The adventures of President Donald Gump

[dieter 3,325]

On 3/2/2018 at 6:25 PM, Earl Hood said:

Barry lives in Carlton these days I think, I see him occasionally going to a seafood restaurant in Lyon Street near Brunetti’s. He is always dressed in a suit a throw back to a by gone era. God knows what he makes of the current anti rationalist/science mob running the country now!

I used to sell him records at John Clements in the mid 70's, Discurio in the early 70's. All classical of course, Barry is, like myself, a cultured chap.

[nutbean 8,838]

On 02/03/2018 at 1:33 PM, Wrecker45 said:

I'm not sure how comparing Pauline Hanson's 4.3% vote to Trump's presidential election win helps your argument.

Another populist movement. 

She did only receive a small percentage but she is in the same vein and received a disproportionate amount of media attention. 

The likes of Hanson., Trump play on the fears of the electorate. We were to be swamped by Asians and apparently now we are to be swamped by Muslims.

Trump (and his minions) absolutely tuned into what ailed the electorate so credit where credit is due. A mixture of fear mongering and distaste for establishment coupled with a poor alternative got him elected. 

Genius is a stretch though.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

11 hours ago, nutbean said:

Another populist movement. 

She did only receive a small percentage but she is in the same vein and received a disproportionate amount of media attention. 

The likes of Hanson., Trump play on the fears of the electorate. We were to be swamped by Asians and apparently now we are to be swamped by Muslims.

Trump (and his minions) absolutely tuned into what ailed the electorate so credit where credit is due. A mixture of fear mongering and distaste for establishment coupled with a poor alternative got him elected. 

Genius is a stretch though.

It’s funny because I see the greens praying on fear with climate change and all their other far left scare campaigns. 

I guess it depends where you sit on the political spectrum as to who you think is fear mongering and who is addressing genuine concerns.

[dieter 3,325]

25 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

It’s funny because I see the greens praying on fear with climate change and all their other far left scare campaigns. 

I guess it depends where you sit on the political spectrum as to who you think is fear mongering and who is addressing genuine concerns.

Yes, I can see Richard De Natalie praying to god to save our planet. On the other hand, I can see a lot of preying on the fears of the Australian public, E.G. Children Overboard, Weapons of Mass Destruction - This isn't about Regime Change , said the Lord Johnie - and subsequent fridge stickers about being alert but not alarmed...

Then again, those who read Rudolph's Press fell for all of the preying hook line and sinker.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

12 minutes ago, dieter said:

Yes, I can see Richard De Natalie praying to god to save our planet. On the other hand, I can see a lot of preying on the fears of the Australian public, E.G. Children Overboard, Weapons of Mass Destruction - This isn't about Regime Change , said the Lord Johnie - and subsequent fridge stickers about being alert but not alarmed...

Then again, those who read Rudolph's Press fell for all of the preying hook line and sinker.

Richard De Natalie prays and preaches. Of course if you don’t conform to his carbon dioxide religion there will be tragedies of biblical proportions. 

[Earl Hood 6,101]

28 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

It’s funny because I see the greens praying on fear with climate change and all their other far left scare campaigns. 

I guess it depends where you sit on the political spectrum as to who you think is fear mongering and who is addressing genuine concerns.

Interesting how you measure environmental issues in political terms. Fyck the data it’s all about the politics isn’t it?

Your real issue is with your hatred of lefty, greenie types, and of course darstardly unionists. To fight that battle, you will ignore facts in pursuit of victory over these deluded individuals. Your goal is to berate greenies, not to pursue the scientific truth. 

You would of course rejoice in Andrew Bolt’s article today in the Hun. citing so called data that the world has not warmed, based on last months world temperature average! Can I query whether last month was unusually cool? I mean our denialists claim we need to look at the longer climate history, like thousands of years! But if last month looks good let’s jump at that one; Andrew Bolt of no known qualification, but an opinion on everyone else’s area of expertise, usually to tell them they are wrong! 

[nutbean 8,838]

15 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

It’s funny because I see the greens praying on fear with climate change and all their other far left scare campaigns. 

I guess it depends where you sit on the political spectrum as to who you think is fear mongering and who is addressing genuine concerns.

Considering myself fairly moderate, I will agree that there have been some outrageous comments made by the" climate change is real" side that could well be labeled fear mongering. 

