On October 19 2011 04:54 Belial88 wrote: Grand Old Party for a reason.
I think most Americans want to ban gay marriage - it's not just Republicans, every single time states vote on gay marriage, or people are polled, people vote overwhelmingly against gay marriage. [...] My point is that most people are against gay marriage in America, despite what everyone you know tells you because everyone you know is on the college campus or the city. So yes, most republicans are against gay marriage, but so are most democrats.
Unfortunately how that translates to the ballot box is: young people don't vote. But the patterns in age indicate that support for marriage equality is only going to grow as time moves forward.
Now personally, I support gay marriage, I even voted in favor of it in my state, but if a state is dominated by a bunch of religious nutjobs, then it should be allowed to ban gay marriage. Virginia, for example, is an extremely christian state, and if they want to be intolerant, or 'christian', then they should have the right to do so.
Eh, if all the people in a state voted to ban interracial marriage I don't think they should be allowed to. The law should treat all people equally.
Now, let's talk Virginia. Virginia had a ballot initiative to ban gay marriage in 2006, which passed by 57% to 43%. Breakdown by party? Republican: 85% yes (voting for the ban) 15% no Independent: 47% yes 53% no Democrat: 32% yes 68% no
I'm trying to say Obama is a christian nutjob too, so the idea that only republicans are religious fanatics is ridiculous when Obama goes to church every sunday just like they do, talks about god just as much, has certain beliefs just because a book told him (just like republicans). Obama went to Rev. Wright, and irregardless of the controversial things he said, this man has said some extremely... 'religious' stuff. I'm sure Obama just went every.single.sunday to this guy's church because he only pretends to be christian right?
If someone believes in some book and some imaginary god, then I definitely want to know about his 'private life'. I think it's a little relevant. My point is, is that Obama is no less a religious fanatic than Republicans, yet liberals always talk about how religious republicans are, yet when Obama refuses to grant gay marriage, it has nothing to do with how extremely religious he is.
It's not being religious that ticks people off, unless somebody's a real fundamentalist. It's the legislating of religious issues.
As you've already mentioned, Obama isn't trying to ban gay marriage the way Bush did, or the way some of the candidates we saw tonight have pledged to. Obama isn't trying to outlaw abortion. Obama isn't saying that we should teach creationism/intelligent design alongside evolution in science class. (or, to the extent that you care about his personal beliefs aside from policy, he doesn't believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old) Obama isn't trying to ban embryonic stem cell research.
This seems pretty consistent among Democratic candidates, with the occasional exception of abortion (the only one of those things that has any secular reasons to support the conservative position). With the Republicans, it's a grab bag - Bachmann/Cain/Perry hard right, Romney and Huntsman center to left.
Obama's willingness to sit back and watch as the states take on gay marriage is more an indictment of his unwillingness to take a stand on the issue (he's no anti-federalist so it isn't that), preferring to be a wishy-washy triangulator and hedge his bets for election time.
Cain: Not the best of nights for Cain. Herman took some serious heat on his 999 plan. He weathered it fairly well and kept his composure despite the onslaught. I was disappointed that he dodged the “repealing the 14th Amendment question.” He should have just said that he doesn’t support repealing it and move on. He looked pretty bad on the foreign policy questions that were thrown his way. He needs some more polish in this regard, which I don’t think really surprises anyone.
Romney: I’ve said before that I thought that attacking Romney on Romneycare at the debates was a waste of time and even counterproductive for other candidates. I was wrong. Gingrich and Santorum really tore into Romney on this issue in a way that Romney simply couldn’t give a good response to, and brutalized his credentials as a conservative. I also gotta give Romney props for how he handled Perry and Santorum’s rabid fits. Very nicely done, particularly with how he handled Perry.
Perry: “Blah blah blah more energy development to create jobs blah blah blah.” I don’t get it. Haven’t his advisors told him that his solution for the economy isn’t cutting it? More importantly, this guy is just dirty. His attack on Romney about the illegal immigrant workers was absolutely bottom-feeding. It was so bad that he got booed by the audience. I stuck a fork in Perry after the last debate. I’m sure that most everyone else will do the same after this debate.
Paul: Excellent showing by Paul. Unlike in previous debates (especially his early ones), his answers were on point and coherent. He didn’t ramble at all. His answers about TARP were particularly good (and at Cain’s expense).
