Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 256
  1. #41
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,323
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    Ive made the point that this is a matter of perception. And it is.

    Per.cep.tion
    noun
    * A way of regarding, understanding or interpreting something.

    The way I regard, understand and interpret the Liberals attacking this judge is akin to gay shaming and outing him as homosexual....if he is.

    Being that they claim to be against it, they are thereby, being hypocritical.

    Your perception of their actions may be different. But, no matter how many steps it takes to get to your perch on Mount Olympus...or how many challenge trains you send flying by, it doesnt make your perception anymore valid than any other.
    And guess what? I NEVER SAID THAT MY PERCEPTION IS MORE VALID THAN ANYONE ELSES. Seriously, find the post where I said such a thing.

    So you perceive that the liberals are gay-shaming. And I perceive that they are not.

    Another way to put it is that we both have differing opinions on the matter. So who's opinion is better? Neither. All opinions are equal and I never said otherwise (so drop the Mount Olympus malarky).

    And when it comes to support and evidence in an ODN debate, opinions are equally worthless.

    But I think what you might be missing is that the burden of supporting a position is exclusively on the person who first forwards the argument (that's you in this case). So when you say that liberals are, for a fact, being hypocrites, you have the burden to support that. If you can't or won't support, then your argument fails and must be retracted if challenged. Now, that doesn't mean that my position is correct - just that your position does not hold up and can be ignored until you do provide evidence for it.

    If I were to argue that no liberal has ever engaged in gay-shaming, then the burden would be on me to support my perception as factual. But I'm not making that particular argument which is why I have no burden to support it.

  2. #42
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And guess what? I NEVER SAID THAT MY PERCEPTION IS MORE VALID THAN ANYONE ELSES. Seriously, find the post where I said such a thing.

    So you perceive that the liberals are gay-shaming. And I perceive that they are not.

    Another way to put it is that we both have differing opinions on the matter. So who's opinion is better? Neither. All opinions are equal and I never said otherwise (so drop the Mount Olympus malarky).

    And when it comes to support and evidence in an ODN debate, opinions are equally worthless.

    But I think what you might be missing is that the burden of supporting a position is exclusively on the person who first forwards the argument (that's you in this case). So when you say that liberals are, for a fact, being hypocrites, you have the burden to support that. If you can't or won't support, then your argument fails and must be retracted if challenged. Now, that doesn't mean that my position is correct - just that your position does not hold up and can be ignored until you do provide evidence for it.

    If I were to argue that no liberal has ever engaged in gay-shaming, then the burden would be on me to support my perception as factual. But I'm not making that particular argument which is why I have no burden to support it.
    This will be my final response here for two reasons: First, its off topic. Second, Ive already answered this numerous times.

    CLAIM: These particular Liberals and the liberals supporting there actions are being hypocritical for gay shaming and outing the judge in question

    1: Liberals claim to be the champions of ALL homosexuality. They regularly attack people who engage in gay shaming and outing of gay people.

    2: They themselves attack this judge. They gay shame him and out him. The fact that they are ALSO calling him hypocritical for being against homosexuality while being homosexual (their claim) does not alter the fact that they are gay shaming and outing him.

    Therefore, they are being hypocritical by engaging in the very acts they condemn others for.

    Now, if you want the last word and proclaim victory, or whatever, go for it. I will not be responding to this topic further.

  3. #43
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,323
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    This will be my final response here for two reasons: First, its off topic. Second, Ive already answered this numerous times.

    CLAIM: These particular Liberals and the liberals supporting there actions are being hypocritical for gay shaming and outing the judge in question

    1: Liberals claim to be the champions of ALL homosexuality. They regularly attack people who engage in gay shaming and outing of gay people.

    2: They themselves attack this judge. They gay shame him and out him. The fact that they are ALSO calling him hypocritical for being against homosexuality while being homosexual (their claim) does not alter the fact that they are gay shaming and outing him.