I consider the litmus test of genuine concerns vs fear mongering where the opinions and research of the vast majority of scientists well versed in this area are sitting.  Just because there is not 100% consensus ( or a looney tune says the because of climate change the polar ice caps are going to be melted by tomorrow and we are all going to drown), does not mean that the genuine concern of the vast majority of qualified people in the field becomes fear mongering.

I use the same the litmus test on most issues. Should there be a thoughtful debate on immigration ? Of course. Are we being "swamped" by Asians and Muslims ? hmmm...

[Jara 1,153]

16 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

It’s funny because I see the greens praying on fear with climate change and all their other far left scare campaigns. 

I guess it depends where you sit on the political spectrum as to who you think is fear mongering and who is addressing genuine concerns.

So the American Chemical Society, to choose one of many internationally respected organisations, is just "praying on fear" (whatever that means)?

 

I'd say they're looking at the science.

 

[Wrecker45 3,378]

On 05/03/2018 at 9:55 PM, Earl Hood said:

Interesting how you measure environmental issues in political terms. Fyck the data it’s all about the politics isn’t it?

Your real issue is with your hatred of lefty, greenie types, and of course darstardly unionists. To fight that battle, you will ignore facts in pursuit of victory over these deluded individuals. Your goal is to berate greenies, not to pursue the scientific truth. 

You would of course rejoice in Andrew Bolt’s article today in the Hun. citing so called data that the world has not warmed, based on last months world temperature average! Can I query whether last month was unusually cool? I mean our denialists claim we need to look at the longer climate history, like thousands of years! But if last month looks good let’s jump at that one; Andrew Bolt of no known qualification, but an opinion on everyone else’s area of expertise, usually to tell them they are wrong! 

A couple of points I don’t hate anyone. 

Andrew Bolt is somewhat representative of the conservative right in that he thinks for himself and doesn’t but into groupthink. Other than that I have no idea what opinion piece you are referring to, the herald sun isn’t My thing. 

Thanks for telling me what I think.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

On 06/03/2018 at 12:52 PM, nutbean said:

Considering myself fairly moderate, I will agree that there have been some outrageous comments made by the" climate change is real" side that could well be labeled fear mongering. 

I consider the litmus test of genuine concerns vs fear mongering where the opinions and research of the vast majority of scientists well versed in this area are sitting.  Just because there is not 100% consensus ( or a looney tune says the because of climate change the polar ice caps are going to be melted by tomorrow and we are all going to drown), does not mean that the genuine concern of the vast majority of qualified people in the field becomes fear mongering.

I use the same the litmus test on most issues. Should there be a thoughtful debate on immigration ? Of course. Are we being "swamped" by Asians and Muslims ? hmmm...

I’m not sure the majority of scientists do agree. I guess it depends on the question but i’d be surprised if the majority of scientists didn’t share my view when broken down into individual questions.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

On 06/03/2018 at 1:29 PM, Jara said:

So the American Chemical Society, to choose one of many internationally respected organisations, is just "praying on fear" (whatever that means)?

 

I'd say they're looking at the science.

 

I’m not sure how many times I can explain this to you Jara. My interest lies in the content the organisation produces not your opinion on their reputation. 

[Jara 1,153]

On 10 March 2018 at 8:17 PM, Wrecker45 said:

I’m not sure how many times I can explain this to you Jara. My interest lies in the content the organisation produces not your opinion on their reputation. 

Sorry if I've been boring you, but you'll have to explain it one more time. I don't get what you're saying. 

 

You say you are interested in the "content" the organisation - let's say, for argument's sake, the American Chemical Society - produces. What's that supposed to mean? How do you manifest that interest? Do you actually read the many peer-reviewed journal articles on global warming they publish? Do you have any scientific basis at all for your belief that they are all somehow "wrong", or do you get all the information you want from your IPA entomologist?  

[daisycutter 29,722]

50 minutes ago, Jara said:

Sorry if I've been boring you, but you'll have to explain it one more time. I don't get what you're saying. 