Bachmann: A “double fence” on the border? Really? Her other really stupid answer: “We don’t need to change the Constitution to solve the anchor baby issue.” Really!? It’s a fucking CONSTITUTIONAL issue. Did this idiot even go to law school?
Santorum: Such an asshole. The guy just can’t help himself. That said, he did land the really hurtful blow on Romney on Romneycare, linking Romney’s advisors to Obamacare.
Gingrich: Generally the statesman. That said, Gingrich went after Romney on Romneycare pretty brutally. I was wondering when Newt was going to get around to trashing CNN and Anderson Cooper (the moderator), and it finally came at the end.
The winner: Ron Paul. The loser: Rick Perry. Possible loser: Mitt Romney. Romney's conservative cred was savaged pretty badly. I'm interested in seeing what is poll numbers look like after tonight.
On October 19 2011 11:23 xDaunt wrote: My thoughts on tonight's debate:
Cain: Not the best of nights for Cain. Herman took some serious seat on his 999 plan. He weathered it fairly well and kept his composure despite the onslaught. I was disappointed that he dodged the “repealing the 14th Amendment question.” He should have just said that he doesn’t support repealing it and move on. He looked pretty bad on the foreign policy questions that were thrown his way. He needs some more polish in this regard, which I don’t think really surprises anyone.
Romney: I’ve said before that I thought that attacking Romney on Romneycare at the debates was a waste of time and even counterproductive for other candidates. I was wrong. Gingrich and Santorum really tore into Romney on this issue in a way that Romney simply couldn’t give a good response to, and brutalized his credentials as a conservative. I also gotta give Romney props for how he handled Perry and Santorum’s rabid fits. Very nicely done, particularly with how he handled Perry.
Perry: “Blah blah blah more energy development to create jobs blah blah blah.” I don’t get it. Haven’t his advisors told him that his solution for the economy isn’t cutting it? More importantly, this guy is just dirty. His attack on Romney about the illegal immigrant workers was absolutely bottom-feeding. It was so bad that he got boo’d by the audience. I stuck a fork in Perry after the last debate. I’m sure that most everyone else will do the same after this debate.
Paul: Excellent showing by Paul. Unlike in previous debates (especially his early ones), his answers were on point and coherent. He didn’t ramble at all. His answers about TARP were particularly good (and at Cain’s expense).
Bachmann: A “double fence” on the border? Really? Her other really stupid answer: “We don’t need to change the Constitution to solve the anchor baby issue.” Really!? It’s a fucking CONSTITUTIONAL issue. Did this idiot even go to law school?
Santorum: Such an asshole. The guy just can’t help himself. That said, he did land the really hurtful blow on Romney on Romneycare, linking Romney’s advisors to Obamacare.
Gingrich: Generally the statesman. That said, Gingrich went after Romney on Romneycare pretty brutally. I was wondering when Newt was going to get around to trashing CNN and Anderson Cooper (the moderator), and it finally came at the end.
The winner: Ron Paul. The loser: Rick Perry. Possible loser: Mitt Romney. Romney's conservative cred was savaged pretty badly. I'm interested in seeing what is poll numbers look like after tonight.
Excellent synopsis, I agree. I couldn't believe it when Perry handed himself on a platter to Romney over the immigration issue. Gingrich is running for vice president, although I wonder if Republicans will turn to him after the 999 craze dies down. Ron Paul seems to me to be the most intelligent of the candidates.
Didn't Bachman say at one point she wanted to deport Obama's uncle?
On October 19 2011 11:23 xDaunt wrote: My thoughts on tonight's debate:
Cain: Not the best of nights for Cain. Herman took some serious seat on his 999 plan. He weathered it fairly well and kept his composure despite the onslaught. I was disappointed that he dodged the “repealing the 14th Amendment question.” He should have just said that he doesn’t support repealing it and move on. He looked pretty bad on the foreign policy questions that were thrown his way. He needs some more polish in this regard, which I don’t think really surprises anyone.
Romney: I’ve said before that I thought that attacking Romney on Romneycare at the debates was a waste of time and even counterproductive for other candidates. I was wrong. Gingrich and Santorum really tore into Romney on this issue in a way that Romney simply couldn’t give a good response to, and brutalized his credentials as a conservative. I also gotta give Romney props for how he handled Perry and Santorum’s rabid fits. Very nicely done, particularly with how he handled Perry.
