Sam I feel I must pipe up here – your post was a pretty dishonest representation of what Fear Itself was saying.
I’m sure your points were pretty heartfelt. Since they were pretty much a restatement of Cheney’s speech last Thursday, they must have been. 
But conflating FI’s remarks with a stock Kerry criticism – in my opinion, an inaccurate one – is unworthy.
Actually, I don’t particularly remember this. Can you name some of these other ideologues other than Robert Reich, who admittedly could be considered an ideologue although one who has shown much more respect for truth and fact than most of the ideologues in the Bush Administration?
And, the left-wing ideas? I suppose if you consider Hillary’s not-even-close-to-single-payer health insurance system to be a “left wing idea”. (In Canada, it would be a right-wing idea that you probably couldn’t get any major party to endorse.) Oh, and gays in the mililtary, that eventually get compromised away to “don’t ask, don’t tell”. Are those your left-wing ideas?
As for the whole Al Qaeda thing, my person opinion is that Bush has spent about $125 billion more to date (current cost of the Iraq War) than Osama Bin Laden could have ever dreamed of spending on a terrorist recruitment campaign. The best single thing we American citizens could do to stem the tide of terrorism would be to vote Bush out in November.
Well, if you were going to judge him by the standards of this board, I suppose they weren’t that ‘left wing’. But certainly the huge health care plan was central planning at its worst. So bad it collapsed under its own weight before seeing the light of day.
As for the ideologues, the first two that came to mind were Donna Shalala (who fought bitterly against welfare reform) and Robert Reich. Dan Glickman, the agriculture secretary, wanted to use the catastrophic farm insurance to be expanded into a form of welfare for poor farmers by paying them for poor yields even in years in which the weather was fine. Bruce Babbit as interior secretary tried to get all kinds of new regulations passed, but failed to get any of his plans past the Congress.
In fact, of Clinton’s first cabinet, I’d say that only Robert Rubin would be considered a moderate or a centrist.
Of course, I expect your opinion to vary, since you’re quite a way over on the left yourself.
Well said, Fear. I couldn’t agree more with what you’ve said.
For my part, I’ve never understood the oft-repeated claim that al Qaida somehow is going to be comforted by the defeat of Bush in November. Surely the knowledge that the majority of the nation endorses the “reactionary, go-it-alone cowboy whose only tool is the hammer of overwhelming force and occupation” will do nothing but vindicate anti-US sentiment in the Middle East.
I’m still of the theory that Osama Bin Laden (or whoever’s running al Qaeda nowadays) has given his troops the rest of the year off, to make the re-election of “Terrorist Recruiting Poster Boy” George that much easier.
It’s not as if they haven’t endorsed Bush already…
Why is Kerry so scary? Or, to put it another way, what hypothetical candidate wouldn’t the RNC smear machine make look just as “scary”? Seriously, you know if the candidate were Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, …, there would be basically the same short of shit being thrown at them.
Indeed. And of course, your own views are clearly colored by your own conservative-ness which means that you consider a health care idea that would be considered right-wing there in Canada to be “a left wing idea”. Here is how Clinton’s cabinet appointments (and the press’s reporting of them) looked from a left-wing perspective (FAIR) at the time:
To answer your second question first…Lieberman. You are correct that the other candidates you mentioned, Dean, Edwards, Gephardt would be smeared with a similar brush as Kerry, at least as far as their liberal records go. The attacks would be different for each, but there would still be attacks and they would still get traction with some. I’m sure Lieberman would have been attacked too, but he is much more moderate, and much more centrist in his outlook. He’s the guy I was actually pulling for and who I would have voted for, hands down in a contest between him and Bush. And I think a lot of Americans would have felt the same. Unfortunately the fringe element of the Democrats control who gets their nomination…and they picked Kerry as the best ‘Not Bush’ of the bunch.
Why is Kerry scary? Well, from my perspective for a few reasons. For one he’s scary because I feel that he is deliberately obscuring his agenda and trying to portray himself as a centrist, when I feel deep down he’s really a liberal…and liberals in charge of the nation scare the shit out of me from a fiscal perspective. I know you don’t agree, but I’m a fiscal conservative and thats how I see it (and you did ask me whats scary about Kerry). From the bits and pieces I’ve managed to put together I don’t think Kerry’s ideas about what he wants to do with the economy are sound, and some of them frankly frighten me. Especially his stances on trade, on taxation, on healthcare, on outsourcing and the companies that do it…it goes on and on.