 

You say you are interested in the "content" the organisation - let's say, for argument's sake, the American Chemical Society - produces. What's that supposed to mean? How do you manifest that interest? Do you actually read the many peer-reviewed journal articles on global warming they publish? Do you have any scientific basis at all for your belief that they are all somehow "wrong", or do you get all the information you want from your IPA entomologist?  

can't see much difference from an entomologist to a well known mammalogist

Edited March 11, 2018 by daisycutter

[Jara 1,153]

12 hours ago, daisycutter said:

can't see much difference from an entomologist to a well known mammalogist

Sure, but I'm not basing my opinions upon said mammalogist. In my last post, I was basing my opinion on the very clearly-stated position of the American Chemical Society, the largest and most respected society of chemistry professionals in the world. Have a look at their website: they are clearly concerned about global warming, and recognise that an understanding of the chemistry involved is essential if we are to combat it. 

[daisycutter 29,722]

22 minutes ago, Jara said:

Sure, but I'm not basing my opinions upon said mammalogist. In my last post, I was basing my opinion on the very clearly-stated position of the American Chemical Society, the largest and most respected society of chemistry professionals in the world. Have a look at their website: they are clearly concerned about global warming, and recognise that an understanding of the chemistry involved is essential if we are to combat it. 

i don't know why you keep banging on about the acs. the are just an association representing chemistry professionals, not climatologists per se. they are just a professional body not a research institute. i had a look at their web site and publications they publish (on behalf of members)  and didn't see much specifically on climatology, but a lot on normal chemistry stuff. nothing unusual for such a body to stick fat with the general scientific community on the agw issue especially as they are not specifically climatologists themselves

[Ethan Tremblay 30,963]

[Jara 1,153]

21 hours ago, daisycutter said:

i don't know why you keep banging on about the acs. the are just an association representing chemistry professionals, not climatologists per se. they are just a professional body not a research institute. i had a look at their web site and publications they publish (on behalf of members)  and didn't see much specifically on climatology, but a lot on normal chemistry stuff. nothing unusual for such a body to stick fat with the general scientific community on the agw issue especially as they are not specifically climatologists themselves

Bit rude to say I'm 'banging on' about them, but whatever. Eye of the beholder and all that.

 

I only chose them because they were one of the first names on the long list of internationally respected scientific organisations concerned about global warming. I was hoping to advance our debate beyond all that "BOM-conspiracy" crap.  Here's a position statement from their website, explaining why what you downplay as 'normal chemical stuff' is important :

 

The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities. Chemistry is at the heart of understanding the climate system and integral to addressing the development and deployment of new emission reduction technologies and clean energy alternatives. The American Chemical Society (ACS) acknowledges that climate change is real, is serious and has been influenced by anthropogenic activity.

 

 

Wen you say they are just "sticking fat with the general scientific community", I'm glad to see you're accepting that the general scientific community understands that global warming is real and man-made. 

[wisedog 352]

I consider myself a moderate - but I'm more in Wrecker's camp in that I'm deeply uncomfortable with the group think that pervades the left - that there are these new prescribed opinions that we mus hold. Most of you may think that consensus preached by the political elites is better than alternatives; that it does more good than harm and that's fine. In some ways I agree with you, but I'm sick of watching careers ruined because of slight verbel missteps, I'm sick of watching rich, inner suburbs types or for that matter, Hollywood types pose as men and women of the people when they couldn't be further from that. I'm sick of feeling ashamed because I was born male and white. 

What I loved about Trump - and he is a massive [censored], there's no question about that. What I loved about Trump is that he showed how powerful it can be to ignore the authority of the political media, instead of backing down and looking shame faced, he stuck to his guns and never apologised. When Abbot reinstituted knighthoods and there was a massive backlash - one of the many hits he took that led to his downfall. If he took a leaf out of Trumps book and said... "Fu you. This is our history. It shouldn't have been removed to begin with. There are knighthoods conferred in Canada and Northern Europe and it's a great thing." Instead he was shamed out of his decision. and why would anyone follow you if you won't fight for the idea you came up with? 

I feel that this was the secret to Trump's success and a really signigicant development that others who's views aren't represented by the political left will learn from. He never backed down, in the face of insummountable NBC editorials or Twitter hashtags. (Except for when he made those dispariging comments about Ted Cruz's wife... but as I said... he's a [censored].)