Perry: “Blah blah blah more energy development to create jobs blah blah blah.” I don’t get it. Haven’t his advisors told him that his solution for the economy isn’t cutting it? More importantly, this guy is just dirty. His attack on Romney about the illegal immigrant workers was absolutely bottom-feeding. It was so bad that he got boo’d by the audience. I stuck a fork in Perry after the last debate. I’m sure that most everyone else will do the same after this debate.
Paul: Excellent showing by Paul. Unlike in previous debates (especially his early ones), his answers were on point and coherent. He didn’t ramble at all. His answers about TARP were particularly good (and at Cain’s expense).
Bachmann: A “double fence” on the border? Really? Her other really stupid answer: “We don’t need to change the Constitution to solve the anchor baby issue.” Really!? It’s a fucking CONSTITUTIONAL issue. Did this idiot even go to law school?
Santorum: Such an asshole. The guy just can’t help himself. That said, he did land the really hurtful blow on Romney on Romneycare, linking Romney’s advisors to Obamacare.
Gingrich: Generally the statesman. That said, Gingrich went after Romney on Romneycare pretty brutally. I was wondering when Newt was going to get around to trashing CNN and Anderson Cooper (the moderator), and it finally came at the end.
The winner: Ron Paul. The loser: Rick Perry. Possible loser: Mitt Romney. Romney's conservative cred was savaged pretty badly. I'm interested in seeing what is poll numbers look like after tonight.
Excellent synopsis, I agree. I couldn't believe it when Perry handed himself on a platter to Romney over the immigration issue. Gingrich is running for vice president, although I wonder if Republicans will turn to him after the 999 craze dies down. Ron Paul seems to me to be the most intelligent of the candidates.
Didn't Bachman say at one point she wanted to deport Obama's uncle?
I also agree, and agree with Gingrich running for at least a spot somewhere. The 999 craze has no where to go but down. Once people actually realize what the plan does. Not too many people are going to like it. I myself, don't like a 2% tax cut, just to get a 9% tax on everything I purchase.
On October 19 2011 11:23 xDaunt wrote: My thoughts on tonight's debate:
Cain: Not the best of nights for Cain. Herman took some serious heat on his 999 plan. He weathered it fairly well and kept his composure despite the onslaught. I was disappointed that he dodged the “repealing the 14th Amendment question.” He should have just said that he doesn’t support repealing it and move on. He looked pretty bad on the foreign policy questions that were thrown his way. He needs some more polish in this regard, which I don’t think really surprises anyone.
Romney: I’ve said before that I thought that attacking Romney on Romneycare at the debates was a waste of time and even counterproductive for other candidates. I was wrong. Gingrich and Santorum really tore into Romney on this issue in a way that Romney simply couldn’t give a good response to, and brutalized his credentials as a conservative. I also gotta give Romney props for how he handled Perry and Santorum’s rabid fits. Very nicely done, particularly with how he handled Perry.
Perry: “Blah blah blah more energy development to create jobs blah blah blah.” I don’t get it. Haven’t his advisors told him that his solution for the economy isn’t cutting it? More importantly, this guy is just dirty. His attack on Romney about the illegal immigrant workers was absolutely bottom-feeding. It was so bad that he got booed by the audience. I stuck a fork in Perry after the last debate. I’m sure that most everyone else will do the same after this debate.
Paul: Excellent showing by Paul. Unlike in previous debates (especially his early ones), his answers were on point and coherent. He didn’t ramble at all. His answers about TARP were particularly good (and at Cain’s expense).
Bachmann: A “double fence” on the border? Really? Her other really stupid answer: “We don’t need to change the Constitution to solve the anchor baby issue.” Really!? It’s a fucking CONSTITUTIONAL issue. Did this idiot even go to law school?
Santorum: Such an asshole. The guy just can’t help himself. That said, he did land the really hurtful blow on Romney on Romneycare, linking Romney’s advisors to Obamacare.
Gingrich: Generally the statesman. That said, Gingrich went after Romney on Romneycare pretty brutally. I was wondering when Newt was going to get around to trashing CNN and Anderson Cooper (the moderator), and it finally came at the end.