Next I think that Kerry is not a strong person…I think he bends too easily to conform to what people want him to be. I look at his record as a Senator and I see a guy that used to have very strong liberal convictions and voted them across the board when he was younger. Now, I don’t agree with much of liberalism, but I respect someone who is true to their convictions, even if I disagree. However, looking at his record on defense spending (to use one example) I see a guy who in the 80’s and early 90’s voted against defense spending…and then changed his mind in the late 90’s and voted FOR them. This is only one example, but there are others, and in my own mind I see Kerry as a guy who votes the polls…he conforms to what the majority of people WANT him to be.
Kerry’s record as a Senator hasn’t impressed me either…I don’t see him as one of the dedicated few fighting and striving to do their best for their local voters and for the American people as a whole. Again, to use a single example it would be Kerry’s service on the intellegence sub-committee where he didn’t take his responsibilities serious enough to actually show up. Now, I know that Kerry claims he did show up at the majority of the closed sessions where roll wasn’t on the public record, but we have no way to check this because Kerry has refused to allow the roll call records to be released to the public (making me question his claims at the very least).
Finally Kerry just LOOKS scary. 
Ok, I’m just kidding there. To me for different reasons both Kerry and Bush are simply scary and its a toss up which candidate becoming (or staying) president most disheartens me. If I were being completely honest I’d probably say that Kerry as president can do less damage (due to a Republican majority in both houses), and so probably won’t get his trillion dollar plus packages rolling without some serious fighting. Either way I have to grit my teeth and wait for 2008 and hope that someone puts up a candidate I can vote for.
-XT
Moderate and centrist? Lieberman would be considered right-wing in most other industrialized countries. Even in the U.S., he would have fit just fine in the Republican Party of Howard Baker, Gerald Ford, and the like. The only reason he looks centrist is that the Republican Party has been taken over by people who are crazier than hoot owls!
I understand that you, as a Republican (or at least Republican-leaning) person disgusted with Bush, are dissatisfied that the Democrats nominated a moderate Democrat rather than someone who is essentially a moderate Republican. But, I don’t think that they should have to nominate a moderate Republican in order to take back the White House from the nut-cases who inhabit it now.
Like when he shirked his duties in Vietnam, avoided investigating Iran-Contra, avoided investigating the BCCI banking affair involving Democrat stalwart Clark Clifford, and avoided taking on the POW/MIA hot potato?
By contrast, when has the current president ever stood up to the special interests who own him. Gore couldn’t have been more on-target with his “moral coward” comment about Bush in this regard.
Show me data on this. Are there actual sites that show that there was a dramatic swing in his voting record? In what sense did he vote “against defense spending”? You mean he wanted to do away with it all? What did he then vote FOR in the late 1990s? (And, how does this all fit in with the Republican claim that Kerry had one of the most liberal voting records last year? I know that was distorted due to the fact that those on the campaign trail only returned from important Democratic votes, but still I think we need a little consistency in the story about Kerry. You are attacking him saying one thing that is diametrically opposed to what others are saying.)
Maybe what we have is someone who considers votes on their merits rather than voting only along some narrow ideological agenda, someone capable of being swayed by evidence? Boy, that would be a change!
I’m using US standards of course…since we are talking about the US, why would other systems count??? In the US, Lieberman is considered a moderate centrist candidate.
Please…no need to be insulting. I’m no Republican, I’m an Independant. I’m a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE, but thats not the same thing as being a Republican.
I don’t consider Kerry a ‘moderate Democrat’…I consider him a Liberal Democrat of the tax and spend variety and I’ve seen nothing to disabuse me of that idea so far. Again, I’m using US standards here, not European standards of right and left…and IMHO Kerry is left of US center on social and fiscal issues. Bush is more difficult for me to define as he is such a bizarre creature. He is a fiscal moderate liberal and a strong social conservative…except where he attempts to be a fiscal moderate conservative and a moderate social liberal of course. He is just a muddle IMHO. And ya, I DO think the Republicans need to take back the Whitehouse from the nutballs that currently inhabit it…but as I’m no Republican its not my job man.