    Therefore, they are being hypocritical by engaging in the very acts they condemn others for.

    Now, if you want the last word and proclaim victory, or whatever, go for it. I will not be responding to this topic further.
    I'm not looking for the last word. I'm looking to continue the debate. So whether I get the last word is dependent on whether you respond further or not. But I will respond.

    As far as your responses:


    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    2: They themselves attack this judge. They gay shame him and out him. The fact that they are ALSO calling him hypocritical for being against homosexuality while being homosexual (their claim) does not alter the fact that they are gay shaming and outing him.
    First off, I don't even know what judge you are referring to (if I see more information on this in this thread, I will edit this portion).

    But beyond that, I would ask that you support or retract your assertion that they gay-shamed him.

    In your previous post you mentioned perception and in this post you said it's a "fact" that they gay-shamed him. Which is it? Your perception or is it fact? If it's just your perception/opinion then I don't care because you are just telling me what you think. If you are saying it's a fact that they did this and you happen to be correct, then you have made your case for hypocrisy. But you will need to show that it's a fact. So please support this assertion.

    If you can't or won't support it, then your assertion fails for lack of support. You said they gay-shamed but never showed that they actually did it.

  4. #44
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    As I've said, it's reassuring to me that you libs don't seem to understand why you keep losing.
    The last time I checked SG, the Democrats have won the last two out of three Presidential election cycles. A minor detail, but two out of three does not classify as "keep losing." In that within those three presidential election cycles (years), they have lost more state and local races to Republicans, the fact that they have held on to the Executive Branch for eight years is not a "keep losing" reality -- though I suppose it could be in a parallel universe.. Now with that said, and considering the recent election in 2016 with the massive sweep of so many local state offices and counties across the country voting red, this could imply that there was somewhat of a large rejection by Americans of many of the last eight years of policies coming from the Executive branch. But that doesn't mean liberals keep losing. In fact one could argue that their wins is what propelled Trump to win.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  5. #45
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    The last time I checked SG, the Democrats have won the last two out of three Presidential election cycles. A minor detail, but two out of three does not classify as "keep losing." In that within those three presidential election cycles (years), they have lost more state and local races to Republicans, the fact that they have held on to the Executive Branch for eight years is not a "keep losing" reality -- though I suppose it could be in a parallel universe.. Now with that said, and considering the recent election in 2016 with the massive sweep of so many local state offices and counties across the country voting red, this could imply that there was somewhat of a large rejection by Americans of many of the last eight years of policies coming from the Executive branch. But that doesn't mean liberals keep losing. In fact one could argue that their wins is what propelled Trump to win.
    I was referring to the 1000+ state legislator seats, 12 Senate seats, 50-70ish HoR seats and the 10 or so governorships that they've lost since Obama took office.

    *note: I don't have the exact numbers for the losses, I'll look them up later and edit the figured I posted

  6. #46
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,837
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    The last time I checked SG, the Democrats have won the last two out of three Presidential election cycles. A minor detail, but two out of three does not classify as "keep losing." In that within those three presidential election cycles (years), they have lost more state and local races to Republicans, the fact that they have held on to the Executive Branch for eight years is not a "keep losing" reality -- though I suppose it could be in a parallel universe.. Now with that said, and considering the recent election in 2016 with the massive sweep of so many local state offices and counties across the country voting red, this could imply that there was somewhat of a large rejection by Americans of many of the last eight years of policies coming from the Executive branch. But that doesn't mean liberals keep losing. In fact one could argue that their wins is what propelled Trump to win.
    The "libs" also won the popular vote for president, minimum wage ballot initiatives in 4 out of 4 states, and marijuana legalization in a number of states as well.

    ---------- Post added at 11:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 PM ----------

    hmmm...no call for an investigation from republicans?


    Ivanka Trump’s Presence at Meeting With Japan’s Leader Raises Questions


    "WASHINGTON — The potential for conflicts of interest between President-elect Donald J. Trump and his family’s business ventures emerged again Thursday evening, when a photograph was distributed that showed his daughter Ivanka at a meeting between Mr. Trump and the prime minister of Japan.

