I just found out that the gummit says I caint supposed to burn trash in my own damn yard. An, I just larnt my tax dollars pay for socializt gummit things like the fur department and po-lees. This has gotta stop now, elsewize we may have a need to x-plore second amendment remiteez!
Because this is the world we really want to live in:
Last week, Paulette and Gene Cranick's grandson started a fire in a burn barrel outside the couple's Tennessee home.
He added garbage, then went inside to take a shower. A few minutes later, he noticed an adjacent shed was engulfed in flames. It didn't take long for the fire to spread to the house.
The South Fulton City Fire Department arrived, but because the Cranicks hadn't paid a $75 fire service subscription fee, they refused to spray an ounce of water on the flames ...
Neighbors protested. Some of them offered to pay the firefighters thousands of dollars. Ultimately, the Cranicks lost everything, including three dogs and a cat.
One of their neighbors said they brought this up'en upon thems selves. Damn right. Tiz their right to burn their own house down, and we don't want not sozialized fire de-partments round these parts!
But seriously, go read the article. There actually is a conversation going on as to whether or not our fire departments should be socialized, or rather, part of the equation of have vs. have not.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
If this is the same article I've seen (I've heard these things on interviews too), some neighbors offered the firefighters a couple thousand dollars to put out this guy's fire: they refused because their commander told them they couldn't. Early reports said the guy who gave that order wasn't even their.
I was wondering; if you learned that the home owners wre part of the 32% of Obion County that voted for Obma would you still have written this bigoted post that uses stereotypes to mock residents of states you seem to not like? Or do you have another reason for the hackneyed, offensive language used here?
No, my reason for the offensive language is to mock stupid slack jawed teabagging hicks.
I don't feel even the slightest need to be nice to the people who are fucking up this entire country out of utter ignorance and hatred. Is there some reason I should be?
All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans^H^H^H^H^H^H government done for us?
But they lost one of their grandmother's bible and one of their grandfather's bible. Real thing that mean something when they are lost. Not like family pets. Goddamn atheist government basically cheered to see those bible's burn. Lucky for the fire department this isn't Iran. Man if we only lived in a country like Iran, where everyone was forced to revere my favorite book or die. But we don't, but man if we did.
Assuming your number is correct, what possible relationship would that have to this particular incident?
Thanks, "Liberal Dan." That's quite an enlightening look into the regressive mind. Note that no actual liberals are advocating anything like that. Good to know, though, what we should expect should you ever be handed a tiny bit of power.
"No, my reason for the offensive language is to mock stupid slack jawed teabagging hicks.
I don't feel even the slightest need to be nice to the people who are fucking up this entire country out of utter ignorance and hatred. Is there some reason I should be?"
Now, where did you get the inside scoop that these particular people are stupid? Or hicks? Involved in (or even supporters of) the Tea Party stuff? Or that they are ignorant? Or that they hate anyone? Of that they are 'fucking up the country"? Are you just assuming this stuff?
Aquinas Dad, whom do you think Greg is mocking? Do note that he's included information about a neighbor who thought these people got what they "deserved" because they hadn't paid for a public service.
Stephanie,
Considering the text, the home owners
Then you can't read the text. Those aren't the people he's mocking at any point.
Nice of you to step in for Greg. I still need to know how he knows anyone associated with this story matches his description, to wit;
""No, my reason for the offensive language is to mock stupid slack jawed teabagging hicks.
I don't feel even the slightest need to be nice to the people who are fucking up this entire country out of utter ignorance and hatred. Is there some reason I should be?"
Can you explain how he can know this about the home owners or their neighbors? Or the commentors? Because, while I may be a bit sensitive, I tend to find terms like the ones he uses usually stem from deep-seated bigotry.
This is actually not as rare an arrangement as you might think. If you live in an unincorporated area with no county or other fire department, but you live near some other fire district, yeah, you can opt-in. They're under no obligation to help if you don't. I believe there are places in Alaska that are like this.
However, it is rare for it to play out to its logical conclusion.
Aquainas Dad: Your attempt at distracting the argument away from the key point is weak. I'm sure you can do better than that.
Sorry Greg. You'll never out-stupid the real thing.
Weird, that blockquote looked okay in the preview.
