View Full Version : [Drinking too much hate-o-rade] I am seeing a disturbing trend.
realtonygoodwin
02-17-2011, 11:43 PM
There are a number of decent politicians who don't always vote the way you would like. People like Jim DeMint, Mike Lee, Jeff Flake. I see too much of people saying things like:
So-and-so voted for the Iraq war - they are evil! Done forever with them! They are not for liberty!
I have seen this with both wars, the Patriot Act, War on Drugs, etc.
There are too many single-issue voters here...the liberty movement isn't about only foreign policy, or any other one area. Look at the overall voting record of a person. Do they mostly vote to make the government smaller? That is what matters to me.
Good people have wrong ideas sometimes. We can't give up on them, but we can try to educate them to the error of their ways. Many people people who voted for the Patriot Act did so because they really think it is best for America.
easycougar
02-17-2011, 11:51 PM
Good people have wrong ideas sometimes. We can't give up on them, but we can try to educate them to the error of their ways. Many people people who voted for the Patriot Act did so because they really think it is best for America.
that statement right there is exactly the problem
Anti Federalist
02-17-2011, 11:53 PM
One or two issues perhaps.
Casting multiple anti freedom votes are deal breakers for me.
Take DeMint for example.
IIRC he has never once voted down the PATRIOT Act extension.
That act directly violates any number of constitutional provisions in the Bill of Rights.
Deal breaker.
realtonygoodwin
02-18-2011, 12:07 AM
One or two issues perhaps.
Casting multiple anti freedom votes are deal breakers for me.
Take DeMint for example.
IIRC he has never once voted down the PATRIOT Act extension.
That act directly violates any number of constitutional provisions in the Bill of Rights.
Deal breaker.
But it is ONE issue, just multiple times... For the most part, he agrees with us. That should be worth something.
We can not win support for the liberty movement by being ideological purists. Heck, I disagree with some of the stuff Rand supports. I still support him overall though.
Austrian Econ Disciple
02-18-2011, 12:09 AM
In other words we are too principled? Well, of course I'm not a mealy tight lipped conservative; I am a libertarian! Anyone who votes for these things does not deserve support and should be actively campaigned against incessantly. Of course though I think DC is so corrupt it is beyond repute and its only redeeming factor is a microphone from which we can reach a larger audience. Local and States is where the real power lays, and where ultimately the most rollback will come from. I really don't know why anyone who isn't a net receiver from the USG supports that vile institution. Secession for all 50!
amy31416
02-18-2011, 12:21 AM
Both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are far more than one issue--and what matters to me is not past support, but current support in the face of overwhelming evidence that these wars are total bullshit.
If a politician was proven to have murdered someone in cold blood for money or power--would I be "drinking the hate-o-rade" if I said that there's no way in hell that I'd vote for them? No? Then why would I not refuse to vote for a politician who, essentially, votes for the murder of our soldiers and Muslims?
down-under
02-18-2011, 12:40 AM
There are a number of decent politicians who don't always vote the way you would like. People like Jim DeMint, Mike Lee, Jeff Flake. I see too much of people saying things like:
So-and-so voted for the Iraq war - they are evil! Done forever with them! They are not for liberty!
I have seen this with both wars, the Patriot Act, War on Drugs, etc.
There are too many single-issue voters here...the liberty movement isn't about only foreign policy, or any other one area. Look at the overall voting record of a person. Do they mostly vote to make the government smaller? That is what matters to me.
Good people have wrong ideas sometimes. We can't give up on them, but we can try to educate them to the error of their ways. Many people people who voted for the Patriot Act did so because they really think it is best for America.
I take an issue with the premise. I consider myself a pragmatist but on exactly what grounds is DeMint friendlier to Freedom than lets say progressives such as Bernie Sanders, Kucinich ?. Heck, what does make DeMint better than Obama?
It is not only about the rhetoric of "making government smaller". It is also about what you do with that government and what freedoms does that government take away. A slim government can be tyrannical too.
DeMint's vision of government is about spending much more on the military, being more beligerant abroad, taking indivual freedoms domestically, imposing a moralist society so it is not a single issue.