The winner: Ron Paul. The loser: Rick Perry. Possible loser: Mitt Romney. Romney's conservative cred was savaged pretty badly. I'm interested in seeing what is poll numbers look like after tonight.
The real question about Paul: did he look presidential. Without the public being able to connect with him on a personal level, it's doubtful he could take the primary or presidency. He may present himself as intelligent to Republican voters, but people usually vote for "friends" instead of who they ideologically agree with.
On October 19 2011 12:43 Harbinger631 wrote: Excellent synopsis, I agree. I couldn't believe it when Perry handed himself on a platter to Romney over the immigration issue. Gingrich is running for vice president, although I wonder if Republicans will turn to him after the 999 craze dies down. Ron Paul seems to me to be the most intelligent of the candidates.
Didn't Bachman say at one point she wanted to deport Obama's uncle?
I don't see republicans flocking to Gingrich. He has too much baggage. Not only does he have the personal baggage that everyone knows about, but, like Romney, he has some liberal blemishes on his record. For example, and as was discussed tonight, he supported an individual mandate at one point.
As for Cain, I don't know if the enthusiasm for him dies down. Think about it this way. Everyone's looking for the "alternative to Romney" candidate. If it's not Cain, who's it going to be? Rule out Gingrich for the reasons stated above. It won't be Huntsman or Paul, neither of whom are mainstream republicans/conservatives. Santorum is an asshole. Bachmann is a rabid dog. Perry is an idiot. Cain is by far the most personally likable of the bunch.
On October 19 2011 12:43 Harbinger631 wrote: Excellent synopsis, I agree. I couldn't believe it when Perry handed himself on a platter to Romney over the immigration issue. Gingrich is running for vice president, although I wonder if Republicans will turn to him after the 999 craze dies down. Ron Paul seems to me to be the most intelligent of the candidates.
Didn't Bachman say at one point she wanted to deport Obama's uncle?
I don't see republicans flocking to Gingrich. He has too much baggage. Not only does he have the personal baggage that everyone knows about, but, like Romney, he has some liberal blemishes on his record. For example, and as was discussed tonight, he supported an individual mandate at one point.
As for Cain, I don't know if the enthusiasm for him dies down. Think about it this way. Everyone's looking for the "alternative to Romney" candidate. If it's not Cain, who's it going to be? Rule out Gingrich for the reasons stated above. It won't be Huntsman or Paul, neither of whom are mainstream republicans/conservatives. Santorum is an asshole. Bachmann is a rabid dog. Perry is an idiot. Cain is by far the most personally likable of the bunch.
From a realistic perspective, Cain's lack of ANY Executive experience makes him unelectable. I don't see Gingrich as VP, because he doesn't bring anything to the ticket. If we assume Cain is the nominee, picking Romney would give him Massachusetts and perhaps Michigan. The other candidates are basically southerners or from states that would vote for Republicans regardless of whether or not the candidate originated from that state. Romney as the nominee makes the most sense in the general election. He attracts votes from the heavily Democratic northeast. If he chose a more conservative VP to appeal to the base and ensure his credentials, his chances would look much better in the general election.
Rachel Abrams Adams is the wife of Reagan and Bush 43 neocon official Elliot Abrams, the daughter of Midge Decter and step-daughter of Norman Podhoretz, as well as a member of the Board of Directors of the “Emergency Committee for Israel,” the group founded by Bill Kristol and run by Noah Pollack to attack any American politician displaying less than absolute featly toward Israel. On her blog yesterday, this is what this member of America’s leading royal neocon family wrote about the exchange of prisoners between Israel and Hamas (via Andrew Sullivan):
Then round up [Gilad Shalit's] captors, the slaughtering, death-worshiping, innocent-butchering, child-sacrificing savages who dip their hands in blood and use women—those who aren’t strapping bombs to their own devils’ spawn and sending them out to meet their seventy-two virgins by taking the lives of the school-bus-riding, heart-drawing, Transformer-doodling, homework-losing children of Others—and their offspring—those who haven’t already been pimped out by their mothers to the murder god—as shields, hiding behind their burkas and cradles like the unmanned animals they are, and throw them not into your prisons, where they can bide until they’re traded by the thousands for another child of Israel, but into the sea, to float there, food for sharks, stargazers, and whatever other oceanic carnivores God has put there for the purpose.