    News reporters were not allowed to attend the session, Mr. Trump’s first with a foreign head of state, and no summary was provided about what was discussed. A separate photograph was distributed — press photographers were not allowed to cover the event — showing that Jared Kushner, Ms. Trump’s husband, was present for at least part of the gathering.

    Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan said after the meeting that he had a “very candid discussion” with Mr. Trump. He did not discuss who else attended the gathering or elaborate on the topics discussed.

    Ms. Trump will be among the members of the president-elect’s family who will be placed in charge of Mr. Trump’s business enterprises, which include an international chain of hotels with operations in Latin America, Europe and North America.

    She serves as vice president for development and acquisitions at the Trump Organization, and the company’s website says one of her “primary focuses has been to bring the Trump Hotel brand to global markets.”

    Danielle Brian of the Project on Government Oversight said that regardless of what was discussed at the meeting, it was inappropriate for Ms. Trump to be present at a private meeting among such a small group of people given that she is an executive at a corporation involved in international business development.

    These early episodes demonstrate, Ms. Brian said, why Mr. Trump must put his assets into a blind trust, in which an independent party manages them, instead of turning them over to his children to manage, as Mr. Trump has proposed.

    “You can’t have people with financial conflicts of interest mixing with White House business,” Ms. Brian said.

    The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial on Friday, went so far as to urge Mr. Trump to sell off all his hotels, golf courses and other assets, and then take that cash and turn it over to a blind trust, as that would be the only way to avoid all possible conflicts."
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  7. #47
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,837
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    An excellent example right from the mouth of the Donald:


    "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." 6 Nov 2012

    "The Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play." 15 Nov 2016
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  8. #48
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,323
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    In response to the OP, I will say that Trump's inconsistencies do not really reflect any general Republican hypocrisy. I think it says a lot about Trump but that doesn't necessarily apply to anyone else.

    From what I can see Trump just said whatever he thought it would take to win the Presidency without knowing if he could, or want to, stick to his word afterwards.

    The "Drain the Swamp" is a prime example. He talked as if he were going to get rid of the insiders and then invited many of them into his cabinet. If one wants to argue that he needs insiders to do a good job, that's fine (probably not true but challenging that argument is not my concern right now) but then that means that Trump cannot do a good job if he "drains the swamp" and therefore should not drain the swamp. But that doesn't change the fact that he promised to do something that he won't do. I wouldn't call that hypocrisy so much as not keeping one's word. And those who believed him are no so much hypocrites as suckers for believing a person who has clearly untruthful throughout his campaign.

    Foor me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me a hundred times, I must be a Trump supporter.

    And that's not to say that that applies to all who voted for Trump. I'm sure many of those who voted for him knew he was often full of it but they found the alternative (Clinton) even less appetizing. But to those who are actually expecting him to follow through on draining the swamp and building the wall and getting rid of corruption, you have indeed been fooled.
    Last edited by mican333; November 23rd, 2016 at 09:08 AM.

  9. Likes Sigfried liked this post
  10. #49
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,837
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Well, we all know for 100% sure that the Clinton Foundation was used as a pay-for-play scheme by then Secretary Clinton, right?

    Days after Trump spoke to Argentina’s president his stalled Buenos Aires tower project picked up steam


    "Three days after the phone call between Trump and Macri on Nov.14, Trump’s associates at Buenos Aires firm YY Development Group announced that the construction project would go ahead, in an interview with La Nación (link in Spanish). The tower’s construction had reportedly been held up for years, for various reasons, with YY Development actively restarting construction permit requests when pro-business Macri took over from statist former president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner in Jan. 2016."


    http://qz.com/843800/donald-trump-sp...s-aires-plans/


    I don't see anything on Drudge about this...hmmm.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  11. Likes Sigfried liked this post
  12. #50
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,837
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/30/politi...sis/index.html

    The Carrier "deal". lol, I have to agree it's fun spending other people's money.

