Hillary Clinton Supporters Want Her To Repeal The Bill Of Rights [VIDEO]..

[paulitician]

Oh boy. Come on Americans, stop stuffing your fat faces and shopping till you drop. Get informed for God's sake.

 

[RodISHI]

These people have no clue why they live in a free society.

 

[Pogo]

Oh boy. Come on Americans, stop stuffing your fat faces and shopping till you drop. Get informed for God's sake.

How did I know this was going to be another gullible swallowing-Mark-Dice-putting-words-in-people's-mouths video before even clicking in...

Needles to say he's once again making shit up, as no such comment was made by Hillary.

But meanwhile such a comment actually WAS made by another candy. The Orange one.

​

 

[MisterBeale]

Oh boy. Come on Americans, stop stuffing your fat faces and shopping till you drop. Get informed for God's sake.

How did I know this was going to be another gullible swallowing-Mark-Dice-putting-words-in-people's-mouths video before even clicking in...

Needles to say he's once again making shit up, as no such comment was made by Hillary.

But meanwhile such a comment actually WAS made by another candy. The Orange one.

​

meh.. . .

Partisans will be partisans.

Hillary's people are doing the same. They all make up shit.

 

[MisterBeale]

Oh boy. Come on Americans, stop stuffing your fat faces and shopping till you drop. Get informed for God's sake.

How did I know this was going to be another gullible swallowing-Mark-Dice-putting-words-in-people's-mouths video before even clicking in...

Needles to say he's once again making shit up, as no such comment was made by Hillary.

But meanwhile such a comment actually WAS made by another candy. The Orange one.

​

And let's not forget, some Democrats would like to only protect CFR and government licensed journalists. They want to set up a "test" to see who is qualified to be covered by the 1st Amendment. Nice.

 

[defcon4]

How did I know this was going to be another gullible swallowing-Mark-Dice-putting-words-in-people's-mouths video before even clicking in...

If one is not an uninformed idiot, none can put words into one's mouth.

Needles to say he's once again making shit up, as no such comment was made by Hillary.

Making shit up to see how educated people are generally and politically alike. Once again, if one is informed one could refute his BS and falling for it.

But meanwhile such a comment actually WAS made by another candy. The Orange one.

The comment to hold news organizations liable for lying is actually a great idea. Freedom of speech is not infringed but lying is curtailed. Of course, that makes anti-Americans like you upset because lying would have consequences and you couldn't spread them without some form of repercussion.

 

[Katzndogz]

This is what globalism gets you.

 

[Pogo]

How did I know this was going to be another gullible swallowing-Mark-Dice-putting-words-in-people's-mouths video before even clicking in...

If one is not an uninformed idiot, none can put words into one's mouth.

Needles to say he's once again making shit up, as no such comment was made by Hillary.

Making shit up to see how educated people are generally and politically alike. Once again, if one is informed one could refute his BS and falling for it.

And no doubt many did. But those wouldn't show up in the video because they don't make his partisan point --- would they?
Think about it.

What it shows, if it shows anything at all, is that people are easily led by the power of suggestion when they hear a primary phrase ("are you supporting Hillary?") while a secondary phrase ("in her call to repeal the Bill of Rights") flies by. They've already got their answer before the tag is added and they're not really listening.

But to run this video and claim "Hillary Clinton supporters want her to repeal the Bill of Rights" is just flatly dishonest. They never even brought it up.

But meanwhile such a comment actually WAS made by another candy. The Orange one.

The comment to hold news organizations liable for lying is actually a great idea. Freedom of speech is not infringed but lying is curtailed. Of course, that makes anti-Americans like you upset because lying would have consequences and you couldn't spread them without some form of repercussion.

Maybe it would be --- but that's not his comment. Again, dishonest.

His comment is "when they write a hit piece which is a total disgrace" and "negative" articles.. That means "stuff I don't like". That has zero to do with "lying". It has to do with "whining", which is after all his forté.

And again --- Libel laws, which he actually refer to, already exist. You already can't make something up to smear somebody. That's not the issue, nor does he claim it is. He doesn't even mention "lying" at all. All he mentions is intimidation. He's calling for the government to intimidate free expression. And that is non-negotiable, unacceptable and absolute sewage.

You lose.

 

[paulitician]

Oh boy. Come on Americans, stop stuffing your fat faces and shopping till you drop. Get informed for God's sake.