Greg,
I am having trouble seeing an 'argument' because of the bigoted, offensive bile spewed forth on the page. As far as I can tell this boils down to 'those 'stupid. slack-jawed, ignorant hateful hicks' are stupid, ignorant, and hateful hicks" - of whom are you speaking? How do you know they have the attributes you ascribe them? Why do you keep calling them 'teabaggers'?
As I understand it, the property owner had the option of buying fire protection. He decided not to do so. It's too bad about the dog and cats, however. Mention was made of insurance covering his loss. I wonder about that. Was his insurance premium higher because he did not have fire protection? Maybe it cost him more than $75 a year on his insurance premium. I'm in the socialist situation of paying taxes for fire protection, and not too bothered about that.
Aquinas Dad, there is a bigger picture here that I KNOW you get, but acknowledging it would interfere with your efforts to distract from the point.
You can continue asking if you like but I'll be ignoring that.
Well the one guy started a fire in his front yard, made it bigger, then left it unattended while he showered. Sounds pretty fucking stupid to me.
Well, if you want to talk about the Free Rider Problem or the Malibu Surfer Problem, both of which I have written about in my own blog, then sure - sounds interesting. But if you used anti-semitic slurs or racial slurs I would demand you explain them, too. Or are you too much of a close-minded, aloof, boorish, arrogant, self-absorbed, over-educated/under-experienced so-called elitist to recognize classist bigotry hen you spew it unless someone echoes it back to you?
Did that upset you? Was that offensive? It was, but it was only an example, not a heart-felt opinion and used in an attempt to explain what I am asking you about. But your insults, which you have yet to explain or even attempt to justify, seems to nothing but bigotry. If so, you are no different than any other bigot - right?
I think you underestimate Greg. It is beyond bigotry,even to the point of becoming trigonometry. LOL
I know exactly where I stand in the fight against abject ingorance, A.D. I'm opposed to it. I'd be tolerant of it if not for the fact that it has been embraced by the new right as a tool. A dull tool, but an effective one as a bludgeon. I'm not sure why you are defending it, because I've not read your blog. I'm guessing that you are a disgruntled nonconservative.
The classes are real, and I abhor that. And yes, there's a war, but I did not start it. Again, I am very suspicious of your efforts to distract us all from the real problem. I'm thinking that you benefit from it somehow.
Greg,
Who are the 'ignorant, stupid, slack-jawed hicks' that you abhor? The home owners? The neighbors? commenters who disagree with your opinion? I keep asking and you don't answer.
So your excuse for bigoted, classist language is 'they started it' - how, by being poor?!
You wrote:
"I'm opposed to [ignorance]. I'd be tolerant of it if not for the fact that it has been embraced by the new right as a tool."
First, who amongst the possible targets for your bigotry are part of the "new right"? How do you know they are part of this group - did they say so?
As someone who has spent years dealing with racists and other bigots, let me point something out - if the homeowners and neighbors had been Black and this same post had been written by someone else and laced with 'Ebonics' and racial slurs, you would declare the author a racist bigot of low moral character, right? If the homeowners had been Jewish and another blogger had written a tirade against the stingy laced with Yiddish, you would condemn them as anti-semites not welcome in polite company, right?
Well, these homeowners are from the South and you wrote a mock-drawl post full of classist slurs. You have NO IDEA if the homeowners or their neighbors (who live in a county with Democratic state and federal representatives, BTW) are stupid, ignorant, or part of the "new right". Furthermore, and this is key, for all you know the commenters that you disagree with are just as Northern, Upper Middle Class, Ivy League as *you* are unless, of course, you know the location and background of the commenters at the Chicago trib and the New York Times that you disagree with.
Since you can't know any of that, why is this post in faux-drawl and laced with terms like "hick" and "slack-jawed"? Because you saw that it happened in the South and you are prejudiced to think of Southerners as, yup, ignorant, slack-jawed hicks. Therefore when you got upset you pulled out a tar brush and applied your prejudice liberally.
So think about it - who *are* you so mad at? The homeowners? the neighbors? the commenters? And why do you assume they are the slurs you ascribed to them? Why did you add the terms 'slack-jawed' and 'hick' when you would (I hope) never use a racial or ethnic slur in the same manner?
And what do I hope to get out of this? One less person with unexamined prejudices, that's what. Maybe, if I am lucky, a discussion of the Free rider problem and the Malibu Surfer Problem where I don't have to see you describe people you disagree with in loaded terms.