I’m not getting into the Vietnam thing…I think Kerry’s service was what it was and is his personal business. I appreciate the sacrifices he and other vets made in Vietnam, including those of my father.
Kerry is a human being, therefore he is a complex creature. He isn’t always weak, and I’m sorry if you though I was painting him that way. I do think he’s had several very good things he’s accomplished as a Senator (including the things you mentioned)…but overall my opinion of Kerry is he is too easily swayed by the polls and what he thinks the majority of his voter base wants him to be…he’s weak in otherwords, at least in my own mind. Doesn’t mean every single thing he does is weak or that he’s constantly bending to the will of the wind…but I think its a major character flaw. YMMV jshore…it obviously does. You asked ME why I thought he was scary.
Well, you didn’t ask me about why I thought Bush was scary…you asked me about Kerry. So I gave you my thoughts on Kerry (though I threw in some digs at GW just as a bonus).
Well, I don’t have the time like some of you for extensive research unfortunately, which makes my arguements usually more my opinion type pieces. The EASIST site to look at Kerry’s record (you’ll have to dig though) is factcheck.org…it lays out his voting record pretty good, though its a thumbnail sketch. I encourage you to check it out if you are interested.
Basically in the early days as a Senator he voted almost across the board against defense spending. Now, there are reasons, some of which were political, some of them were ethical (Kerry’s ethics I mean)…and some were fiscal.
As to what others are saying…well, I can’t speak to that jshore. I’ve done my own research and come to my own conclusions. Perhaps I’m wrong and they are right. I always have an open mind and am certainly willing for some of the more articulate Republicans to come on and change my mind if they can.
Perhaps you are right and this is Kerry’s motive. I just don’t read it that way…overall. Certainly there are times when Kerry DOES do this, and DOES take a stand for what I think are his core beliefs…however, in my own opinion and my own reading of him he far too often decides his position on whats popular with his voter base. Again, you may read this totally differently, and I conceed that I view Kerry through my own filters…just like you view him through yours.
-XT
I assume you’re referring to the commonly-held notion that Republicans are more fiscally-conservative than Democrats. It always astounds me that people still cling to this false idea. The simple fact is that the Democrats have a much better track record in that area than Republicans. When have we had a liberal president who fared worse than Republican presidents? Reagan and the Bushes have far, far surpassed any defecit run-ups caused by liberal presidents.
Now I suspect you will try your usual ploy of trying to brand me as a partisan, while claiming neutrality for yourself, but I assure you I am speaking of cold, hard, facts. Look it up.
You (once again) assume wrong. You are trying to break this down by party and I’m not. Bush and Kerry are who are running for President, so its THEIR records that are important, as they will be the ones nominally in charge…and the ones who set policy and direction (or at least who try too).
There are fiscal conservatives that are both Democrats and Republicans…and there are fiscal liberals that are both. Look it up some time. What I was saying is that Kerry, IMHO, is a fiscal liberal of the tax and spend variety. So is Bush, again IMHO. As I’m not inclined to support fiscal liberals, I support neither.
As far as track records go, its debatable which has been worse. Both IMHO, and I can point to each party for examples of failed economic plans. Its also debatable if deficits are necessarily a bad thing or a good thing…it depends on circumstance, both existing and past.
Well, you ARE a partisan, but in this case being partisan or not has nothing to do with it…you are just wrong about my position.
However, if you’d like to lay out a case that says I’m wrong about KERRY being a fiscal liberal, then by all means go for it. Show me I’m wrong about the man.
-XT
Since you know so much about his record, why don’t you first make the case, (A) that Kerry is a “Liberal Democrat of the tax and spend variety”, including an explanation of what that means, and perhaps giving us some examples of prominent “Liberal Democrats of the tax and spend variety”, and (B) what it is about his record that makes you think he will do as bad or worse of a job of keeping defecit spending in check than Bush is doing. Show us you’re right about the man, and why he “scares” you so much.
And while you’re at it, maybe you can explain why, in your first post, you said:
“I consider him a Liberal Democrat of the tax and spend variety”
But in the next post, when you were up to your little “Blowero’s partisan and I’m not” game, you said:
“What I was saying is that Kerry, IMHO, is a fiscal liberal of the tax and spend variety. So is Bush, again IMHO.”