How did I know this was going to be another gullible swallowing-Mark-Dice-putting-words-in-people's-mouths video before even clicking in...

Needles to say he's once again making shit up, as no such comment was made by Hillary.

But meanwhile such a comment actually WAS made by another candy. The Orange one.

​

And let's not forget, some Democrats would like to only protect CFR and government licensed journalists. They want to set up a "test" to see who is qualified to be covered by the 1st Amendment. Nice.

Very disturbing. The Globalist Elites can't have a Free Press. They're working very hard to control media completely. They're beginning to go after the Internet now. They already control just about all media information.

Only a handful of large Corporations control all media information Americans receive. And they work very closely with Government. Saving the Internet is likely our last chance at preserving freedom of information.

 

[MisterBeale]

How did I know this was going to be another gullible swallowing-Mark-Dice-putting-words-in-people's-mouths video before even clicking in...

If one is not an uninformed idiot, none can put words into one's mouth.

Needles to say he's once again making shit up, as no such comment was made by Hillary.

Making shit up to see how educated people are generally and politically alike. Once again, if one is informed one could refute his BS and falling for it.

And no doubt many did. But those wouldn't show up in the video because they don't make his partisan point --- would they?
Think about it.

What it shows, if it shows anything at all, is that people are easily led by the power of suggestion when they hear a primary phrase ("are you supporting Hillary?") while a secondary phrase ("in her call to repeal the Bill of Rights") flies by. They've already got their answer before the tag is added and they're not really listening.

But to run this video and claim "Hillary Clinton supporters want her to repeal the Bill of Rights" is just flatly dishonest. They never even brought it up.

But meanwhile such a comment actually WAS made by another candy. The Orange one.

The comment to hold news organizations liable for lying is actually a great idea. Freedom of speech is not infringed but lying is curtailed. Of course, that makes anti-Americans like you upset because lying would have consequences and you couldn't spread them without some form of repercussion.

Maybe it would be --- but that's not his comment. Again, dishonest.

His comment is "when they write a hit piece which is a total disgrace" and "negative" articles.. That means "stuff I don't like". That has zero to do with "lying". It has to do with "whining", which is after all his forté.

And again --- Libel laws, which he actually refer to, already exist. You already can't make something up to smear somebody. That's not the issue, nor does he claim it is. He doesn't even mention "lying" at all. All he mentions is intimidation. He's calling for the government to intimidate free expression. And that is non-negotiable, unacceptable and absolute sewage.

You lose.

meh, I'm kind of in the middle here.

On the one hand, defcon is right, Trump only wants to make it so that the libel laws apply equally to powerful corrupt MSM CFR outfits. . .

OTH, pogo is right, he is being a bit of a whiner.

I really do think that if all things were being applied fairly, there is no way the MSM would have gotten away with characterizing him as saying he was calling for the assassination of Hillary, or that he was calling all Mexicans rapists, etc. etc. etc.

I mean, c'mon, seriously? That does major damage to his campaign. Intelligent folks know, they KNOW it isn't the truth... He has lot of women and Mexicans working for him, intelligent folks know he isn't racist or misogynist. . They also know he isn't calling for a red neck revolution to slay Hillry.

Yet, if he had the chance to sue the MSM when ever they portrayed him as the unpredictable, unprofessional, bigoted, mean spirited, lying POS he seems to be? Shit, he could fund his campaign off the ligated winnings, or else he would be ahead because they would not be able to brainwash the folks against him.

OTH, nearly everything that has been said about Hillary, has been, well, ostensibly true.


Trump only wants to treat the media that same way that Chavez treated the media in Venezuela. And really, the left in this nation didn't seem to have a problem with Chavez stopping the corporate mouth pieces from telling the population lies, so why would they have a problem with Trump stopping corporate lies now? If he had, Bernie would most certainly be their nominee. . . .

 

[Pogo]

meh, I'm kind of in the middle here.

On the one hand, defcon is right, Trump only wants to make it so that the libel laws apply equally to powerful corrupt MSM CFR outfits. . .

They already DO so apply. I keep noting that.

What he's talking about there is not "libel". Libel refers to spreading false/fabricated facts for the purpose of smearing somebody. What he refers to is "a hit piece which is a disgrace", which is not at all quantifiable, and therefore means "whatever I don't like" ---- whether it's absolutely true, absolutely false, or anywhere in between. Including, for instance, Megyn Kelly's pointed question, where she sets up her premise with "you have called women 'disgusting pigs'..." etc. Which is an absolutely TRUE statement.