Actually, Aquinas Dad, what's getting terribly fascinating here is that Greg told you in his first comment that he's mocking people with a particular set of ideas as ignorant. You, for some reason, keep working very hard to associate that ignorance with a particular location and class, despite the lack of any traditional patois associated with either. Greg isn't doing this, but you are. You are aware that a bunch of misspellings does not a Southern accent make, yes?
"Who are the 'ignorant, stupid, slack-jawed hicks' that you abhor? The home owners? The neighbors? commenters who disagree with your opinion? I keep asking and you don't answer. "
It isn't obvious? I refer to the Teabaggers, and these days, most republicans, and a fairly large number of libertarians. I don't know the homeowners. Nor did I imply that.
And again, you get this, you know what I'm talking about, and you are doing nothing but playing a game.
And what do I hope to get out of this? One less person with unexamined prejudices, that's what.
So, you've come here to teach me, then. Gee, thanks.
"I don't have to see you describe people you disagree with in loaded terms."
I'm not going to stop using strong, inflammatory language to describe and discuss the selfish people (and more importantly philosophies and politics) that are at work destroying the world in which my children were kinda hoping to grow up in. That's simple, and clear.
As an aside, no, I'm not even remotely interested in being schooled by you as to how to engage in the this debate. I find it laughable and pathetic that you feel the need to do this. I wonder if you also think you have the right to do it.
Even more outrageous were it not so funny is that you are holding up this particular carrot and this particular stick: You are actually telling me that if I behave and discourse exactly how YOU want me to, then you'll provide some of your wisdom by way of discussion of your particular interests. I have to say that I spit a little coffee out this morning when I read that bit of arrogant self aggrandizing insulting shit. Not because it was arrogant, self aggrandizing and insulting, but because you don't know it is, you have no idea what an ass you appear to be, and not knowing that while preaching is really funny looking. (As if funny ha ha)
But go ahead, please do. Say something smart about free riding. If you have something.
Ah... Stephanie, thanks for that comment, it made me realize that Aquinas Dad is perhaps being reactionary and sensitive, which is not as bad as I was thinking. Right. ... this is not bout southerners or ethnicities, but about ignorance being used for political gain. And about ignorant morans (see my more recent post on this and click the links to see what that means).
But yes, looking at AD's IP, I don't think it reveals to much to note that it is from the other side of the Mason Dixon line from where I sit.
No, AD, I was not mocking you in the post. In subsequent comments, maybe, but not in the post.
Maybe it will make you feel better to see me mocking ignorance as political tool in my own back yard, and I grantee you that my specific back yard is likely more moranic than yours: http://tinyurl.com/2facs6w
AD: Your next comment posting on this thread should be something substantive about the issue at hand, now that we have clarified the fact and details in how you have misunderstood the tone and metaphor and spent the last several hundred words way the hell off topic.
Stephanie, Greg,
I do live in Atlanta, yes, but I was not born and raised in the South. I was not attempting to share wisdom, I was trying to get your opinion on the Free Rider problem without the loaded language - like I said.
[quick aside: Stephanie, the terms 'slack-jawed' and 'hick' are, indeed, often associated with class- and regional- based prejudiced about the South.]
Since you finally clarified that your base claim is that ignorance is being used as a political tool [which seems a bit tangential to the issues raised in the original article, but I suppose I can see how you got there] let me bring up a few counter-points.
You claim that the 'new right' [please elaborate - I am not familiar with the term. Also, you earlier referred to me as a 'nonconservative' - was that a typo?] uses ignorance as a 'tool'. If that is true, why have overall voting patterns show that people with post-grad degrees tend to vote Democrat, people with HS diplomas and a Bachelors tend to vote Republican - but high school dropouts vote Democrat? If ignorance is being used as a tool by the right shouldn't the least-educated therefore be most likely to slew right? Since this isn't the case, how would you explain it?
Also a November 2008 poll showed that 59% of registered Democrats did not know that the democratic Party had control of the Congress at the time. Recent polls indicate that this number is still quote high with fewer Democrats able to name the Vice President than Republicans and fewer democratic voters aware that the democratic Party currently controls congress while more Republicans were aware of this fact.