Cute how you included the word ‘Democrat’, but conveniently omitted it when you were trying to make yourself look neutral.:rolleyes:
Oh, and you slipped this by me the first time, xtisme. Originally you just said “liberals” scare you from a fiscal perspective. You did NOT say “fiscal liberals” scare you.
You’re saying that because of your belief that Kerry is a liberal, that you are scared he will fail the test of fiscal responsibility. But you provided ZERO evidence that liberals are less fiscally responsible than conservatives. In fact, if you look up the figures, it’s the other way around. Show me any liberal president who has outspent a conservative president - it can’t be done. You almost had me with your little ex post facto changing of “liberal” to “fiscal liberal”, and pretending like you included republicans in there all along. Nice try…
:rolleyes:
Perhaps this is a language issue, but I think you are deliberately baiting me here blowero…I KNOW you are smarter than this, but I’ll give you the benifit of the doubt.
Kerry is a Democrat. check. Kerry is a Liberal. check. Not all Democrats are Liberals. check. See? I’m talking about KERRY…not about all Democrats. YOU are the one trying to box me into some strange strawman of your own devising.
Lets recap just on the off chance you aren’t pulling my chain here and really aren’t getting all this…I dislike fiscal liberals. They scare me. Just my own world view…I’m entitled to my opinion. I consider Kerry a fiscal liberal. In XT’s book, fiscal liberal is bad…fiscal conservative is good. Q.E.D. I won’t be voting for Kerry. I don’t consider ALL Democrats to be fiscal liberals. Had the Democrats run, say, Lieberman, I’d be voting for him. Liberman is a Democrat. Liberman is not a fiscal liberal. Not fiscal liberal is potentially good…XT may vote that way, cause XT like.
Whats the problem blowero? Can you not follow this…is it really that difficult to pick this out from what I wrote? Seems pretty clear to me.
And no…I think I’ll pass on proving Kerry is a Liberal. I’ll also pass on what tax and spend means…google is your friend and its not THAT obscure of a reference. Next you’ll have me proving water is wet or something. I was asked why Kerry scares me…and I gave my opinion on that. Cite? Sure blowero…my post is my cite for my opinion and my thoughts. 
If you would like to take it on yourself to prove he’s NOT a Liberal (or assert that there is no such thing as a tax and spend liberal), knock yourself out bro.
As to your assertion that I need to prove he’ll do a better/worse job than Bush…again, what makes you think that I think Bush is doing a GOOD job on the economy?? I’ve already said (repeatedly) that its a toss up between them in my opinion. Translation: They will do an equally bad job. Neither guy is MY guy…and I’ll be voting for neither. What part of that aren’t you reading?
-XT
Ok, now I know you are pulling my chain. :smack:
-XT
Hmmm…no response to my points here, just a veiled insult.
Still no response to what I said. Just another ex post facto recharacterization of what you said.
You can pretend that’s what you said the first time. You can even feign sarcasm about it. It doesn’t change what you said. And you still haven’t explained why you think Kerry’s a “fiscal liberal”. Just curious: Was Ronald Reagan a “fiscal liberal”? Was George Bush Sr. a “fiscal liberal”? Was Clinton a fiscal conservative?
Another snide response with no content.
Hmmm…dropped the “fiscal” part again, I see. Guess you just use that when it’s convenient to the argument.
Hi, I’m xstime. I like to bash Kerry for being a liberal, but when anyone calls me on it, I just say, “Oh, I meant FISCAL liberal”. Y’know, just like George W. Bush. Oh, did I say FISCAL liberal? No, I guess I meant just plain ol’ liberal after all. And if I capitalize it, I can make it really obfuscatory.
Oh, nice copout - “Why don’t you google it?” Sheesh. You really think I was just asking you for the definitions of the word “tax” and the word “spend”, eh?
How clever. :rolleyes:
And you quite obviously have nothing to back it up, only cliches about “tax & spend liberals” and other vague nonsense. Next you’ll be calling him a “pinko”. I guess, since you keep screaming that you’re not a Republican, I just thought you might have more to go on than trite Republican buzzwords. Apparently you don’t.
Yeah, that’s about what I expected. :rolleyes: “Kerry eats babies - prove me wrong.”
Well I just figured that if Kerry scares you as much as you claim he does, you must have some sort of reason to believe that he’s going to screw up the economy even worse than Bush has. So, are you voting for a 3rd party candidate? May I ask who?