The funny thing is that blog has Joe Biden listed as a contributor..(top-right) With the next debate on Foreign Policy, I wonder how much of this hatred will be on display. Herman Cain better figure out whether Ube-Ube-Ube has nukes. Will any candidate even have much to say?
Ron Paul's crazy cuts to everything is a gimmicky, last-ditch move for eyeballs and attention, but cutting that much that fast can't be good for social stability (and for all of America's anti-socialist and anti-big-government sentiments, an unrestrained free market could do disastrous things for society and the environment).
I can't possibly fathom how something that is absolutely necessary to the future of our country as gimmicky. We can only run ourselves so far into debt before we practically implode and small problems turn into nightmares.
No other candidate has even tried to solve the budget deficit.
Yeah, there's absolutely nothing gimmicky about Ron Paul's budget cuts. They are absolutely necessary, and the fact that Paul is actually proposing them will draw him support from fiscally conservative republicans. I just hope that one of the other candidates will do the same.
Cain has said that he'd balance the budget in his first year, which would require similar cuts. However, Cain only talked about making cuts to discretionary spending, which wouldn't get him anywhere close to balancing the budget. At some point, he, and every other candidate, is going to need to put entitlement programs on the table. There's no way around it mathematically.
I am sorry if i sound like a part in Ron Paul's campaign but i am only 20 years old and although i know a lot about politics in general, i do lack knowledge about the politicians themselves so i thought watching debates and doing a little homework on the candidates would help me. I am a registered democrat but i do like to stay informed on political issues and i am probably going to vote against Obama if the right candidate comes up.
With this in mid i watched the debates and i must say that all the candidates have numerous faults in some way or another except for Ron Paul who takes a heavy conservative stance on almost every issues and yet seems to have caught my eye with some of his policies.
I dont want to bore anyone with details but i would like to know if i am missing something about him that would cause people to ignore him? Did he doing something in the past that i am too young to remember and thats why it seems as if i am the only supporter? Sorry just like to know who i am voting for before i actually cast a vote. Thanks
Newt Gingrich has really warmed up to me. He's clearly found his role in these debates as the "seasoned statesmen" who is above the politics. When others berated Cain on the specifics of his 9-9-9 plan Gingrich applauded him instead for putting forth such a bold plan that put the spotlight on the things that mattered. He then on the same breath gently criticized him, suggesting that his plan may be oversimplifying things (As Cain nodded along). When the other candidates attacked Romney for his healthcare plan Gingrich took the high road and said that it would not be fair to compare it to Obamacare but at the same time dismissing it philosophically i.e. it's still a big government, bureaucratic, costly system that is not conservative. And of course at the end calling out Anderson Cooper and the entire format of the debate which pit everyone against one another. Also liked his proposal for a Lincon-Douglas style debate between him and Obama. lol, what a history geek.
Ron Paul was the winner of the night though. He just continues to make the most sense out of all the candidates.
Perry looked desperate like he was clutching for straws. A debater he is not. He actually reminds me a bit of Brick from Anchorman.
Cain's 9-9-9 plan continues to be scrutinized but he continues to be likable and charming.
And Romney seems to have gotten a lot more comfortable debating, injecting humour where he can.
Hmm, I don't get why we continue to fight over which non-Military components of the discretionary budget are the most wasteful, when it hasn't increased diddly-squat in the last decade. The military component of the budget keeps going up and up and up and nobody is any the wiser. We could cut the ENTIRE non-Military side of the discretionary budget and still not balance the books without tax increases. So, any of these candidates that do talk about tax cuts, on top of reducing government's control over the market aren't attacking the ultimate cause of the problem with the deficit. Only one candidate is talking about reducing military spending, and that's Ron Paul.
On October 19 2011 11:23 xDaunt wrote: My thoughts on tonight's debate:
Cain: Not the best of nights for Cain. Herman took some serious heat on his 999 plan. He weathered it fairly well and kept his composure despite the onslaught. I was disappointed that he dodged the “repealing the 14th Amendment question.” He should have just said that he doesn’t support repealing it and move on. He looked pretty bad on the foreign policy questions that were thrown his way. He needs some more polish in this regard, which I don’t think really surprises anyone.