I am afraid that actually you might be more of the "single issue voter". It is a problem for people looking only for leaders calling themselves "fiscal conservatives" (which tend to be absolute demagogues by the way) such as DeMint as allies and then dismising completely some republican "moderates". The same moderates that voted on the house with Paul, Amash against the extension of the patriot act.
That doesn't mean DeMint can be an ally and we should have a degree of rethorical constraint when talking about others but the core philosophy of DeMint is nowhere near the philosophy spoused by Paul et al.
Austrian Econ Disciple
02-18-2011, 12:43 AM
I think War is one issue where compromise is a death sentence. If you read Robert Higgs book Crisis and Leviathian you will understand why libertarians and Old Rightists conservatives have always been anti-war. War enlarges the State apparatus in all levels of society, in all aspects of our lives, and all around the world. You just cannot be a limited-Government advocate and support these wars, or for that matter any wars that are not defensive and are not waged in such proportion to the attack (IE, you don't launch a major ground offensive with your Standing Army against a terrorist network..That is just so fucking stupid).
Anti Federalist
02-18-2011, 12:46 AM
But it is ONE issue, just multiple times... For the most part, he agrees with us. That should be worth something.
We can not win support for the liberty movement by being ideological purists. Heck, I disagree with some of the stuff Rand supports. I still support him overall though.
My rep is Frank Guinta.
New senator is Kelly Ayotte.
Both rode the "anti government" wave into office.
I supported both, marginally, since I didn't see anything really "anti establishment" about either one, but firgured, "what the hell I'll give 'em a chance".
They both jumped right on board and voted for the PATRIOT Act extensions.
Deal breakers. They'll get no further support from me.
I'd just as soon deal with a leftist democrat. At least then I know which way the knives are coming from
Dreamofunity
02-18-2011, 05:13 AM
I'm generally willing to work with certain individuals or groups on a single issue basis. I don't mind working with conservatives for cutting spending, or liberals for ending the war on drugs, but in no way should any of those individuals/groups be propped up as some standard bearer for liberty (like what is occasionally done with Demint). In many cases, both the individuals/groups are completely anti-liberty, even in specific fields that I feel we can work together on.
whoisjohngalt
02-18-2011, 05:34 AM
I think labeling people who are quick to judge these congressmen as single-issue voters is unfair. Issues are weighted, some a lot more heavily than others and since most all politicians suck and we are naturally distrusting of them, it doesn't take much to lose the label of being part of the liberty movement. This doesn't mean that we can't support them and welcome their vote when they are on the right side of things, but it does mean that we have to scrutinize their every move and question their commitment to liberty and the platform they were elected on. Lastly, how dare you group a phony like DeMint with Flake (generally good) and Lee (generally awesome).
Fox McCloud
02-18-2011, 07:36 AM
He wants to end the fed, bring our troops home, end the war on drugs, and cut government and taxes in half--it's amazing! His only problem is he want to impose a mandatory death threshold on people once they reach 50....but hey, we shouldn't vote against him; after all, there are too many one-issue voters here and his overall record is good!
*eye-roll*
realtonygoodwin
02-18-2011, 07:39 AM
Point taken.
I guess it is just hard for me to understand, since certain issues are so far down on my radar...like foreign policy.
When I voted for Ron Paul in 2008, I agreed with most of what he stood for, except his foreign policy views.
LukeP
02-18-2011, 07:42 AM
that statement right there is exactly the problem
lol @ easycougar username
TNforPaul45
02-18-2011, 08:01 AM
My rep is Frank Guinta.
New senator is Kelly Ayotte.
Both rode the "anti government" wave into office.
I supported both, marginally, since I didn't see anything really "anti establishment" about either one, but firgured, "what the hell I'll give 'em a chance".
They both jumped right on board and voted for the PATRIOT Act extensions.
Deal breakers. They'll get no further support from me.
I'd just as soon deal with a leftist democrat. At least then I know which way the knives are coming from
Realtony,
AF nails it on the head. There is a big difference in politicians who have voted neoconservtive in the past and who may be chnging their ways, and those that run for a year on a liberty platform for a year or more, then turncoat as soon as they are in office.
ItsTime
02-18-2011, 08:03 AM
My rep is Frank Guinta.
New senator is Kelly Ayotte.
Both rode the "anti government" wave into office.