    "The incentives offered by the state were an important consideration" to staying, Carrier said, though the company didn't specify what the incentives were.
    And while Trump's campaign pledges to lower corporate taxes and ease regulations likely played a role, it was not Trump -- but Vice President-elect Mike Pence -- who was key to Carrier's decision.
    His status as Indiana's governor positioned him to offer Carrier tax breaks to stay in the state.
    It's not a new strategy: State and local governments offer companies tax incentives to locate, expand or remain there all the time.
    In fact, Pence's Indiana Economic Development Corp. has faced sharp criticism for handing millions of dollars to companies that sent jobs overseas even after receiving those tax breaks.
    Trump himself had even blasted the practice on the campaign trail, including in October remarks in Pennsylvania.

    "I've been watching these politicians go through this for years. I've been watching them give low-interest loans. I've been watching them give zero interest loans," Trump said in Wilkes Barre, later adding that "the whole thing is crazy."

    He made a similar case in Erie, Pennsylvania, in August.

    "Our states -- I watched. Remember, they'd give the low-interest loans," Trump said, mocking state officials for handing out tax incentives. "'Here's a low-interest loan if you stay in Pennsylvania. Here's a zero-interest loan. You don't have to pay. Here's a this. Here's a tax abatement of any kind you want. We'll help your employees,'" he said. "It doesn't work, folks."
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  13. #51
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,837
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    More on the Carrier deal mentioned above...down to 800 jobs saved now from 2000 and we'll be paying for them.


    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  14. #52
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,937
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    ...and we'll be paying for them.
    Liberals always defend giving money to people who are unemployed or have income below the poverty line - government payments to people who do nothing. How is this different, other than that it pays for people to actually work?

    If you like welfare and unemployment payments, but oppose corporate tax incentives to keep people employed, aren't you being the hypocrite?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  15. #53
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,837
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Liberals always defend giving money to people who are unemployed or have income below the poverty line - government payments to people who do nothing. How is this different, other than that it pays for people to actually work?

    If you like welfare and unemployment payments, but oppose corporate tax incentives to keep people employed, aren't you being the hypocrite?
    You're saying 100% of that money will be going to the workers? (ignoring the fact that we pay for unemployment insurance)

    Not to mention another republican hypocrisy - that it isn't the government's job to pick winners and losers. Why is it ok now? Where's the outcry?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  16. #54
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,937
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    You're saying 100% of that money will be going to the workers? (ignoring the fact that we pay for unemployment insurance)
    Nope, didn't say that. But clearly much of it will, in the form of salaries, employer social security contributions, and other employee benefits.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Not to mention another republican hypocrisy - that it isn't the government's job to pick winners and losers. Why is it ok now? Where's the outcry?
    I tend to agree with you on that point, Cowboy, which is why I'm not defending the move by Trump/Pence. But that doesn't remove your hypocrisy for criticizing the deal. Or are you okay with it?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  17. #55
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,837
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Nope, didn't say that. But clearly much of it will, in the form of salaries, employer social security contributions, and other employee benefits.
    How do you know that?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  18. #56
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,837
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    This one is just too hilarious not to share and is so telling. Like the Carrier deal - quickly forgotten I would add - it seems that now government projects and spending are a good thing. Yet when Obama tried to do it it was the end of the world.



    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  19. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  20. #57
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,105
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    You're saying 100% of that money will be going to the workers? (ignoring the fact that we pay for unemployment insurance)

    Not to mention another republican hypocrisy - that it isn't the government's job to pick winners and losers. Why is it ok now? Where's the outcry?
    What is the exact point of this thread? Politicians lie? The Earth is round. By the way, from the OP, of the four men you listed, how many are still on the Trump team? He actually did impose some restrictions that resulted in two of the four men you named to walk away. I think I missed the post in this thread where you acknowledged that.

