNITY: "The Kerry campaign wants to cut taxes on people who make two hundred thousand dollars. She [Teresa Heinz Kerry] only paid 14.7 percent of her income in taxes, because their plan doesn't go to dividends, only income. So they don't want to tax themselves." (5/12/04)

FACT: Kerry's plan would "Restore the capital gains and dividend rates for families making over $200,000 on income earned above $200,000 to their levels under President Clinton. (Kerry Press Release, 4/7/04)

HANNITY: "He's [Kerry's] flip-flopped all over the place... on the issue of Iraq. All the munitions that we have built up, most of them wouldn't be there." (1/30/04)

HANNITY: "But he wanted to cancel�???every major weapons system. Specific votes that he would have canceled the weapons systems we now use." (2/26/04)

FACT: "In 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget. In 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion. In 1994, he voted against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier. In 1996, he opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget. In 1999, he voted against a motion to terminate the Trident II missile." (Slate, 2/25/04)

HANNITY: "If he (Kerry) had his way and the CIA would almost be nonexistent." (1/30/04)

FACT: John Kerry has supported $200 billion in intelligence funding over the past seven years - a 50 percent increase since 1996.

Kerry votes supporting intelligence funding:

FY03 Intel Authorization $39.3-$41.3 Billion
[2002, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 9/25/02]

FY02 Intel Authorization $33 Billion
[2001, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 12/13/01]

FY01 Intel Authorization $29.5-$31.5 Billion
[2000, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 12/6/00]

FY00 Intel Authorization $29-$30 Billion
[1999, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 11/19/1999]

FY99 Intel Authorization $29.0 Billion
[1998, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 10/8/98]

FY98 Intel Authorization $26.7 Billion
[1997, Senate Roll Call Vote #109]

FY97 Intel Authorization $26.6 Billion
[1996, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 9/25/96]

'NUFF SAID

[BigBadWulf]

I've read the Kay report and the Butler report. Both confirm evidence of extensive programs by Iraq in nuclear, biological, and chemical weaponry. Even found fighter jets buried in the desert. No telling what else is buried who knows where, or transported out by the Russians prior to our invasion. With 4 hours of air time a day, inaccuracies are sure to arise.
I believe the thread was about Hannity being a cry baby, and a hater. I'm not a huge fan, but I still don't see any posting addressing this issue with any serious content. OK, while the Bush White House refused to make issue of the transition, that doesn't mean none occurred. That the recession didn't start until Bush was in office 2 months, doesn't take from the fact the dot-com bubble burst long before Clinton left. And the housing market, well that started it's road to tragedy under Carter, and while neither party did enough, there were attempts to curb it's eventual eruption. Kerry's votes for spending, he had plenty against them too.
Hannity fought the KKK in Georgia for Pete's sake, where's the hate?
This topic will go round and round, to what end? I for one don't agree with either major party, as I've stated before. They both are in it for their own selfish reasons, and have thrown the Constitution out the window. They both have utter contempt for those of us who wish to live in freedom, with individual responsibility. Instead relying on the desires of one group or the other to keep them in power.
I give, these threads always go way off topic.