Guinta more than Ayotte. Ayotte is establishment politician.
realtonygoodwin
02-18-2011, 08:09 AM
I would generally vote for a neo-con over a liberal. To me the biggest issues are abortion, then guns, then size of government/spending.
But that is just me.
One issue may be just one issue, but sometimes 1 <> 1.
http://globalthoughtz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Big-Versus-Small.jpg
The deal with the Patriot Act goes to the core understanding of a legislator's philosophy about the role of government and civil liberty IMO. It's fundamental.
down-under
02-18-2011, 09:33 AM
I'm generally willing to work with certain individuals or groups on a single issue basis. I don't mind working with conservatives for cutting spending, or liberals for ending the war on drugs, but in no way should any of those individuals/groups be propped up as some standard bearer for liberty (like what is occasionally done with Demint). In many cases, both the individuals/groups are completely anti-liberty, even in specific fields that I feel we can work together on.
Well said.
down-under
02-18-2011, 09:35 AM
I would generally vote for a neo-con over a liberal. To me the biggest issues are abortion, then guns, then size of government/spending.
But that is just me.
Well.....military spending accounts for nearly 25% of the total spending by the federal government so the fiscal and the military spending are quite interlinked issues.
trey4sports
02-18-2011, 09:43 AM
because they really think it is best for America.
of course they do. The problem is that we have different views, and I will support whoever represents my views best.
Rothbardian Girl
02-18-2011, 09:54 AM
It all depends on what your priorities are. My biggest dislike about the way this country is running is the mess of a foreign policy we have been embarking upon for a LONG time now (NOT just the last few decades). I have said that many times on these boards and I don't want to keep repeating myself. But anyway, I do recognize that our foreign policy does affect domestic affairs, as down-under mentioned. That is why it is the most important issue to me.
Now, I am not a one-issue voter. I would like to see the welfare state dismantled so that we can look at the options for a less stringent immigration policy (the open-borders stance that some people on here are crucified for). Does this have a realistic chance of being implemented within the next few elections? Most definitely not, unless some real changes in thinking occur in this country, which is not likely until the MSM trickery is exposed and people wake up, etc. etc.
My main point is this. It is almost like a voter like me is FORCED into a one-issue viewpoint, because everything is so hopelessly intertwined that the only possible way we can see our other goals achieved is to just focus on that one issue that affects everything else. Different people will think it's different things, but I would suggest that that is our foreign policy and the mechanisms behind that policy (foreign aid, the Fed, etc.).
georgiaboy
02-18-2011, 10:02 AM
The more time I've spent in the movement, the higher my bar gets for legislators to meet. I've always leaned conservative, but now if an incumbent supports bailouts or increasing the debt ceiling, I'll spend my vote elsewhere. Party affiliation is meaningless to me now, whereas I used to vote straight R-ticket. Heck, in Georgia, R's & D's switch parties all the time so they get to vote with the majority -- how's that for having a "two-party system" with "clear differences"? yuk.
HOLLYWOOD
02-18-2011, 10:13 AM
My rep is Frank Guinta.
New senator is Kelly Ayotte.
Both rode the "anti government" wave into office.
I supported both, marginally, since I didn't see anything really "anti establishment" about either one, but figured, "what the hell I'll give 'em a chance".
They both jumped right on board and voted for the PATRIOT Act extensions.
Deal breakers. They'll get no further support from me.
I'd just as soon deal with a leftist democrat. At least then I know which way the knives are coming from
You should watch your reps in committee... that's where the truth comes out. Unfortunately, it's very resource & time consuming. Kelly Ayotte proved her true colors in the Senate Armed Services Committee. This is the talking points of War and Protection that need to be exposed.
Every Dictator and Tyrant has used the propaganda to further the advancement of themselves and the state over the people. This is the very subject that needs full attention and focus to counter this. Like the military and global conquest and corporate protection is a huge tax in so many ways. There's more but their needs to be laser focus on this and how to counter the cheap talking points that institute fear and acceptance.
Matt Collins
02-18-2011, 11:11 AM
You're either for more government or less government. It's just that simple.