So - Democrat voters are more ignorant of current politics than Republicans and the least educated vote democrat; why do you think that is?
Bullshit. Reread comment #25. And #18. All you talked about and asked for answers on was the "loaded" language. Nor have you discussed anything you claim to want to discuss now that you have some grasp of what Greg was saying. Instead....
Education? Republicanism correlates with age, since following generations tend to be more liberal. So does education, since that sort of thing takes time. Did you have a source that examined the interaction?
The Pew Survey? Interesting, but not the sort of facts about government that have a lot of relevance to those who are less well off. In fact, relevance is one of the constant challenges of mobilizing Democrats. You can't just tell them the world's going to end if another group is allowed to exercise their rights and watch them rush to the polls.
The ignorance of the Tea Party is an ignorance of history--of what the Constitution says, of the role of various branches of government in shaping the interpretation of the Constitution, of the role that government already plays in their lives, of the poisonous effect of wealth concentration on American society, of the means available to us to stimulate the economy without creating a bubble, of what basic terms like "socialism" and "communism" mean. And no, it's not the ignorance of everyone in the party. There are the wealthier and better educated among them too, but even most of them can't do math, because they can't really comprehend how few people policies that help the rich actually help. For the most part, it's not them.
Then there's the general ignorance of how interdependent we all are in this society. That would be the point of this post.
but I suppose I can see how you got there<\em>
I don't need to know that you approve of the point I made or how I got there. You need to know what the point is, that's all. So, I'm glad you are nearing, well, the point!
If that is true, why have overall voting patterns show that people with post-grad degrees tend to vote Democrat, people with HS diplomas and a Bachelors tend to vote Republican - but high school dropouts vote Democrat?
I'm not sure what this think is you refer to ... "Democrat" ... what is that?
Ant the term I mean to use was "Neoconservative."
I suspect that if most school drop-outs do indeed vote Democrat, it's because, in order to drop out, you have to be fairly dissatisfied with current society*. So you'll go to one extreme or the other, and most younger people will tend to flee to the left.
*I hold firmly to the belief that with adequate teaching you could get every child without really major developmental impairment through school, if they cared enough to be motivated to work.
stripey_cat, that's all well and good as long as your definition of caring "enough" includes caring about school more than caring about where one will sleep at night or where the household will get money for food or not really understanding how to get registered in this new school district while the parents don't have time or won't take time to take care of it for them or how to keep away from those students who are happy to see to it that you don't exist. There's an awful lot of dropping out that has very little to do with being what's classically considered "motivated."
I don't need to know that you approve of the point I made or how I got there. You need to know what the point is, that's all. So, I'm glad you are nearing, well, the point!
Stephanie,
"Bullshit. Reread comment #25. And #18. All you talked about and asked for answers on was the "loaded" language. Nor have you discussed anything you claim to want to discuss now that you have some grasp of what Greg was saying. Instead..."
In a shocking turn of events, when re-reading what I wrote I was [wait for it] asking greg to clarify whom his comments were directed towards so that I could then hope to understand what his point was. This isn't me passing on wisdom, this is me saying 'huh? Who are you talking about?' And how do you justify those words?' Remember those jibes about reading directed at me? Look to thyself.
Also, high-school dropouts can be any age, as can holders of Bachelors'. There are some age effects, certainly, but that cannot explain everything. Further, youth are more ignorant than their elders, so I am not sure this is a refutation.
You made some statements about the Tea Party but since I am unaware of your source, can you help me find where you got your info, please?
Aquinas Dad, why are you discussing the Tea Party if you're ignorant of the kind of platform they put in place whenever they have enough votes?
And did you have something you wanted to say about the post, or are you still just going to poke at the other people involved in the discussion?
Greg,
"I'm not sure what this think is you refer to ... "Democrat" ... what is that?"
Puh-leeze. Did you really think this was clever? Or a point? If someone were to refer to "Senator John Smith, democrat" you wouldn't know which party he belongs too?When Olbermann refers to a sate 'voting democrat' you dash of a crisp email asking for clarification?
And you complained that historians are pedantic.
