Quoting Superfly (Reply 249): It's best I stay as far away from her rallies as possible out of fear of being lynched.

A shane I probably won't be able to avoid being fleeced for years on end by an Obama administration. Much larger chance of that happening that you being lynched. Of course I've already started avoiding McCain supporters since I don't want to get maced or beaten.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 248): Again, responding to that person would have only acknowledged them, much better to ignore and marginalize. BTW how do you know the people around her didn't tell her to shut up. According to the way the video plays out she didn't say it again

By not saying anything she condone it with her actions. No it is much better to step up to the plate and shut it down. No by keeping quiet you can keep your supporters happy and ruffle no feathers.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 251): By not saying anything she condone it with her actions.

BS. One person marginalized realizes they are on their own and quickly comes around. Getting into an argument only gives that person credibility. Again, how do you know that people in the crowd did not tell her to shut up? You don't, but you also don't hear her say it again.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 252): Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 251): By not saying anything she condone it with her actions. BS. One person marginalized realizes they are on their own and quickly comes around. Getting into an argument only gives that person credibility. Again, how do you know that people in the crowd did not tell her to shut up? You don't, but you also don't hear her say it again.

OK we will just have to agree to disagree cause I am getting dizzy going round and round wih ya. The bottom line is she could have earned more respect by saying something, though her quietness speaks volumes of her true character and moral fabric that is Sarah Palin.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 253): The bottom line is she could have earned more respect by saying something, though her quietness speaks volumes of her true character and moral fabric that is Sarah Palin.

Then you don't understand anything about public speaking.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 253): The bottom line is she could have earned more respect by saying something, though her quietness speaks volumes of her true character and moral fabric that is Sarah Palin.

  

I hope we wont have to hear from her after next Tuesday.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 254): Then you don't understand anything about public speaking.

He knows a hell of a lot more than Sarah Palin.   

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 254): Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 253): The bottom line is she could have earned more respect by saying something, though her quietness speaks volumes of her true character and moral fabric that is Sarah Palin. Then you don't understand anything about public speaking.

You want to go there? I specialize in public speaking and do it and teach it as well. She could very easily diffused the situation by stating that no unflattering comments be shouted out nor would be allowed, other than be herself! She did not have to call out the person individually though she easily could have and still maintained control, though I am sure you will come back and debate this response, though I am through, you win!

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 255): You want to go there?

Sure, I was in radio and tv for 18 years and even spent time as a motivational speaker and tried my hand at stand up comedy. She took the best course of action, non recognition. Again, you don't hear the woman say it again so you don't know what was happening in the crowd other than after that one outburst the person was silent.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 255): She could very easily diffused the situation by stating that no unflattering comments be shouted out nor would be allowed, other than be herself!

And in doing so would have immediately egged that person on not to mention set up a confrontational position between her and the crowd. Define "unflattering", no way she could have to a large crowd.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 234): I agree it's irresponsible, but it's not socialism, unless of course we agree we are taking from the Chinese and resdistributing it. boggled

Wait wait wait.

How much did Bush spend on Iraq and Afghanistan? Did he increase taxes to cover it?

Please don't call that socialism.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 258): How much did Bush spend on Iraq and Afghanistan? Did he increase taxes to cover it?

Irrevelant. No he cut taxes and as a result reciepts to the treasury began to increase over what they had been at the higher rates. So in other words by cutting taxes he increased revenue. The problem then became that he and the GOP in charge forgot what worked in the middle 90's and started spending more than they were taking in even though that was more.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 258): Please don't call that socialism.

Why in the world would that be socialism. You go out and get a real computer yet? Something where the hard drive doesn't whirr and click?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 234): I agree it's irresponsible, but it's not socialism

If I may, a much more accurate definition of socialism would be socialisation of losses, of which a clear example would be the whole $700b buyout/nationalisation mess.

I am not saying it was not necessary or that it was a good or bad decision. I do not have have anywhere near the necessary expertise and crystal ball-peering abilities to make a judgement there.

I am simply stating that to make taxpayers foot the bill for corporate greed, incompetence and irresponsibility is the very definition of socialism as it was carried out in Eastern Europe for decades.

 

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 260): I am simply stating that to make taxpayers foot the bill for corporate greed, incompetence and irresponsibility is the very definition of socialism as it was carried out in Eastern Europe for decades.