As for his policies, there was dog whistling of course, but while he carries on like an imbecile, he's turning things on their head and getting results. Jobs - a dialogue with North Korea. I look at Obama and I think, what the f did you actually do? It's like your presidency was just a massive American PR exercise. Obama... I like him. He was probably the president we needed after George Bush. And thank f it wasn't Hilary.

Anyway, I love all you guys and value your thoughts about football and jazz and the like. But I wanted to put in my two cents. But upon looking over this disatribe, I see it's far more than two cents and I'm sorry for subjecting you to it.

[nutbean 8,838]

36 minutes ago, wisedog said:

I consider myself a moderate - but I'm more in Wrecker's camp in that I'm deeply uncomfortable with the group think that pervades the left - that there are these new prescribed opinions that we mus hold. Most of you may think that consensus preached by the political elites is better than alternatives; that it does more good than harm and that's fine. In some ways I agree with you, but I'm sick of watching careers ruined because of slight verbel missteps, I'm sick of watching rich, inner suburbs types or for that matter, Hollywood types pose as men and women of the people when they couldn't be further from that. I'm sick of feeling ashamed because I was born male and white. 

What I loved about Trump - and he is a massive [censored], there's no question about that. What I loved about Trump is that he showed how powerful it can be to ignore the authority of the political media, instead of backing down and looking shame faced, he stuck to his guns and never apologised. When Abbot reinstituted knighthoods and there was a massive backlash - one of the many hits he took that led to his downfall. If he took a leaf out of Trumps book and said... "Fu you. This is our history. It shouldn't have been removed to begin with. There are knighthoods conferred in Canada and Northern Europe and it's a great thing." Instead he was shamed out of his decision. and why would anyone follow you if you won't fight for the idea you came up with? 

I feel that this was the secret to Trump's success and a really signigicant development that others who's views aren't represented by the political left will learn from. He never backed down, in the face of insummountable NBC editorials or Twitter hashtags. (Except for when he made those dispariging comments about Ted Cruz's wife... but as I said... he's a [censored].)

As for his policies, there was dog whistling of course, but while he carries on like an imbecile, he's turning things on their head and getting results. Jobs - a dialogue with North Korea. I look at Obama and I think, what the f did you actually do? It's like your presidency was just a massive American PR exercise. Obama... I like him. He was probably the president we needed after George Bush. And thank f it wasn't Hilary.

Anyway, I love all you guys and value your thoughts about football and jazz and the like. But I wanted to put in my two cents. But upon looking over this disatribe, I see it's far more than two cents and I'm sorry for subjecting you to it.

I consider myself a moderate as well but sticking to your guns is just not enough. Telling people who disagree with you to F' O" is not enough. I have always said about Tony Abbott  - the one thing I admire about him is there was no subterfuge and little waivering. You were under no illusion as to what you going to get - he made no secret of what his policies were and what he wanted to do. But at the end of the day single mindedness was not enough - his policies were unpopular.

So what did Obama do ? You mentioned jobs for trump - Obama administration in 2016 created 2.34 million jobs, Trump administration in 2017 created 2.17M jobs (source US labor dep't). I will also applaud the dialogue with Nth Korea when it actually achieves anything.

If I am to like the approach of "take no prisoners" politics I would point to the early years of Jeff Kennett. Whilst I did not like a lot of what he did, what i did admire about what he did do is not much of what he did was a secret or by stealth. He was very focused and carried through on exactly what he said he would do. Again - some (me included) may not have liked his policies but i liked his forcefulness and get the job done approach. It may have been a different time but Kennett seized on what the electorate wanted and implemented it. Yes there were massive protests because he did rather smash the mould but he did have a mandate to do what he did. ( he did go troppo in his last couple of years though)

 

 

Edited March 13, 2018 by nutbean

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

26 minutes ago, wisedog said:

I look at Obama and I think, what the f did you actually do? It's like your presidency was just a massive American PR exercise.

Respectfully, Obama did plenty.

Here's a humorous review

 

In particular, the Affordable Care Act was monumental. Worth noting that Americans overwhelmingly support the ACA, but don't like Obamacare. Apparently education is so bad in the states that they don't know it's the same thing. Just the Obama label is enough to turn people against something they like.