Oh, a “you can’t read” quip. How delightfully original and clever. :rolleyes:
Look, you’re entitled to your opinion. If you think Kerry is going to do just as badly as Bush on the economy (and foreign policy for that matter), you’re certainly free to do so. But you’ve demonstrated here that you have absolutely nothing to back up that opinion, save cliches and “prove me wrongs”.
Oh God - PLEASE tell me you aren’t going to adopt the Libertarian-style nomenclature where the word “liberal” retroactively means whatever you want it to mean.
Sure I reasponded to your ‘points’…you just aren’t accepting you were wrong. God knows why you are so fixated on my casual use of ‘fiscal liberal’ and ‘liberal’…as if this means something to you. God knows what. Would it help you out if I said I’m using them interchangably, but that FISCAL liberal is more worrying to me than simply liberal?
BTW, you seem to be clueless about the context I’m using these terms. I’m using them from Airman recent thread and political position test. The terms were Strong Liberal (social/fiscal), Weak Liberal (social/fiscal), Moderate (s/f), Weak Conservative (s/f) and Strong Conservative (s/f). My own rating of Kerry is Strong Liberal on both social and fiscal. My rating of Bush is Weak Liberal on fiscal, Strong Consevative on social (based on his various quasi-religious stances).
I pretend nothing…god knows what the hell you are babbling about. Thats my honest assertion.
Already did Kerry for you. Reagan? Easy. Strong Conservative on both. Bush Sr? moderate on social, Weak Conservative on fiscal. Clinton? More difficult to judge as he was more complex and tougher to nail down. IMO (for whatever thats worth to you…not much it seems) moderate (to weak liberal) on social, weak conservative (to moderate) on fiscal.
Anything else on this? Me? I rated out as moderate (nearly weak liberal) on social and weak conservative on fiscal. You didn’t take the test but I figure we both know where you’d wind up…Strong Liberal on social and Weak Liberal on fiscal is my guess.
The relevants of this is in your own mind blowero…I attribute nothing too it other than sloppyness on my part. As I said, I consider Kerry an all around Liberal…of which a subset is that he is a FISCAL Liberal. Why you can’t wrap your mind around this I have no idea…its really not that hard.
Well, I thought so. How clever of YOU to ask me for cites and to prove Kerry is a liberal, to define what a liberal is, what a FISCAL liberal is, to compare and contrast different political and economic philosophies, and what tax and spend means…all in a thread who’s title is “The One and Only Bush Acceptance Speech Thread Reply to Thread”. Cite cite cite cite…thats your debate tactic. Well, HIJACK and cite for my opinion I suppose. I’m surprised you didn’t throw in the kitchen sink while you were at it. If you want to debate these things either go to one of the myriad thread on EACH of them, or start your own frickin thread. I’ve actually addressed (and given my opinion on) most of these points in other threads…go look up my answers if you are so curious.
I DO have specific reasons, and I’ve listed them in other threads. Things like his stances on trade and outsourcing, the fact that by the calculations I’ve seen his medicare and insurance package will cost us something like a trillion dollars (even taking into account the tax repeals he’s planning), the (IMO) inevitable increase on our taxes across the board (I’m aware Kerry claims it will be only the people making $200k or more…I just don’t buy that)…a whole host of things. Now, you might not AGREE with my assessment that these are a bad thing (obviously you don’t)…but they are MY reasons why he ‘scares’ me. I have zero desire to get into specifics in THIS thread though.
I suppose you may ask that, and as I’ve said it before in a bunch of other threads I guess I’ll answer you. I’m voting for Michael Badnarik. He’s on the ballot in New Mexico and I’ve made several campaign contributions to the Libertarian party, and have even agreed to help hand out flyers and such at the fair tonight and tomorrow. Come on down and I’ll get you a button.
I’m sorry, but my statement that Kerry is a Liberal (fiscal/social) is hardly on par with “Kerry eats babies”. Its pretty generally accepted as at least plausable, if not a fact. The assertion that Kerry is NOT a Liberal (either Fiscal or Social) however is NOT generally considered plausable, and is certainly not a fact…so its on YOU to prove this if you care too. Personally I could care less…it was just a joke on my part.
sigh There is definitely a disconnect between us. Perhaps you just don’t get me, or perhaps you think to bait me. No idea. When someone says ‘are you reading this’ they don’t generally mean are you able to physically read the words on the page. “Breaker 1-9, are you READING me good buddy??” It doesn’t mean that I think you can’t read.