    As a non-Republican conservative let me try my best to explain the Carrier deal. I hate it. Government coming in and making deals to prop up some companies (i.e. picking winners and losers) is not a good thing.

    However, if I am a politician, what should I do? Boo the fact that 1000 people get to keep their jobs? Make an ideological argument which frames this in a negative light? How would that help me personally or politically? If Obama did it, then it would make more sense to speak out. Again, I am speaking strictly from a political point of view. So, yeah, of course Republicans are acting hypocritically. Trump, as we have quickly witnessed, and has been explained over and over again, isn't driven by ideology. So, if we are talking about the obvious hypocrisy of Republicans, where is the adulation from Democrats? They love it when the government picks winners and losers. A government program that can save blue collar jobs? That used to be the thing that Democrats creamed in their pants about. However, the current mood among Democrats has been muted. Hasn't it? Of course it has. Again, politically, it makes no sense for them to make a big deal of this and give Trump a high five.

    Let me also point out the reason why some conservatives actually agree with the Carrier deal. In an ideal world, everyone would compete on a level playing field. If the field isn't level, though, what then? So, there is a school of thought where, until the field is level (restructuring trade deals, tightening the money supply, etc), then some amount of government intervention is required to prop up companies in America, which have been working at a disadvantage with their global competition. So long as this intervention is targeted and limited AND efforts are being taken to truly level the playing field, then deals like the one with Carrier are, while not wonderful, tolerable. This would be conservative pragmatism.

    I get that you want a thread where you can point out the flaws of all your favorite people, but really, it does get old after awhile. It would be nice to hear you show a little perspective instead of just shilling for your favorite team. Everyone on here has a political and ideological view. No one else on ODN takes it to the level you take it. You are like one of those broken talking head spokesholes that yap on the cable news networks. Your mouth is moving, but there is so little value coming out of it. So, you got us man! Republican politicians, except Sarah Palin, are total hypocrites. So, like you are totally good with Sarah, right? I mean, you hate hypocrites so she's totally solid in your book. No?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  21. #58
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,837
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    If Obama did it, then it would make more sense to speak out.
    Thank you for supporting my OP.

    ---------- Post added at 12:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:04 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Make an ideological argument which frames this in a negative light? How would that help me personally or politically?
    Again, thank you.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  22. #59
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,105
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Thank you for supporting my OP.

    ---------- Post added at 12:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:04 AM ----------



    Again, thank you.
    Sure, on the various levels adults could discuss this, you chose the course most likely adopted by adults living in a group home. Give yourself a pat on the back. You have created a thread about nothing and are smug about pointing out that the sky is blue. What trick will you perform next? A thread demonstrating that the Earth is round? That gravity exists?
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  23. #60
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Sure, on the various levels adults could discuss this, you chose the course most likely adopted by adults living in a group home. Give yourself a pat on the back. You have created a thread about nothing and are smug about pointing out that the sky is blue. What trick will you perform next? A thread demonstrating that the Earth is round? That gravity exists?
    Well, its one of those debate things. So long as some folks are willing to say the republicans are not hypocrites, there is room for people like Cowboy to try and call them on it. In our world, if you don't say the obvious fairly often, many people will miss it. If you let the propaganda of your opponents go unanswered, then folks just tend to accept it.

    If more humans would be critical and think for themselves (as you certailnly do) deivel like this would have no place. But since far too many people just believe what they are told, even when those telling it are liars, we kind of need folks to state the blindingly obvious even if its tedious for folks like us.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

 

 
Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Republican Fratracide?
    By manise in forum Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 3rd, 2008, 10:54 AM
  2. What is a democrat? A Republican?
    By Jamie678 in forum Politics
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: January 8th, 2008, 03:12 PM
  3. What it means to be a Republican
    By Booger in forum Politics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: March 2nd, 2006, 03:27 AM
  4. Republican Floundering
    By Fyshhed in forum Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 5th, 2004, 07:48 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •