News Can Wiki Edits Predict Romney's VP Choice?

[SixNein]

Under the Ryan plan, in 2013 the military is 15.7%. In 2022 it has fallen to 13.2%.

There are reasons not to like Ryan and reasons not to like the Ryan budget. Heck, I don't like the Ryan budget. But if we are going to criticize it, it needs to be criticized based on the truth

Please source the truth for me.

From the Cato Institute...
http://wac.0873.edgecastcdn.net/800873/blog/wp-content/uploads/budgetchart.png

And in his "Path to Prosperity", he talks a great deal about how the military is his priority...
http://paulryan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf

And as the CBO noted...

Other mandatory spending and defense and nondefense discretionary spending would decline sharply as a share of GDP—from 12½ percent of GDP in 2011 to 5¾ percent in 2030 and 3¾ percent in 2050—compared with about 8 percent of GDP in 2050 under CBO’s two scenarios.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-20-Ryan_Specified_Paths_2.pdf

Mind you that includes everything from veteran's benefits, foreign aid, and even roads and highways.

Maybe the cato is too liberal...

The plan also waived the current-law Budget Control Act sequester and in its stead increased defense spending by roughly $700 billion over ten years, relative to current law, while reducing annually appropriated non-defense spending by roughly $800 billion.

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/dean-clancy/ryans-roadmap-budget-resources-for-activists-repor

 

[AlephZero]

For instance I personally do not give a crap about gay marriage I do think it should be decided at the state level and that the feds have no business being involved so I would vote against it at a federal level. States issue marriage licensees states grant the power to preform marriages.

There seems to be a fundamental problem with that. Suppose state A grants gay marriages but state B does not. If a couple get married in state A and then move to live in state B, are they still married? If not, what are the consequences (e.g. financial arrangements, the legal status of dependents etc?). If they are still effectively married, what exactly is state B not recognizing?

It makes sense to me that the states should have autonomy over things relating to the geography of that particular state, but that doesn't include personal relationships IMO.

 

[Evo]

Interesting article on Paul Ryan's stance on restriciting women's reproductive rights .

Paul Ryan's Extreme Anti-Choice Views

Goldberg looks over this lengthy piece written by Ryan explaining his views on reproductive rights—a piece where he never even bothers to mention women—and she concludes, "To him, a woman’s claim to bodily autonomy or self-determination doesn’t merit even cursory consideration." Just in case he's left any doubt in the reader's mind that he simply doesn't acknowledge women as people, Ryan concludes that the reasons liberals are pro-choice is because we find children repulsive:

Paul Ryan - At the core, today’s “pro-choice” liberals are deeply pessimistic. They denigrate life and offer fear of the present and the future—fear of too many choices and too many children. Rather than seeing children and human beings as a benefit, the “pro-choice” position implies that they are a burden. Despite the “pro-choice” label, liberals’ stance on this subject actually diminishes choices, lowers goals, and leads us to live with less. That includes reducing the number of human beings who can make choices.

This paragraph makes no sense unless you approach it with the assumption that the categories "women" and "human beings" are mutually exclusive. In order for the system of mandatory childbearing that he proposes to not decrease choices, women must be creatures who can make people but cannot be people. Of course, his belief that support for abortion rights is about child-hating instead of support for women is easy enough to disprove with the facts. More than 60 percent of women having abortions are already mothers, and most of the rest wish to be someday. When women offer their reasons for having abortions, "I dislike children and don't want to be around them" doesn't even rate high enough to make it into the data. Mostly the women fear that it's not a good time in their lives, and about half of them don't want to end up as a single mother.

Ryan may not be able to bring himself to acknowledge women at all, but as Scott Lemieux at the American Prospect notes, Ryan does believe that fertilized eggs deserve 14th Amendment protections, even though the amendment specifically notes that one must be "born" to be a person. However, Ryan has voted directly against legislation—the Lilly Ledbetter Act—that was crafted to ensure those 14th Amendment rights for women. Taking his statements and voting record as a whole, it's hard not to conclude that Paul Ryan quite literally believes that fertilized eggs deserve more rights than women.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...zed_eggs_deserve_more_rights_than_women_.html

 

[Vanadium 50]

Please source the truth for me.

Your own Path to Prosperity Link.

2013: Outlays $3.53T (P.88), Defense $556B (page 96, but matches your slide)
2022: Outlays $4.89T (P.88), Defense $644B.

 

[Oltz]

There seems to be a fundamental problem with that. Suppose state A grants gay marriages but state B does not. If a couple get married in state A and then move to live in state B, are they still married? If not, what are the consequences (e.g. financial arrangements, the legal status of dependents etc?). If they are still effectively married, what exactly is state B not recognizing?

It makes sense to me that the states should have autonomy over things relating to the geography of that particular state, but that doesn't include personal relationships IMO.

Each state would have to decide if they had reciprocity with each other state just like with teaching certificates or any other state license and a couple would need to consider that before moving. We had to consider what states my wife's teaching certification was good in before deciding to accept a transfer and promotion for me I imagine it would be similar for no traditional married couples. (several states would have actually required her as a music teacher to go back and take 2 additional algebra classes before she could teach)

This still IMO is off topic as the VP does not set national rules regarding recognition of marriage.

Thanks for the answer Pythagorean.

 

[Oltz]

Take a look at pages 60 and 61 from the "path to prosperity" link

http://paulryan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf

Close loopholes high rates and many tax breaks favor those with money to exploit them a lower rate system with no breaks can increase revenue.

As has been mentioned in many conversations on this blog the era of incredibly high top bracket tax rates also had even more loopholes and as a function of GDP generated the same amount of revenue for the government to work with.

This is not "trickle" down its streamlining its not about breaks for the rich the Ryan plan literally removes those loopholes and favorable rules for those with accountants to use them. While nearly everyone sees a reduced rate.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

We are still a union of states that can and do govern independently that is the entire point of this nation you are free to move to a state if the one you are in becomes a place you do not want to be (see exodus of California) The federal government is supposed to legislate things that affect interstate maters and international matters.

Where do you stand on civil rights? As they aren't a federal government issue by your proposal here.

 

[Oltz]

Where do you stand on civil rights? As they aren't a federal government issue by your proposal here.

To me civil rights like all other rights are pretty well covered in the Bill of Rights but I see all "men" as born (created) equal...

The civil rights movement was more then a social issue and I think we can all see that voting rights for minorities and the opposite sex are things that really should have been assumed from the beginning.

By the way I would like to see the federal government recognize civil unions for joint filling federal taxes. Any insurance company would have to respect the rules of the state they operate in until we allow them to compete across state lines then they would need to obey some federally recognized legal union.

Again I am fine with gay marriage.

IMO I think a good percent of the people who have a problem with it actually just do not think it should be called marriage to them it is like calling a spoon a fork. Forks have tines spoons have no tines. Marriage has opposite sexes. IMO

Bad analogy I know but the acceptance of civil unions is much larger then the acceptance of "marriage" and IMO the reason is the context of the terms.

If gay rights is about fair treatment in tax and insurance law then civil unions should be acceptable.

From this link http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

"Do you think gay and lesbian couples should or should not be allowed to form legally recognized civil unions, giving them the legal rights of married couples in areas such as health insurance, inheritance and pension coverage?"


.
Should Should not Unsure
% % %
2/4-8/10 66 31 3

Here are some quotes for support from the corresponding candidates:

Obama
http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm#Gay_Rights

Aug 2007

My view is that we should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word marriage, which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given to couples, in terms of hospital visitation, in terms of whether or not they can transfer property or Social Security benefits and so forth. So it depends on how the bill would've come up. I would've supported and would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits that are available for a legally sanctioned marriage. And it is then, as I said, up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not.

Oct 2007
My bold

One of Obama�s pragmatic stands troubling to progressives is on gay marriage. In the Senate debate, Obama opposed the right-wing Federal Marriage Amendment to ban gay marriage nationally and said: �I agree with most Americans, with Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Cheney, with over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage, as they always have, should be left to the states.� However, Obama also declared, �Personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.� At the same time, Obama has strongly supported civil unions, arguing that it is a way to protect equal rights without taking the politically risky approach of gay marriage.

Romney

http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Civil_Rights.htm

Sep 2002

All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation. While he does not support gay marriage, Mitt Romney believes domestic partnership status should be recognized in a way that includes the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship.

 

[Evo]

To me civil rights like all other rights are pretty well covered in the Bill of Rights but I see all "men" as born (created) equal...

The civil rights movement was more then a social issue and I think we can all see that voting rights for minorities and the opposite sex are things that really should have been assumed from the beginning.

By the way I would like to see the federal government recognize civil unions for joint filling federal taxes. Any insurance company would have to respect the rules of the state they operate in until we allow them to compete across state lines then they would need to obey some federally recognized legal union.

Again I am fine with gay marriage.

IMO I think a good percent of the people who have a problem with it actually just do not think it should be called marriage to them it is like calling a spoon a fork. Forks have tines spoons have no tines. Marriage has opposite sexes. IMO

Bad analogy I know but the acceptance of civil unions is much larger then the acceptance of "marriage" and IMO the reason is the context of the terms.

If gay rights is about fair treatment in tax and insurance law then civil unions should be acceptable.

From this link http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

"Do you think gay and lesbian couples should or should not be allowed to form legally recognized civil unions, giving them the legal rights of married couples in areas such as health insurance, inheritance and pension coverage?"


.
Should Should not Unsure
% % %
2/4-8/10 66 31 3

Here are some quotes for support from the corresponding candidates:

Obama
http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm#Gay_Rights

Aug 2007


Oct 2007
My bold


Romney

http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Civil_Rights.htm

Sep 2002

Here is the most up to date information, please make sure to do a search to make sure what you post is accurate. Romney is against gay marriageg/civil unions. Obama is for. I don't know what kind of point you were trying to make with a 2 year old poll on civil unions and then ancient quotes.

(CBS News) FORT LUPTON, Colo. - Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Wednesday said he unequivocally opposes "marriage between people of the same gender," drawing a contrast to President Obama's "evolving" position on the issue.

Later, in the afternoon, Mr. Obama said in an interview with ABC News that he now supports same-sex marriage.

Romney was asked Wednesday morning about the failure of a ballot measure that would have allowed same-sex civil unions in Colorado. In an interview with Denver-based KDVR-TV, he said, "I indicated my view, which is I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name," Romney said. "My view is the domestic-partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57431100-503544/romney-affirms-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/

 

[Oltz]

The point I was trying to make is that the "against it just for the context of the word marriage" argument exists and that deciding these things at state levels is not a knew concept. regardless of both of them flip flopping they both had the same stance at one point or another that gay marriage is not a federal issue and that the rights of a union should be recognized for legal and tax benefits.

When we are talking about votes Ryan cast in 1999 quotes from 2007 seem recent. The poll was the first result for my Google search about support for union's being higher then "marriage" 66% support is significant IMO.

 

[Evo]

When we are talking about votes Ryan cast in 1999 quotes from 2007 seem recent. The poll was the first result for my Google search about support for union's being higher then "marriage" 66% support is significant IMO.

It depends, if how Ryan voted in 1999 is still what he believes, then that is still relevant. We all need to be careful and be sure we double check old sources to make sure they are still relevant.

 

[mheslep]

... Romney is against gay marriageg/civil unions.

As Romney says in the quote he supports basic legal and financial rights like hospital visitation. As I understand it, in most cases civil unions grant exactly these benefits but do not go beyond, though some states are now blurring the lines between civil unions and marriage.

Obama is for.

As of May this year.

 

[Evo]

As Romney says in the quote he supports basic legal and financial rights like hospital visitation.