Fredom101
02-18-2011, 11:28 AM
The problem is, you're talking about issues that go to the very core of liberty and freedom. Being for the war or the Patriot Act are deal killers because they expose this person as anti-liberty. I don't like that RP is pretty much the only principled person in congress, but it is a truth that we have to deal with. Supporting these other Republicans only hurts the cause for liberty.
heavenlyboy34
02-18-2011, 11:30 AM
In other words we are too principled? Well, of course I'm not a mealy tight lipped conservative; I am a libertarian! Anyone who votes for these things does not deserve support and should be actively campaigned against incessantly. Of course though I think DC is so corrupt it is beyond repute and its only redeeming factor is a microphone from which we can reach a larger audience. Local and States is where the real power lays, and where ultimately the most rollback will come from. I really don't know why anyone who isn't a net receiver from the USG supports that vile institution. Secession for all 50!
+a zillion!
jack555
02-18-2011, 11:40 AM
half a**ed conservatives are why we are in this mess,throw the ba**ards out! I'm done with bipartisan idiots
Anti Federalist
02-18-2011, 11:45 AM
Guinta more than Ayotte. Ayotte is establishment politician.
I know, it's a shame that Ovid Lamontaigne (sp) didn't win that whisper close primary, although, at the end of it all, he may have ended up being the same.
I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact that, unless I'm willing to move to Ron Paul's or Justin Amash's district, I won't have any real representation in Congress.
Original_Intent
02-18-2011, 11:47 AM
The problem is too many voters willing to hold their nose and vote for "close enough". I don't think there is a political savior in the future, but am doing the best I can to support those who are fighting the good fight.
Right now that means Ron and Rand, Mike Lee, and a few others locally. The underlying philosophy has got to be drastic cutting of government across the board.
whoisjohngalt
02-18-2011, 12:29 PM
Tony, its ironic your most important issue is abortion, seeing as how its the number one focus of single issue voters. This is even more ironic since abortion rarely affects people's own lives on a regular basis(once or twice in a lifetime maybe). If you really are part of the liberty movement, be careful when you are determining whether you are for or against a law. Most of us here put the onus on whether such a law would actually accomplish what it intends and the cost of trying to enforce such a law. "Good" intentions aren't enough. I abhor abortion, for instance, but I don't believe a law against it would do much to curtail abortion rates and that it would be super costly to try and enforce. Second Original, the determining factor on whether a politician is "on our side" or not is how aggressively and if they are actually working towards a smaller government.
nathanmn
02-18-2011, 02:06 PM
You're either for more government or less government. It's just that simple.
This. However, for me that doesn't mean you have to vote for a super principled libertarian. Our government is so screwed up that someone doesn't have to be very good for them to be able to make it overall less worse. If you have a choice between two candidates, one will make government net larger, and the other net smaller, the choice should be pretty simple. Someone doesn't have to be perfect in congress anyways... if we get enough decent people in there, the averages work out because their one bad vote is just one of many votes, as long as they make more good votes than bad votes.
nathanmn
02-18-2011, 02:14 PM
Tony, its ironic your most important issue is abortion, seeing as how its the number one focus of single issue voters. This is even more ironic since abortion rarely affects people's own lives on a regular basis(once or twice in a lifetime maybe). If you really are part of the liberty movement, be careful when you are determining whether you are for or against a law. Most of us here put the onus on whether such a law would actually accomplish what it intends and the cost of trying to enforce such a law. "Good" intentions aren't enough. I abhor abortion, for instance, but I don't believe a law against it would do much to curtail abortion rates and that it would be super costly to try and enforce. Second Original, the determining factor on whether a politician is "on our side" or not is how aggressively and if they are actually working towards a smaller government.
The thing about making a vote based on abortion policy is that the makeup of congress seems to mean dick all for abortion one way or the other. Right now we have a Supreme Court with a majority of Republican appointees. What change have you seen? We've had a Republican congress and president. What change in abortion policy? Roe V Wade stands, and its unlikely to be overruled. I understand abortion being incredibly important to some people. However, voting on abortion is like voting in a preference poll with no appreciable effect, while skipping voting for something that could be voted up or down by a single vote(see balanced budget amendment in the 90s). I think at some point people should say, yeah, abortion is the most important issue, but whether I vote for so-and-so will probably have zero effect on abortion policy, so I'd better weight things differently.
RonPaulFanInGA
02-18-2011, 02:17 PM
There is a divide between the left-leaning and right-leaning Ron Paul supporters. It's usually pretty noticeable, based on the non-Ron Paul politicians they like and their deal-breakers.