True but you are leaving out part of the equation and that part is a government that told banks and lending institutions that they had to make loans available to those that would not ordinarily qualify or face prosecution. It also leaves out two government sponsored organizations that actively promoted this type of lending and bought those mortgages by the car load. That in turn forced banks and other lending institutions to get into the game or risk losing millions. It's just not all Wall Street here.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 261): True but you are leaving out part of the equation and that part is a government that told banks and lending institutions that they had to make loans available to those that would not ordinarily qualify or face prosecution. It also leaves out two government sponsored organizations that actively promoted this type of lending and bought those mortgages by the car load. That in turn forced banks and other lending institutions to get into the game or risk losing millions. It's just not all Wall Street here.

Agreed. Definitely not all Wall St. But said government-sponsored tinkering with the market did pass through Congress between 1994 and 2006...

 

How do you spell desperate? McCain/Palin campaign 2008

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/29/campaign.wrap/index.html

"
Asked why the McCain campaign was bringing the matter up six months after the article appeared, an aide replied, "Because we are one week away from potentially electing Barack Obama."

At an event Wednesday in Raleigh, North Carolina, Obama said McCain has spent the last few days calling him "every name in the book."

"I don't know what's next. By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich," Obama said"

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 263): How do you spell desperate? McCain/Palin campaign 2008 http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/29/campaign.wrap/index.html " Asked why the McCain campaign was bringing the matter up six months after the article appeared, an aide replied, "Because we are one week away from potentially electing Barack Obama."

Tell me about it.
Besides, if there was any merit to that story, AIPAC and the ADL would have sabotaged Obama before he even came to the Senate and certainly before the Presidential primaries.

Well this latest polls explains the desperate measures of McCain/Palin.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/...nesday/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Colorado is leaning towards Obama and IN is considered a tie right now. I'm seeing blue, maybe McCain can blame the blue he is seeing on the side effects of Viagra.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 265): Colorado is leaning towards Obama

Obama has lead there throughout most of the year.
Indiana is what is surprising. I thought I'd never see my birth state go Democrat at the Presidential level. Even if McCain wins Indiana, this is a state that shouldn't even be in doubt for McCain.

AP Poll: Obama leads in 6 of 8 swing states.

"Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. He and Republican John McCain were even in two others: Florida and North Carolina."

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 265): Colorado is leaning towards Obama

He doubled his lead there in the last two weeks according to a CNN poll.

Some polls are showing a dead heat in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Obama closing in on McCain in his home state of Arizona.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stump...-landslide-watch-these-states.aspx

Why won't the media leave Joe the Plumber alone?

What? He has a manager and a publicist? He's going into the studio to cut some tracks?

Never mind.

Hollywood's next blockbuster, "Goin' Rogue". The John McCain campaign says "We're speechless". In a theater near you in 2012.

Don't miss "Goin' Rogue 2: Shepard Smith Boogaloo". "It just gets frightening sometimes" raves FoxNews.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 263): "I don't know what's next. By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich," Obama said"

Bad example. When you share your toys or your sandwich, that's called charity. When you force everyone else to share theirs, that's redistribution.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 272): Bad example. When you share your toys or your sandwich, that's called charity. When you force everyone else to share theirs, that's redistribution.

I think he was poking fun. The point is that McCain... well and you... are so desperate to paint him as a socialist (or communist) that you might say that his sharing his sandwich makes him a communist.

By the way, I'm still eagerly awaiting your pointing out my "inaccuracies" in post 200. If you are going to say I'm wrong then when I back it up, it would be good form to follow up. If I'm actually wrong, I'd like to learn something.  

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 273): The point is that McCain... well and you... are so desperate to paint him as a socialist (or communist) that you might say that his sharing his sandwich makes him a communist.

If I were so desperate, I would have agreed with him.

But the fact is, he is a socialist. We are seeing a pattern of beliefs becoming more and more clear every day, from his different interviews and statements, as well as the company he has chosen to keep. Isolated statements are one thing, but put them all together and you start to get a picture.

No desperation, just facts, and great worry.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 274): No desperation, just facts, and great worry.

Don't worry. You're letting the McCain/Palin fear machine get to you.

If you must worry, worry about this:

Palin faces new ethics complaint

"Governor Palin intentionally secured unwarranted benefits for family members, improperly used state property to benefit her personal and financial interests, and illegally altered documents that were the subject of a Public Records request," the complaint states.

...

"Sarah ran on this very self-righteous campaign on ethics and anti-corruption," Gwartney told the AP. "She is no different from the others."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...2008/10/29/politics/p132339D35.DTL

John McCain has run a disaster of a campaign..not one of a champion. Or a true leader.

John McCain has treated the presidency as a joke by selecting - as 'the possible successor' to a McCain presidency - complete incompetent, that no one outside red-meat Republicans see as qualified.