Which makes his opposition even more ridiculous, as it's about his religious beliefs, IMO.

As of May this year.

Yes, that's what my link said, it's dated May 9th.

 

[Pythagorean]

As of May this year.

I suppose you should know the history of the Gallup polls to understand why Obama's choice to wait for populous is justified.

There were basically two prevailing philosophies in the early 20th century: that people were basically rational and that people were basically irrational. Around this time, Sigmund Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays had brought ideas from Freud's work to America. He had initially been using the word "Propaganda" but the term became unpopular, so he changed the word to "public relations". His first acts were actually for the tobacco companies. He also got common man into stock trading (probably prematurely). He worked for Lehman Bros at one point... but he eventually moved on to politics (under Calvin Coolidge) to engineer the "pancake breakfast". Freud and Bernays were both of the opinion that people were basically irrational and needed to be controlled.

Then the market crash came. This was a disturbing event and Bernays wasn't able to control it, despite all his PR work. He tried to reduce panic, but to no avail. In response to the crash, Hitler turned to socialism. He agreed with Bernays that people were basically irrational. He believed business needed to be controlled by the state.

In the US, the response we were split: Roosevelt started the New Deal... he believed that the market shouldn't be completely free, but he believed that people were basically rational, so he had Gallup develop the polls so that Americans could participate in government action.

Of course, big business didn't like this; they had Bernays though. They had a whole new way of making capitalism work with democracy utilizing Freud's discoveries (in fact, you wouldn't know about Freud except for that Bernays made his ideas popular, using his PR stunts to import and popularize Freud's book). Bernays and big business (including Lehman Bros, GMC, Chevrolet, and tobacco companies) would wage a PR war against FDR.

But that's a whole 'nother discussion. The point is that the polls aren't something that you, as a politician, just look at and say "that's nice". If you value the whole meaning of democracy, you actually try to integrate the public's opinion into your policy-making. That's the point of the Gallup polls. That's was FDR's vision: that people were basically rational and could take part in politics by sharing their opinion with politicians.

If you've been paying attention to the polls on gay rights, American voters have steadily moved towards accepting and even fighting for them. We've just recently crossed the 50% mark and there's no reason to believe that we will go back. This is the trend of civil rights, from slavery to women's suffrage, to black segregation. We never go backwards. If you watch the polls over time, it's really quite clear.

So Obama not only made the right call for a win in 2012, he made a call that respects the political authority of the public.

 

[SixNein]

To me civil rights like all other rights are pretty well covered in the Bill of Rights but I see all "men" as born (created) equal...

Again I am fine with gay marriage.

Marriage has opposite sexes. IMO

Don't get too tied up in your contradictions.

Marriage is another example of religious dogma. There are zillions of religions and all of them have some kind of marriage ritual. Who is to deny Gay people their rights to religion? And in a government setting, marriage is defined without the religious aspect. So just calling their union something different is discrimination.

In fact, Gays should just invent a religion. It would nip this whole movement against them in the bud.

 

[Oltz]

Don't get too tied up in your contradictions.

Marriage is another example of religious dogma. There are zillions of religions and all of them have some kind of marriage ritual. Who is to deny Gay people their rights to religion? And in a government setting, marriage is defined without the religious aspect. So just calling their union something different is discrimination.

In fact, Gays should just invent a religion. It would nip this whole movement against them in the bud.

In an attempt to be clear I put IMO at the start and end of the section not realizing it made it look like a contradiction. The " marriage has opposite sexes" was completing the analogy that is well not very good.

As in that section is my opinion about how some people think...Establishing a religion is not a bad idea tho

 

[SixNein]

In an attempt to be clear I put IMO at the start and end of the section not realizing it made it look like a contradiction. The " marriage has opposite sexes" was completing the analogy that is well not very good.

As in that section is my opinion about how some people think...Establishing a religion is not a bad idea tho

The real heart of the matter is that they are also denied religious freedom. Maybe some gays are Christians but have a different interpretation. Maybe some belong to a different religion. Either way, it's clear that they have no right to religion.