Right-leaning Ron Paul supporters: will (usually) like Jim DeMint, Jeff Flake, etc. Dislike Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, etc. Willing to let votes on PATRIOT act or Iraq invasion slide but not a vote for gun control, tax increases or Obamacare, etc.
Left-leaning Ron Paul supporters: like Kucinich, Nader, Russ Feingold and sometimes Mike Gravel and Alan Grayson. Dislike DeMint. Will tolerate a vote for Obamacare and some other socialist/statist stuff as long as politician is anti-PATRIOT act and anti-war (see: Kucinich and Feingold.)
That's about how it works here.
Captain Shays
02-18-2011, 02:37 PM
One or two issues perhaps.
Casting multiple anti freedom votes are deal breakers for me.
Take DeMint for example.
IIRC he has never once voted down the PATRIOT Act extension.
That act directly violates any number of constitutional provisions in the Bill of Rights.
Deal breaker.
I sat there for over an hour one day watching CSPAN. There was a hearing on the audit the Fed Bill. Jim DeMint and Connie Mack were fighting HARD against Chris Dodd, and Jud Gregg. DeMint put up a great fight and he really believed in what he was doing. Where it comes to auditing the Federal Reserve we don't have a better ally. If I had to choose which was the greatest threat to our liberty, our sovereignty and our security between the Patriot Act and the Federal Reserve it would be the Fed hands down yet I have heard around here numerous times that DeMint is such a bad guy. I actually like him and he is otherwise a fighter for smaller government. I just think he believes in his heart that we need certain provisions in the Patriot Act to protect the United States. He's wrong of course but that makes him human. Not some evil guy who has nefarious intent like the Fed does.
When I consider what we might get in place of him I weight it out like this. Knowing that DeMint is otherwise trying to uphold the Constitution and protect this country we might or Ron/Rand Paul might be able to persuade him some day to change his mind. With some of the others there is no way we could get them on board with the Audit the Fed AND repeal of the Patriot Act unless they get elected on those things to start out with. In that case, if I lived in South Carolina I would support DeMint's opponent. But all in all, I think he's a pretty good guy.
Original_Intent
02-18-2011, 02:44 PM
I sat there for over an hour one day watching CSPAN. There was a hearing on the audit the Fed Bill. Jim DeMint and Connie Mack were fighting HARD against Chris Dodd, and Jud Gregg. DeMint put up a great fight and he really believed in what he was doing. Where it comes to auditing the Federal Reserve we don't have a better ally. If I had to choose which was the greatest threat to our liberty, our sovereignty and our security between the Patriot Act and the Federal Reserve it would be the Fed hands down yet I have heard around here numerous times that DeMint is such a bad guy. I actually like him and he is otherwise a fighter for smaller government. I just think he believes in his heart that we need certain provisions in the Patriot Act to protect the United States. He's wrong of course but that makes him human. Not some evil guy who has nefarious intent like the Fed does.
When I consider what we might get in place of him I weight it out like this. Knowing that DeMint is otherwise trying to uphold the Constitution and protect this country we might or Ron/Rand Paul might be able to persuade him some day to change his mind. With some of the others there is no way we could get them on board with the Audit the Fed AND repeal of the Patriot Act unless they get elected on those things to start out with. In that case, if I lived in South Carolina I would support DeMint's opponent. But all in all, I think he's a pretty good guy.
I agree. We need to support even those we disagree with on the things that they are right, but still strongly oppose them on things where they are wrong. We can't make an enemy of someone who is with us 90% of the time. But we can and should fight them on that 10%, without making them enemies on the 90%.
Pericles
02-18-2011, 02:47 PM
I agree. We need to support even those we disagree with on the things that they are right, but still strongly oppose them on things where they are wrong. We can't make an enemy of someone who is with us 90% of the time. But we can and should fight them on that 10%, without making them enemies on the 90%.
This is the importance of being civil in that 10% disagreement. When they agree with you on 90% you have a good chance of making your case on the other 10% if you go about it wisely.
Slutter McGee
02-18-2011, 02:52 PM
I have to disagree with the original post, although I understand his sentiment when it comes to all the attacks. I think there are two different kind of candidates we should be looking at. Potential good allies, and true liberty candidates. Potential allies might earn our individual support and our individual contributions. Jeff Flake, Jim Demint or Michael Williams for Senate are examples of people that might deserve our individual efforts, because they legitimately believe in smaller government and our ultimate goal should be to dramatically reduce the scope and size of government. If we have no realistic liberty candidate to run against these men, I certainly don't think we should go out of our way to attack them. But we should not claim they represent what we stand for.
When it comes to the support of our entire movement, I think one has to have certain standards. When it comes to federal office, at the very least they must not support nation building and extended war. On the social side, they must at least recognize that for the most part, the issues should be left to the states. And they must believe in economic freedom.
Some people's standards are even higher when promoting the support of our movement, and that is fine. But we need to differentiate between people who are a step in the right direction, and those who truely represent what we stand for.
Sincerely,
Slutter McGee
Feeding the Abscess
02-18-2011, 03:12 PM
The PATRIOT Act is not a single issue. OP, you pointed out guns as a single issue earlier in the thread; that is covered by the 2nd Amendment. As such, the PATRIOT Act violates multiple Amendments, and must be seen as a leviathan assault on the Constitution.
Mini-Me
02-18-2011, 03:26 PM
I have to disagree with the original post, although I understand his sentiment when it comes to all the attacks. I think there are two different kind of candidates we should be looking at. Potential good allies, and true liberty candidates. Potential allies might earn our individual support and our individual contributions. Jeff Flake, Jim Demint or Michael Williams for Senate are examples of people that might deserve our individual efforts, because they legitimately believe in smaller government and our ultimate goal should be to dramatically reduce the scope and size of government. If we have no realistic liberty candidate to run against these men, I certainly don't think we should go out of our way to attack them. But we should not claim they represent what we stand for.
When it comes to the support of our entire movement, I think one has to have certain standards. When it comes to federal office, at the very least they must not support nation building and extended war. On the social side, they must at least recognize that for the most part, the issues should be left to the states. And they must believe in economic freedom.
Some people's standards are even higher when promoting the support of our movement, and that is fine. But we need to differentiate between people who are a step in the right direction, and those who truely represent what we stand for.
Sincerely,
Slutter McGee
Nice post! :)
outspoken
02-18-2011, 04:11 PM
Human beings minds are inherently 'little minded'. We have trouble wrapping our brains around many issues as well as accepting the world we live in is not nearly as 'easy' as the one we create in our minds. We become emotionally attached to staying fixated on just a handful of issues, particularly ones that directly affect our personal lives the most whether it be our job in a certain sector of the economy, our attachment to our military service in our past, preserving our retirement we believe we are entitled to, etc. This how our unconscious self operates... the ego. The world really needs a coming together in terms of understanding of how human beings operate unconsciously in terms of spirituality, psychology, and rationally if we are to right the ship of what plagues humanity. It is a battle between fear and love... and most have knowingly dug in their heals to the choice of fear because they know not the nature of human nature.
pacelli
02-18-2011, 04:20 PM
There are too many single-issue voters here.the liberty movement isn't about only foreign policy, or any other one area.
...
Look at the overall voting record of a person. Do they mostly vote to make the government smaller? That is what matters to me.
Since you stated that the liberty movement isn't about one area, and you then state that what matters to you one area (voting), are you telling us that you aren't involved in the liberty movement?
realtonygoodwin
02-18-2011, 07:19 PM
To that I would say making the government smaller is a blanket term, not a single issue...
There is a divide between the left-leaning and right-leaning Ron Paul supporters. It's usually pretty noticeable, based on the non-Ron Paul politicians they like and their deal-breakers.
Right-leaning Ron Paul supporters: will (usually) like Jim DeMint, Jeff Flake, etc. Dislike Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, etc. Willing to let votes on PATRIOT act or Iraq invasion slide but not a vote for gun control, tax increases or Obamacare, etc.
Left-leaning Ron Paul supporters: like Kucinich, Nader, Russ Feingold and sometimes Mike Gravel and Alan Grayson. Dislike DeMint. Will tolerate a vote for Obamacare and some other socialist/statist stuff as long as politician is anti-PATRIOT act and anti-war (see: Kucinich and Feingold.)
That's about how it works here.
Yeah, that actually makes a lot of sense.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.