Romney: I’ve said before that I thought that attacking Romney on Romneycare at the debates was a waste of time and even counterproductive for other candidates. I was wrong. Gingrich and Santorum really tore into Romney on this issue in a way that Romney simply couldn’t give a good response to, and brutalized his credentials as a conservative. I also gotta give Romney props for how he handled Perry and Santorum’s rabid fits. Very nicely done, particularly with how he handled Perry.
Perry: “Blah blah blah more energy development to create jobs blah blah blah.” I don’t get it. Haven’t his advisors told him that his solution for the economy isn’t cutting it? More importantly, this guy is just dirty. His attack on Romney about the illegal immigrant workers was absolutely bottom-feeding. It was so bad that he got booed by the audience. I stuck a fork in Perry after the last debate. I’m sure that most everyone else will do the same after this debate.
Paul: Excellent showing by Paul. Unlike in previous debates (especially his early ones), his answers were on point and coherent. He didn’t ramble at all. His answers about TARP were particularly good (and at Cain’s expense).
Bachmann: A “double fence” on the border? Really? Her other really stupid answer: “We don’t need to change the Constitution to solve the anchor baby issue.” Really!? It’s a fucking CONSTITUTIONAL issue. Did this idiot even go to law school?
Santorum: Such an asshole. The guy just can’t help himself. That said, he did land the really hurtful blow on Romney on Romneycare, linking Romney’s advisors to Obamacare.
Gingrich: Generally the statesman. That said, Gingrich went after Romney on Romneycare pretty brutally. I was wondering when Newt was going to get around to trashing CNN and Anderson Cooper (the moderator), and it finally came at the end.
The winner: Ron Paul. The loser: Rick Perry. Possible loser: Mitt Romney. Romney's conservative cred was savaged pretty badly. I'm interested in seeing what is poll numbers look like after tonight.
On October 20 2011 05:20 Nash wrote: Very unbiased...
I'm not really trying to be unbiased. There are candidates that I like, candidates that I don't like, and candidates that I'd consider supporting. I'm just offering my opinion of what I observed and what I took away from the debate.
Speaking of which, I'm absolutely shocked at some of the debate post mortems that I've seen in which the pundits have said that Perry had a good night. Seriously!? The guy was so bad that he got booed. Even some of the pundits who thought that Perry did well were conservative (I'd expect it from liberals). Does anyone think that Perry had a good night or did anything to help his cause?
On October 20 2011 05:20 Nash wrote: Very unbiased...
I'm not really trying to be unbiased. There are candidates that I like, candidates that I don't like, and candidates that I'd consider supporting. I'm just offering my opinion of what I observed and what I took away from the debate.
Speaking of which, I'm absolutely shocked at some of the debate post mortems that I've seen in which the pundits have said that Perry had a good night. Seriously!? The guy was so bad that he got booed. Even some of the pundits who thought that Perry did well were conservative (I'd expect it from liberals). Does anyone think that Perry had a good night or did anything to help his cause?
I do, simply cause he landed a few shots, looked at least fiesty. I'm sure you already know I'm not a Perry guy either from previous postings. The fact that all Cain, Romney, and Perry all took hits, benefits Perry the most out of the three, because the media still won't look past them at any point. Perry looks good cause he fell the least. He''s lucky the others went battle-royale on Romney as well.
On October 20 2011 01:01 xDaunt wrote: Yeah, there's absolutely nothing gimmicky about Ron Paul's budget cuts. They are absolutely necessary, and the fact that Paul is actually proposing them will draw him support from fiscally conservative republicans. I just hope that one of the other candidates will do the same.
Cain has said that he'd balance the budget in his first year, which would require similar cuts. However, Cain only talked about making cuts to discretionary spending, which wouldn't get him anywhere close to balancing the budget. At some point, he, and every other candidate, is going to need to put entitlement programs on the table. There's no way around it mathematically.
I'll have to second this. All the candidates talk about general things they want to do economy wise, but Paul is the only one that has presented a plan to cut the deficit. Perhaps they think they can just get away with ignoring the problem like the current administration does? Not for long, they can't.
There's no way around it. Eventually, there will be cuts. To be avoiding this discussion is the definition of pandering to the electorate; if they equivocate on it, they don't have to admit that either A) they slash government programs that people benefit from (entitlements) or B) they ignore it and continue a fiscally destructive path. Maybe they're counting on the average person not noticing, but it seems pretty obvious to me.
First person besides Paul to put the issues on the table wins a prize.
EPT