You seem to not understand what the term 'Neo-Conservative' means, not just here but in other threads you seem to confuse the term with others. A neo-con doesn't prioritize free markets, or gun rights, etc. but a focus upon aggressive foreign policy to export democracy, human rights, and classical Liberalism. I am certainly not a Neo-Conservative but rather, as my blog makes clear, a Paleo-Conservative with a focus on social conservatism and an opposition to Libertariam economic concepts. Personally, I am economically a Distributist and work hard to, oh, buy local, boycott sweatshop products, support worker co-ops, etc. I was an opponent of the Iraq War (and still am) and think that the neo-con foreign policy is a recipe for disaster.
So... No, I am not a neo-con.
Now, about that ignorance amongst voters thing - do you have any comments on what I mentioned about education levels?
Stephanie,
I have never read anything about the Tea Party platform. I am not a Libertarian and almost certainly know vastly less about the Tea Party than you do. Thank you for the link.
Well, I suppose my comment is, once again: since high school dropouts and the young tend to vote to the Left, how does Greg (or anyone else) support the argument that the right uses ignorance as a tool to gain votes? While there are a lot of things in the platofrm you sent me that I disagree with the majority of them denote disagreement, not ignorance (after all, while I think Austrian economics are silliness, it is quite possible to have a PhD in Econ and have been taught that it is Truth).
Aquinas Dad, it is not Greg's job (or mine) to educate you on the subject of Tea Partiers if you can't be bothered to educate yourself. This information is readily available and highly relevant to the current political debate in this country. You might want to get cracking on that.
As a start, check out the things I already told you the Tea Party was ignorant about instead of asking Greg to tell you. Find out what Tea Partiers have said about the contents of the Constitution and the intent of those who wrote it. Find out what they consider to be the appropriate role of the various branches of government. Etc. Don't sit here and ask to be spoon fed as though there isn't a good three years of information in the popular media about this group and where it came from.
As for ignorance, there are plenty of people who have been educated about evolution and think, because of that education, that it's a pack of evil lies. Miseducation does not preclude igorance.
Stephanie,
Calm yourself. While I had never seen the platform mentioned, it is full of rather standard Libertarian fare, isn't it? Therefore it is quite simple to determine that they are interested in limited government, focus on original intent, rail against activist judges, wish to reduce the federal government to something that can 'be drowned in a bathtub', etc.
My point is that while this is a point of *disagreement* I don't feel it is arguably based on *ignorance*. Considering that a fair amount of the disagreement over the role, scope, etc. of the federal government goes back to the federalist/Anti-federalist Papers simply stating 'they are ignorant' is not an argument. For example, Greg has stated elsewhere that he opposes a person for a position as a judge because the person is religious. It is arguable that such opposition is anti-democratic since the constitution provides that there will be no religious test for office. Am I "ignorant" of the truth or is Greg? Or is there simply a disagreement?
Also, your analogy sucks - there are large groups of well-educated professional scholars that advocate Austrian Economics. While I disagree with their conclusions you cannot tar them as ignorant of economics!
Aquinas, your debating style is very annoying, so don't be annoyed if others are annoyed.
And, your debating style uses ignorance to gain (percieved) points. Your comment about dem vs. rep is an example. You'd have to be lacking a brain to not know that the Democratic party is much much more diverse than the Republican party, or that "Democrat party" is a neocon do whistle.
The use of the teabaggers as a political tool is parallel: Exploiting ignorance as a real form of energy for political gain. You should be ashamed of yourself, really.
Hmmm. What does diversity of party have to do with whether ignorance is a tool of the right?
Also, I never used the term "Democrat Party" - I used the word "democrat" a few times. As a matter of fact, when I referred to the party itself I always used the term "Democratic Party". A quick search (took me 7 seconds) demonstrates this to be true.
And isn't the term 'teabagger' also a (although I loathe the term) 'dog whistle' for Leftists who prefer to use insults on their perceived opponents?
Finally, you keep repeating that the right uses ignorance as a tool but haven't responded to my points about education and voting patterns nor have you provided any support other than repetition.
And it is truly not my goal to annoy you or anyone else.
Aquinas Dad: fuck yourself.
You know, as long as we're telling each other what to do. And I say that with a nearly Zen degree of calm.
Stephanie: Concise, if not cogent.