I’m not TRYING to demonstrate anything in this thread. Its a thread on Bush’s campaign speech. I was ASKED to give why I thought Kerry was scary, so I obliged by doing so. If you want a more indepth analysis of Kerry, then go to a Kerry thread (there are LOTS of them) and look it up. I’m not ASKING you to prove me wrong (in point of fact, all I asked you was if you felt the need to try and prove Kerry is NOT a Liberal, then knock yourself out…i.e. I wasn’t serious), because I’m not trying to PROVE anything here.
I’m glad I’m free to have my own opinion though…I feel much better now.
-XT
Are you being deliberately obtuse? You don’t acknowledge that there is a difference between being a social liberal and a fiscal liberal? You really don’t see any need to differentiate between the 2? You really think they’re just interchangeable?
I already knew you were using them interchangeably; that’s my point. It’s obfuscatory.
Oh, I see - we were supposed to read your mind. Sorry, I’ll get right on that.
Do you do anything besides ad hominem? It’s really getting old. I was not “babbling”; I was making the very clear point that you said Kerry “scares” you because he’s a “liberal”, and when I called you on it, you retroactively changed your wording from “liberal” to “fiscal liberal”, in an attempt to make me look partisan, rather than yourself.
How does racking up unprecedented record defecits constitute fiscal conservatism? I’d ask you for your definition of fiscal conservatism, but you’d no doubt tell me to “google it”. See, that was my point, before you turned this into a referendum on how partisan Blowero is: The myth is that republicans are fiscally conservative, when in fact the opposite is true.
Hmmm…maybe you ought to link to this thread, so people can have clue what the fuck you’re talking about. Apologies if you already linked to it and I missed it.
I can’t wrap my mind around it because you keep changing what you’re saying. First you imply that being a fiscal liberal is a consequence of being a social liberal, then you deny having implied it (throwing in a boatload of ad hominems in the process), and now you’re flat-out asserting that fiscal liberal is a subset of “all-around liberal”. Meanwhile, you refuse to define any of your terms and blithely say “google it” or “prove me wrong”, or say you got it from another thread. You haven’t said anything cogent that anyone could wrap their mind around.
If you didn’t keep changing your story, or making it deliberately vague, I wouldn’t be asking you to clarify.
Well I happen to think you’re wrong - that’s my opinion. I think you’re basing your opinion of Kerry on the false notion that Democrat = liberal = not fiscally responsible. And if the best you can do is tell me to google it or search other threads, then I’m not impressed.
Wow, an actual cogent point. Didn’t think you had it in you.
You DO realize that raising taxes is not fiscally liberal, right? Fiscal conservatism means not spending more than you take in, so getting more tax income would work towards fiscal conservatism, not against it. Now, if you’re against rolling back tax breaks for the wealthy, that’s fine, but don’t portray that as being scared that Kerry is a fiscal liberal. That’s two seperate issues.
Well that’s fine, but don’t call it the wrong thing. I DO happen to agree with you that defecit spending is bad for the country. But I think you are conflating social liberalism with defecit spending. The fact is that the worst defecit spenders have been social conservatives. The connection between the 2 is actually the opposite of what you think it is.
Well all right. That wasn’t so hard, was it? 
For what it’s worth, I think that makes a lot of sense for you. I have no doubt that he would practice fiscal conservatism if elected. I never said in this thread that I thought you were a Bush supporter - you’ve been quite clear on that.
Let me take a stab at what I think you’re trying to say. You want less defecit spending AND lower taxes. Kerry doesn’t fit the bill for you because he probably won’t lower taxes. Bush doesn’t fit the bill for you because he won’t reduce spending. I just think this whole thing about being an “all-around liberal” is a red herring.
Hmmm…so your reading of that was that I was literally saying the two were on a par, huh? :rolleyes:
You’re still conflating two concepts. I don’t know how else to explain it to you to make you understand.
Yeah, you know there really IS a disconnect. I was chastising you on your stale quip. I knew exactly what you meant, and I was commenting on how unoriginal your little insult was. How on Earth could you take that to mean I thought you meant it literally? This is getting surreal. It’s like we aren’t even speaking the same language.