John McCain's style of 'leadership' is of that old school of thought that says 'you're a leader because "you say you are"..and nothing more. His thought process reflects such out-dated mindset. He still lives in a time long since past. The world has passed him by.. and no one's had the nerve to tell him.

The most powerful and advanced nation on the planet deserves a much better leadership than it's current one and that which McCain is offering.

McCain's ran his campaign the BEST he could, this was a true test of an executive at the helm. This was a true test of leadership, a true test of decision making, a true test of judgement. And he has failed miserably. Even if McCain beats all odds and does win...we've seen his judgement at his best, (Palin and the rest)..and it's clear how erratic and below average of a Presidency he would shepherd.

And it seems the majority of Americans suspect as much and are leaning against going down that path.

Thanks John, but no thanks..American needs someone with both feet squarely planted in the 21st Century...and you are not him.



BN747

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 274): But the fact is, he is a socialist.

KING: You don't believe Barack Obama is a socialist do you?

MCCAIN: "No, but I do believe that he has been in the far left of American politics and stated time after time that he believes in spreading the wealth around. He has talked about courts that redistribute the wealth."

So McCain doesn't think Obama is a socialist but he continues to bring out the falsehood of Obama wanting to use the courts to redistribute wealth. It's the complete opposite of what Obama said in the original interview.

Interesting ad just came out from the Obama camp:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eUz13-pmTY

Seems like it would be kinda difficult for McCain supporters to respond to...

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 272): When you force everyone else to share theirs, that's redistribution.

I asked previously in the thread - once again: what do you call the Earned Income Tax Credit the Reagan administration passed in 1983? Is it or is it not redistribution??

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 279): I asked previously in the thread - once again: what do you call the Earned Income Tax Credit the Reagan administration passed in 1983? Is it or is it not redistribution??

No, why?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 280): No, why?

Are you for real? People below the federal poverty line have been receiving enlarged tax refunds for 25 years provided that they have children and jobs. The refunds have only one source: taxes paid by people with higher incomes. For the working poor, the Reagan expansion of the EITC is essentially gift money from the government taken out of the incomes of higher classes. It was further expanded by the Clinton administration, as you might recall.

How is such a system not redistribution of wealth? I recall a tax policy course in college where we were shown data indicating the EITC is responsible for generating millions of dollars in retail revenues in depressed communities nationwide. Revenues that wouldn't have been possible if the cash residents were using wasn't dispensed from middle class on up.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 281): Are you for real? People below the federal poverty line have been receiving enlarged tax refunds for 25 years provided that they have children and jobs. The refunds have only one source: taxes paid by people with higher incomes.

Sorry, but I've only been back in the U.S. for two years, and am not familiar with some of the gazillions of tax programs here. If you describe it accurately, and people are getting net positive income from the government, that is redistribution.

What I hate the most is how people change the name of something. To me, a tax credit is something you can deduct either from taxable income or an amount you deduct from your final tax amount (the debit).

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 282): If you describe it accurately, and people are getting net positive income from the government, that is redistribution.

Net positive income on which they pay net negative tax, in many cases. So, does that mean Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan were also socialists? McCain needs to get his facts straight. The second expansion of EITC in the Tax Reform Act, McCain initially voted NO on, but later after it was revised, he ended up voting YES. However true it may be, it's no less insulting that the McCain camp is arrogant enough to believe most Americans are too busy or otherwise dumb to check this stuff out.

http://www.ctj.org/html/mccain.htm

Now, various Republican tax policies that were expanded by Democrats later have had the following net effect:

As a result of the EITC, the child credit and other tax cuts, the percentage of those with no income tax liability has risen to 30 percent of all tax filers, according to the Tax Foundation. The combination of EITC and the child credit offsets 100 percent of the income tax liability for almost all families with incomes below $30,000.

Sounds like socialism to me, under the McCain campaign's definition. They have absolutely no legs to stand on and Obama's an idiot for not pointing these blatant facts out. More proof that both of these guys are class-A jack-offs.

For more reading on these policies to get yourself up to speed, this is a decent synopsis from a nonpartisan source the above quote came from:

http://www.ncpa.org/edo/bb/2003/bb061603.html

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 283): Net positive income on which they pay net negative tax, in many cases. So, does that mean Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan were also socialists? McCain needs to get his facts straight. The second expansion of EITC in the Tax Reform Act, McCain initially voted NO on, but later after it was revised, he ended up voting YES. However true it may be, it's no less insulting that the McCain camp is arrogant enough to believe most Americans are too busy or otherwise dumb to check this stuff out.

Aaron747 you hit the nail on the proverbial head.

However true it may be, it's no less insulting that the McCain camp is arrogant enough to believe most Americans are too busy or otherwise dumb to check this stuff out.