 

 

I understand the attraction of someone like Trump, especially given his position as an 'outsider' who can take on the elites. The issue for me is that this I think this is deceptive. He's a political outsider, but he's also a billionaire who's just as conflicted (if not more so) than the Democrats he sought to replace. He's an 'elite' too. Sure, he's a bomb that the electorate threw at a political system that wasn't working and I get how that feel satisfying - but TBH I don't think a bomb was the best solution.

He gets away with so much more than a Democrat President could. I'd ask all Trump supporters, in all honesty, to think about what their reaction would be if:

- Obama appointed his son-in-law to a senior WH advisory role and had him read the President's daily intelligence briefing (because they're too long), only for his temporary clearance to be revokes. 

- Obama said the government should take people's guns away without due process.

- Obama refused to impose sanctions on a foreign power despite congress passing laws to do so with a veto-proof majority.

- Obama played golf every weekend, despite specifically saying he wouldn't have time.

- Obama charged the government millions of dollars to stay at his own resort.

- Obama failed to even nominate enough candidates for open white house and cabinet positions, and most of those he did appoint he either fired or left.

- Obama appointed a woman who destroyed evidence of torture to be head of the CIA (Trump did this this morning).

- Obama said he'd fix healthcare and when he couldn't said "who knew healthcare was so complicated?"

- Obama's lawyer paid off a porn star to keep quiet about an affair he had while his wife was pregnant with his son.

 

That's just off the top of my head. I purposefully have left out the 'Russia stuff' as he calls it, because it's so complex I don't have time to discuss it.

I'd really love for Trump supporters to look at that list and really truly consider what their reaction to those actions would be if it was Obama and not Trump. Especially the guns one. If Obama said what Trump said, there would be talks of revolution from the South.

Just because jobs are up doesn't make all of this ok.

 

As a side note - I am also male and white. I'm not sure why you feel ashamed of it? I don't. I don't feel like I censor myself. I don't feel like I have to modify my behaviour. I don't feel that pressure that my father says he feels to constantly monitor what I say or do. I imagine that would be very uncomfortable and sometimes wonder what thoughts he is having that he cannot voice for fear he will be called racist. If that was the case then I can certainly see the appeal of Trump. But without being able to identify with him or his politics, I look at him with a colder eye and find him sorely wanting both as a human being and as a President.

 

[Jara 1,153]

Fantastic posts, Choke and Nut. 

 

Trump got to where he is because he appeals to stupid, insecure people, and there are an awful lot of those in America.

[wisedog 352]

Definitely insecure. Some stupid. For sure.

And yes, time will tell if the North Korea dialogue amounts to anything. But it's been acheived in no small part to unprecedented sanctions from Trump. And time will also tell if these tariffs are a monumental disaster for America. It may not be, certainly many conservatives think it will. It's all up in the air and there's something exciting about that, I think you'll agree. Exciting or terrifying given your emotional disposition. I'm quite sure Trump will get a second term, probably because all the stupid and insecure people like me.

I stand by my post but I respect your opinions. I feel there would be many counter examples of the Obama-era:

What would leftists say if Trump brought upon the chaos in Libya given their unanimous disapproval of Bush's incursion in Iraq. (Except from Christopher Hitchens).

What would leftists say if Trump withdrew from Iraq and left the door open for unimaginable horrors. (Actually, that's what they always wanted, but it was still a F-ING DISASTER. LIKE PROBABLY ONE OF THE WORST F-ING THINGS TO HAPPEN THIS CENTURY). If I really racked my brains I could probably think of some more for you but I'm at work and felt I should probably respond in some way. Double standards are all part of the game. The point is, I don't feel Obama ever did anything of true significance. Other than present a modern face of America. And preharps that is significant.

Anyway, I'm sure you're all good dudes. But I'm frustrated, even though I'm not from America, from my perspective, while it may seem nihilistic, I'm actually glad to see someone 'f-ing' with the system. And isn't it bizarre that people who hold these views align themselves to the Right these days... and not the left who would be the traditional home of rebels. Lefties are becoming very, very boring and it will probably be part of their undoing because so many of their followers are vain, vapid idiots. And so the vain, vapid idiots will drift to the right instead. The pendulum swings and swings.

All the best.

[Jara 1,153]

Good post, Wise. If Trump really does persuade N. Korea to get rid of their nuclear weapons, I'll be the first to praise him (and Moon) for it. 