 

[Gokul43201]

Evo; I'm willing to listen to alternative solutions to the Medicare funding issue -- ignoring it, as Obama did, though, does not impress me.

It's not true that Obama was ignoring the situation with Medicare and SS funding. A more accurate representation would be that he recognized the importance but couldn't successfully sell his plan to Congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...ecurity-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_print.html

Ryan is among a small group of Republicans that I don't particularly dislike. But I think his choice will prove to be risky in Florida, where I expect the Dems will use the Mediscare tactic effectively. Romney can not afford to lose Florida. If he does, it's virtually curtains for him.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

 

[mheslep]

It's not true that Obama was ignoring the situation with Medicare and SS funding. A more accurate representation would be that he recognized the importance but couldn't successfully sell his plan to Congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...ecurity-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_print.html

Gokul, to the extent that "ignored" means Obama submitted no public plan on Medicare or Social Security reform Russ is correct. If you attempt a search for any publicly released plan, written or oral, directly from the White House it will end in frustration. Yes one can find any number of third hand, *unsourced* accounts such as that WaPo story that say Obama was going to make a deal to cut entitlements, etc, but so what? The spectacle of the unnamed connected making leaks to the press about policy that the WH would not back up makes the whole thing just that much more phony to my mind.

 

[Gokul43201]

Gokul, to the extent that "ignored" means Obama submitted no public plan on Medicare or Social Security reform Russ is correct. If you attempt a search for any publicly released plan, written or oral, directly from the White House it will end in frustration. Yes one can find any number of third hand, *unsourced* accounts such as that WaPo story that say Obama was going to make a deal to cut entitlements, etc, but so what? The spectacle of the unnamed connected making leaks to the press about policy that the WH would not back up makes the whole thing just that much more phony to my mind.

How about if I show you a speech where Obama says "if we don’t gradually reform the system while protecting current beneficiaries, it won’t be there when future retirees need it. We have to reform Medicare to strengthen it"? Would you consider that as evidence that Obama wasn't completely ignoring the problem?Here's more specific details from more unnamed sources (with subsequent comment from real people) that you should feel free to consider phony: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...l-goes-over-with-dems-like-a-lead-balloon.php

House Democrats, it turns out, aren’t big on President Barack Obama offering to work with Republicans to raise the Medicare eligibility age up a couple years as part of a larger debt-reduction package.

Sam Stein reported that five sources said Obama offered an increase in the Medicare eligibility age — from 65 to 67 — in exchange for Republicans moving on increasing tax revenues.

 

[JonDE]

In an attempt to be clear I put IMO at the start and end of the section not realizing it made it look like a contradiction. The " marriage has opposite sexes" was completing the analogy that is well not very good.

As in that section is my opinion about how some people think...Establishing a religion is not a bad idea tho

Actually they kind of already do have one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Faeries

The religious excuse for not allowing gay marriage is a very flawed one IMO. There is no law against straight atheists from being married. Has every church, cathedral, mosque, synagogue come out and said they would not marry gays? The answer is no. Lots of information here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessi...hristian_churches#Episcopal_Church_of_the_USA
Then there is this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ions_on_homosexuality#United_Church_of_Christ

In July 2005, the 25th General Synod [59] encouraged congregations to affirm "equal marriage rights for all", and to consider "wedding policies that do not discriminate based on the gender of the couple." The resolution also encouraged congregations to support legislation permitting civil same-sex marriage rights.

So what you see is DOMA, is not protecting churches, but rather, it is setting rules by which they must follow.

 

[Pythagorean]

In fact, in Alaska, I can have my atheist physics professor marry me and my girlfriend (which is the plan). Anybody can act as the marriage commissioner in Alaska, even nonresidents and non-citizens.

 

[mheslep]

How about if I show you a speech where Obama says "if we don’t gradually reform the system while protecting current beneficiaries, it won’t be there when future retirees need it. We have to reform Medicare to strengthen it"? Would you consider that as evidence that Obama wasn't completely ignoring the problem?