I believe IMHO that this is EXACTLY how he is running his campaign. Throw as much up against the wall see what sticks and go from there.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 284): I believe IMHO that this is EXACTLY how he is running his campaign.

And in fairness, especially because I couldn't vote for the man, it's no different than how Obama has run his. A bunch of lofty platitudes about America's promise, largely borrowing from Ronald Reagan's first campaign, and conveniently coming on the heels of the worst Presidency in recent memory, without any specific information about how to pay for what and where. Even in the 30 minute spot in which he started by pledging he'd explain his plans, he didn't mention a single program he'd cut in the existing federal budget to shore up funds. Sure, he may go through line by line, but surely the man has a few programs off the top of his head that needed to go yesterday?? Give me a break.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 273): By the way, I'm still eagerly awaiting your pointing out my "inaccuracies" in post 200.

Don't hold your breath, I'm still waiting for a response for over a week ago..

Interesting article out of Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/id/166193, questioning why corporations line up with the Republicans, when they actually did better under the other party.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 286): questioning why corporations line up with the Republicans

Because they can get a sordid 25% tax cut like the one the McCain plan is offering.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 234): I agree it's irresponsible, but it's not socialism, unless of course we agree we are taking from the Chinese and resdistributing it

LOL! Scary as it sounds, though, I think we are....

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 285): Even in the 30 minute spot in which he started by pledging he'd explain his plans, he didn't mention a single program he'd cut in the existing federal budget to shore up funds. Sure, he may go through line by line, but surely the man has a few programs off the top of his head that needed to go yesterday?? Give me a break.

America will have itself to thank for the next 4 years IMHO. We allowed both of these impersonators to win their primaries and continue running a campaign based on half truths without asking the hard questions. I watched Obama's infomercial and it was such a slick production it could even win an Oscar. But good luck finding anything with substance in his message...or McCain's for that matter.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 283): For more reading on these policies to get yourself up to speed, this is a decent synopsis from a nonpartisan source the above quote came from:

You are doing a great job with these posts, but unfortunately you're trying to educate a bunch of ideologues who don't want to hear anything that shakes their faith -- and that's true on both sides of the debate. The polarization in this election is astounding, and even more astounding is that it is largely based on ignorance and/or misinformation.

At the risk of sounding like an Obama supporter (his election could be bad news, economically, for Canada), I find it hilarious that he is being described as a socialist. Brings tears to my eyes. How does this brainwashing take place in a free society like the U.S.? To suggest Obama is a socialist is an insult to real socialists the world over.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 288): I watched Obama's infomercial and it was such a slick production it could even win an Oscar. But good luck finding anything with substance in his message...or McCain's for that matter.

You've touched on the real problem with this election, and with elections in many of the world's democracies. Candidates are going to avoid anything like the level of policy detail that thinking people require to make an assessment of their policies because, well, they need the support of a lot of simpletons, not thinkers, to get elected. Simpletons don't respond well to detail, it confuses them. And political opponents can come up with simple pejoratives (like "he's a socialist" or "he's a Bush clone") to counter any substantive proposals put forward.

As a result, you have two candidates in a "dare, double dare" mindset -- each hoping the other will spell out a policy in enough detail that they can hurl their epithets back with telling effect among the simpletons they need to get elected. This is what happens when you have an electorate comprising a bunch of brainwashed ideologues who'll vote right (or left) without any regard to the actual policy proposals, and a huge, grossly uninformed set of simpletons who get upset if the election gets in the way of a baseball game.

If we don't collectively (oops, that smacks of socialism) do something to fix this, I fear for the future of democracy. And on that note, I'm far more interested in what the candidates might have said about education than all their blustering about the economy.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 289): they need the support of a lot of simpletons, not thinkers, to get elected. Simpletons don't respond well to detail, it confuses them. And political opponents can come up with simple pejoratives (like "he's a socialist" or "he's a Bush clone") to counter any substantive proposals put forward.

Exactly right. Too much detail will bore a huger percentage, irritate a percentage, and offer up fodder for the next negative ads from the other campaign.

Nice race baiting by McCain today. He now says that "Obama's taking your money to give to his welfare-lovin' peeps."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/241113.php

Also noteworthy is that a poll found 23% of Texans believe Obama is a Muslim.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6084678.html

Can we just have Texas secede already?

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 291): Nice race baiting by McCain today. He now says that "Obama's taking your money to give to his welfare-lovin' peeps."

What is it with the Republican party, this ad along with Elizabeth Dole's for one    it's quickly becoming (if it hasn't already) the party of hate and no ideas..

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 291): Can we just have Texas secede already?