 

I doubt whether he will, though. The Kims done this several times before: say they'll disarm, stall for time, get some sort of benefit, then get right back to it.  The real problems are China, which continues to support them, and the US, which thinks it has a divine right to stick its bib in wherever it feels like it.    

[nutbean 8,838]

1 hour ago, wisedog said:

Definitely insecure. Some stupid. For sure.

And yes, time will tell if the North Korea dialogue amounts to anything. But it's been acheived in no small part to unprecedented sanctions from Trump. And time will also tell if these tariffs are a monumental disaster for America. It may not be, certainly many conservatives think it will. It's all up in the air and there's something exciting about that, I think you'll agree. Exciting or terrifying given your emotional disposition. I'm quite sure Trump will get a second term, probably because all the stupid and insecure people like me.

I stand by my post but I respect your opinions. I feel there would be many counter examples of the Obama-era:

What would leftists say if Trump brought upon the chaos in Libya given their unanimous disapproval of Bush's incursion in Iraq. (Except from Christopher Hitchens).

What would leftists say if Trump withdrew from Iraq and left the door open for unimaginable horrors. (Actually, that's what they always wanted, but it was still a F-ING DISASTER. LIKE PROBABLY ONE OF THE WORST F-ING THINGS TO HAPPEN THIS CENTURY). If I really racked my brains I could probably think of some more for you but I'm at work and felt I should probably respond in some way. Double standards are all part of the game. The point is, I don't feel Obama ever did anything of true significance. Other than present a modern face of America. And preharps that is significant.

Anyway, I'm sure you're all good dudes. But I'm frustrated, even though I'm not from America, from my perspective, while it may seem nihilistic, I'm actually glad to see someone 'f-ing' with the system. And isn't it bizarre that people who hold these views align themselves to the Right these days... and not the left who would be the traditional home of rebels. Lefties are becoming very, very boring and it will probably be part of their undoing because so many of their followers are vain, vapid idiots. And so the vain, vapid idiots will drift to the right instead. The pendulum swings and swings.

All the best.

my problem with Trump is I believe he is committed to Trump and Trump only. Now all politicians have their share of "self serving" and "ego" but Trump has taken it to a new level. I am not a fan of the Abbott's and Bernardi's of this world and they ( like their counterparts on the left) do like the sound of their own voices - but I believe they are committed to making a difference. Trump is narcissist and his first instinct on anything he does is "how does this affect me". His incoherent ramblings and his shoot first and ask questions approach is mind numbing. I have said this before - there have been Prime Ministers in Australia that i  have vehemently disagreed with but not one has ever made me believe that they were unfit to hold high office - Trump is unfit to hold the office to which he was elected.

Edited March 14, 2018 by nutbean

[wisedog 352]

1 hour ago, nutbean said:

my problem with Trump is I believe he is committed to Trump and Trump only. Now all politicians have their share of "self serving" and "ego" but Trump has taken it to a new level. I am not a fan of the Abbott's and Bernardi's of this world and they ( like their counterparts on the left) do like the sound of their own voices - but I believe they are committed to making a difference. Trump is narcissist and his first instinct on anything he does is "how does this affect me". His incoherent ramblings and his shoot first and ask questions approach is mind numbing. I have said this before - there have been Prime Ministers in Australia that i  have vehemently disagreed with but not one has ever made me believe that they were unfit to hold high office - Trump is unfit to hold the office to which he was elected.

He won't ever have the eloquence of Obama. But he's something of a story teller in his own way. I have to admit to you I've occasionally despaired of the human race to realise someone so uncouth could occupy the highest office in the world. And yet, as indicated above... I'm more inclined to judge the aforementioned [censored] by the results.

As much of a [censored] as he is; he was clever enough to smash the Republic establishment and beat Hilary. He's isolated himself from the CIA, the FBI - every Liberal news outlet in the country. He was a joke candidate who has cleared every hurdle placed in front of him and he's still running.

All of this probably terrifies people and I understand that. But I'm not all that happy with the status quo - so I don't really mind watching an orange skinned gentleman nudge the apple cart.

And for what it's worth, I do sense that at the end of all of this people might be pleasantly surprised. Feel free to bookmark this page and bump it when half the world is in ashes. I could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.