You know, I am asking very simple questions: Who is Greg a slack-jawed hick? How does he know they are ignorant? If ignorance is a tool of the Right why do the least-educated vote for the Democratic Party in greater numbers? Sure, I also spoke about how classist language offends me and paints Greg as an unapologetic bigot, but that is off to the side. Greg himself has never stated clearly whom, exactly, he called those slurs; his response to how he knows 'they' are ignorant is that ignorance is a tool of the Right; his response to the seeming-contradiction of the least-educated voting for the Left when he claims ignorance is a tool of the Right is that I am annoying.
OK; let us assume I am ignorant, annoying, uninformed, feeble, and foolish. *Now* will you answer my questions, Greg?
The post above is mine - I apologize, but my logy connection must have weirded out my posting.
The question, Aquinas Dad, is why you feel the need for Greg to answer the questions directly, particularly when I've already answered them? Frankly, when Greg has already answered at least one of them? And why you don't have anything to say on the subject you really wanted to discuss, if only someone (who, incidentally, had to be Greg) could pound your misapprehensions out of you?
The broad availability of miseducation does not keep it from being a tool to reinforce ignorance either. The analogy between creationism and economic theorization that specifically rejects empirical evidence still stands, as does the other types of ignorance I listed. Did you want to acknowledge those, or are you still looking for the local alpha male to pat you on the head?
AD, aka "Stephanie", I've stated my case and addressed your questions.
My original post was not what you thought I should write and you didn't like my answers, so you are trying to shape what I say and how say it. If you really need to direct how and what I blog, I suggest you get your own blog!
Oh, wait, you have your own blog! This could be a good opportunity for you to write an entire post explaining how I've got it all wrong and I'm an unapologetic bigot, etc. etc. Over there. On your blog. That's what it is for, right? Post the link here when you are done.
Stephanie,
I am asking Greg to answer because Greg made the statements I have questions about, not you. If I asked you a question I would also wait for your response, not the conjecture of another commenter. While you may assume you know Greg's inner thoughts, I do not share that belief.
And such antagonism! You don't even know me.
Greg,
I am puzzled. I will admit to being thick_headed, but I still don't see where you identified who you called those slurs nor where you directlyy responded to my point about education, etc. All I am asking for is a simple answer to these? I can't post much of anything right now but 'why wan't he answer?'
Aquinas Dad, try going back to comment #3. If you still can't figure out who Greg is talking about, the problem is your admitted ignorance of teabaggers, not Greg's answer. You'll need to fix that if you insist on participating in modern American political dialog.
Ah, ignorance:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/13/phosphat…
Good fucking grief. AD, having just read through this entire thread (I like a good trainwreck now and then - especially when stressed) I can only conclude you're a fucking moron. And an asshole - unless you're actually stupider than I am giving you credit for. Of course you're a social conservative, which means you like to stick your nose into other people's business - by definition, a complete fucking prat.
Bigoted? I will admit to having a prejudice against and possibly even being bigoted against wilful fucking morons who believe they should have a right to control my life, because they don't approve of who I might happen to be. Fuck you, you pathetic little twit. Who the hell do you think you are, to decide how people should or should not describe ignorant fucking idiots?
And here's a tap from the cluestick: people who don't believe in having the fire department put out fires, deserve to be mocked. They are complete and utter fucking morons who don't particularly understand how fire works - how fires spread. If my neighbour's house burns, it is entirely possible that wind could drive fire into mine. Or the neighbour on the other side's home. Even where houses are quite a ways apart, there is often a risk to others. Fire does funny things sometimes - even travelling underground, given the right conditions (a fire that started with a single car burning, that was extinguished ended up burning down a nearby abandoned house, after it flared back up from soldering deep in peet rich soil).
Slack jawed fucking idiots, who deserve to be called out as slack jawed fucking idiots. And here you come, to show that whether of the same stripe or not, you're a slack jawed idiot.
By and by and because you have annoyed me, I would just like to point out that parents who actually engage in apologetics for the Catholic church are creepy.
Come back from a trip and, oddly enough, my questions remain unanswered. Stephanie, your attempts to answer for greg are appreciated, but don't explain how a group of commenters are suddenly identified as Tea Partiers, nor why Greg concludes they are ignorant.
DuWayne,
If that is what passes for eloquence where you were educated, I am sure you have a PhD in... something interesting.
Now, see, Aquinas Dad, if you knew anything about the Tea Party or had bothered to find anything out instead of insisting that Greg and only Greg spoon-feed you the information, that would be blazingly obvious. Poor you.