I moved earlier to give Texas back to Mexico.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 291): Also noteworthy is that a poll found 23% of Texans believe Obama is a Muslim.

I this explains why our friends from Texas on this board have been posting a bunch of nonsense, thank goodness Tuesday is just around the corner.

I was looking at this site

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

And they have some good comments about Obama's recent infomercial.

The quote that stood out to me.

"So McCain has a long history of being practical senator working with the other guys to get things done. Nary a word about his many accomplishments. Just attack, attack, attack. Historically, when one candidate offers hope and one offers fear, hope wins."

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 262): Definitely not all Wall St. But said government-sponsored tinkering with the market did pass through Congress between 1994 and 2006...

Agreed.    The majority of it though was in the latter 90's after the Clinton Justice department threatened to prosecute mortgage lenders that were thought to be practicing "red lining" that being not giving loans to people who live in certain areas regardless of their income due to the uncertainty of the value of the property.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 263): At an event Wednesday in Raleigh, North Carolina, Obama said McCain has spent the last few days calling him "every name in the book."

Another fine example of "we can dish it out but we can't take it!" by Luv2Fly.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 273): are so desperate to paint him as a socialist

You don't have to be desperate to do that, all you have to do is listen to his proposals. The level at which a persons taxes won't go up has fallen 100k in the past week and a half alone.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 279): I asked previously in the thread - once again: what do you call the Earned Income Tax Credit the Reagan administration passed in 1983? Is it or is it not redistribution??

It was actually 1986 and it was an adjustment to the original EIC passed in 1975. In addtiton the Reagan expansion eliminated all other deductions if you accepted the EIC so in effect it was all or nothing where as before it would have been in addition to. The EIC bill in 1986 was attached to the tax reform act of 1986 which lowered the top tax brackets from 50 to 28% and raised the lower brackets from 11 to 15%. So in effect what they did was to protect those below the poverty line from an increase while also reducing the load on the top earners. Results, Positive: one of the biggest peace time expansions in history, Negative: Congress went on a spending binge spending 1.50 for every 1.00 in tax reciepts even though tax reciepts went up.

So to answer your question, no it was not wealth redistribution since the lower tax rate went up and the higher tax rate went down.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 281): For the working poor, the Reagan expansion of the EITC is essentially gift money from the government taken out of the incomes of higher classes. It was further expanded by the Clinton administration, as you might recall.

The Clinton expansion could rightfully be called socialism since the upper tax brackets were raised at the same time.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 294): Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 263): At an event Wednesday in Raleigh, North Carolina, Obama said McCain has spent the last few days calling him "every name in the book." Another fine example of "we can dish it out but we can't take it!" by Luv2Fly.

I am pointing out the tactics that McCain/Palin campaign are taking in hopes of winning, fear and slinging mud. If they win, and god forbid, why should we expect anything else out of these 2.....

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 295): I am pointing out the tactics that McCain/Palin campaign are taking in hopes of winning, fear and slinging mud

Sure.    So now pointing out what your opponents policies really are is slinging mud or trying to create fear. Not that it might be an actual portrayal of those advocated policies.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 296): Sure. So now pointing out what your opponents policies really are is slinging mud or trying to create fear. Not that it might be an actual portrayal of those advocated policies.

Do McCain and Palin actually ever talk about issues that effect us? All I ever heard them do is browbeat Obama and Biden in there quest to take the limelight off of them! If they keep busy pointing out why Obama/Biden are not the right choice then they do not have to talk about what little they actually bring to the proverbial table.

The public know what a joke this duo is that is why McCain is even losing his own state, how sad is that. Sarah Baracuda, more the the Disasta' from Alaska!

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 297): Do McCain and Palin actually ever talk about issues that effect us?

Sure, and the biggest effect would be an Obama administration tied to a Democratically led Congress. He (McCain) has consistently states what he wants to do in response to what Sen. Obama wants to to. I guess if maybe taxes, national security, and cutting the size of government aren't issues to you then he isn't talking about what you want to hear.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 298): Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 297): Do McCain and Palin actually ever talk about issues that effect us? Sure, and the biggest effect would be an Obama administration tied to a Democratically led Congress. He (McCain) has consistently states what he wants to do in response to what Sen. Obama wants to to. I guess if maybe taxes, national security, and cutting the size of government aren't issues to you then he isn't talking about what you want to hear.

McCain is flip flopping more than an out of water fish. And once again both him and Palin are going through the state of Ohio in hopes of winning it, and low and behold they have a theme for this tour. And even Joe the plumber stood them up today. Reports now say that Joe is chasing both a country music carrer as well as thinking of getting into Government.