Here's more specific details from more unnamed sources (with subsequent comment from real people) that you should feel free to consider phony: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...l-goes-over-with-dems-like-a-lead-balloon.php

Of course the President is aware of the problem. He is ignoring his responsibility to actually do *anything* about it.

 

[SixNein]

Of course the President is aware of the problem. He is ignoring his responsibility to actually do *anything* about it.

Medicare is the 3rd rail and all the politicians know it.

WASHINGTON — GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's new promise to restore the Medicare cuts made by President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law could backfire if he's elected.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/16/mitt-romney-medicare-cuts_n_1788517.html

 

[ThinkToday]

In fact, in Alaska, I can have my atheist physics professor marry me and my girlfriend (which is the plan). Anybody can act as the marriage commissioner in Alaska, even nonresidents and non-citizens.

http://courts.alaska.gov/comm.htm

Kind of interesting approach. I did notice a couple of things.

"6.If the marriage is not performed on the date stated in the order, a new marriage commissioner appointment order must be obtained." That seems like a bit of a hassle, if the planned date doesn't work out.

"The presiding judge in each judicial district may, if the public interest requires, appoint one or more suitable persons as marriage commissioners." Sounds like it's not automatic. i.e. "if the public interest requires" sure sounds like the judge can opt out if he/she can do it.

In any event, it looks like a great idea for those that don't want a church wedding or a wedding at the courthouse. Good luck!

 

[Pythagorean]

Yeah I've never seen that practiced. It's been hassle free for all of my friends, so far, to be married by one of our other friends.

 

[SixNein]

Medicare is the 3rd rail and all the politicians know it.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/16/mitt-romney-medicare-cuts_n_1788517.html

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ryan-explains-why-medicare-cuts-were-house-budget-172943914.html

haha now Paul Ryan is distancing himself from those cuts to Medicare.

After all, he needs more then the tea party now.

 

[ApplePion]

I'm going to guess that it is a guy named Paul Ryan.

OK, OK, I cheated.

 

[BobG]

Paul Ryan seems like too good a candidate to waste as a VP.

I wonder if he beats the Republican VP curse. Of the 11 politicians that have been the Republican Vice President or Vice President nominee from 1960 onward, only two have ever won another election. Any other election, period!

In contrast, of the 11 politicians that have been a Democratic Vice President or Vice President nominee from 1960 onward, only three have never won at least some other election. Even Eagleton, a two week VP candidate, went on to a successful political career. Then again, the shocking end to Ferraro's and Edward's political careers would make one think they were the ones with the curse!

1960 Republican VP nominee: Henry Cabot Lodge. Actually, he just never cared to run for another political office. No real curse there.

1964: Miller (I don't remember his first name). Immediately faded into obscurity.

1968, 1972: Spiro Agnew. A man of convictions, he never ran for office again. Unfortunately his convictions were criminal; not ideological.

1973: Gerald Ford. At least he won a nomination primary, but never won another election.

1974: Nelson Rockefeller. Didn't even get to run for VP again. Later tried unsuccessfully for a Presidential nomination, but never won any election again.

1976: Bob Dole. He not only beat the curse, but later was the Republican Presidential nominee - 20 years later!

1980, 1984: George HW Bush. Definitely beat the curse. The curse is dead!

1988,1992: Dan Quayle. The curse is back? Or just a really weak VP choice?

1996: Jack Kemp. The curse is definitely back. Kemp should have been a future GOP nominee.

2000, 2004: Dick Cheney. Given his health problems, he wouldn't have run for future office curse or no curse.

2008: Sarah Palin. The curse is replaced by comedy?

 

[Vanadium 50]

William Miller. He eventually appeared in a "Do you know me?" commercial for American Express. And Agnew wasn't convicted - he pled no contest. The media explained this unusual plea as "I didn't do it and promise not to do it again."