That's got nothing to do with "libel". If he considers it a "disgrace", then perhaps he needs to control the behavior that led to somebody pointing it out. But you can't "sue them like they've never bee sued before" just because you don't like that they DID point it out.

I really do think that if all things were being applied fairly, there is no way the MSM would have gotten away with characterizing him as saying he was calling for the assassination of Hillary, or that he was calling all Mexicans rapists, etc. etc. etc.

I don't think they did. They merely report what he says. How the meaning is "characterized" is up to the viewer/listener.

I mean, c'mon, seriously? That does major damage to his campaign. Intelligent folks know, they KNOW it isn't the truth... He has lot of women and Mexicans working for him, intelligent folks know he isn't racist or misogynist. . They also know he isn't calling for a red neck revolution to slay Hillry.

What his actual meaning is only he knows but it's pretty clear what the insinuation is. Now what the purpose of that insinuation is, is a whole 'nother question and one for psychologists. But whatever the purpose, it clearly exists.

Rump is a master baiter. We all know that by now. And in true Rumpian fashion he'll insinuate something, going just far enough for plausible deniability but planting the psychological seed, and then stand back and go "who, me?" so as to avoid all responsibility for anything, which is what he's been doing his entire life. There's nothing wrong with reporting that he said what he said. No one can declare as fact what he meant, and no one has.

What Rump did there was to basically pull a Joyce Kaufmann. Only she had to resign for it.

Having "a lot of women and Mexicans working for him" isn't a counterargument anyway.

Yet, if he had the chance to sue the MSM when ever they portrayed him as the unpredictable, unprofessional, bigoted, mean spirited, lying POS he seems to be? Shit, he could fund his campaign off the ligated winnings, or else he would be ahead because they would not be able to brainwash the folks against him.

He portrays himself as such. You can't "litigate" the fact that somebody reported, wrote down, or recorded what you said. It's on the record. At some point there has to be a taking of responsibility for one's own actions and "best words".

I actually had a poster just today accuse me of "lying" for posting a video -- an accurate record, unedited -- of Rudy Giuliani denying that 9/11 ever happened (post 23 here). At some point one has to stand up and say, "that's absurd. It's right here on the video". In the Rump world, Rudy could decide that my posting his own words are a "disgrace" and he could "sue me like I've never been sued before". Which is patently UNAMERICAN.

 

[MisterBeale]

Rump is a master baiter. We all know that by now. And in true Rumpian fashion he'll insinuate something, going just far enough for plausible deniability but planting the psychological seed, and then stand back and go "who, me?" so as to avoid all responsibility for anything, which is what he's been doing his entire life. There's nothing wrong with reporting that he said what he said. No one can declare as fact what he meant, and no one has.

I think that is where the crux of folks perceptions are divergent.

For folks on the left, they are convinced he is evil. For partisans on the right, they are convinced he is innocent and just a great orator.


For those that don't care and think that whole thing is a show, they are convinced he just doesn't think before he speaks and he just has chronic foot-in-mouth disease. Now that he is realizing this, he seems to want a law to protect him from his own handicap against the professional pols. Who would have thought that he would be playing the victimization card? What a noob.

[/QUOTE]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Hillary Clinton Supporters Want Her To Repeal The Bill Of Rights"

This is a lie, Clinton supporters advocate no such thing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Oh boy. Come on Americans, stop stuffing your fat faces and shopping till you drop. Get informed for God's sake.

How did I know this was going to be another gullible swallowing-Mark-Dice-putting-words-in-people's-mouths video before even clicking in...

Needles to say he's once again making shit up, as no such comment was made by Hillary.

But meanwhile such a comment actually WAS made by another candy. The Orange one.

​

And let's not forget, some Democrats would like to only protect CFR and government licensed journalists. They want to set up a "test" to see who is qualified to be covered by the 1st Amendment. Nice.

Very disturbing. The Globalist Elites can't have a Free Press. They're working very hard to control media completely. They're beginning to go after the Internet now. They already control just about all media information.

Only a handful of large Corporations control all media information Americans receive. And they work very closely with Government. Saving the Internet is likely our last chance at preserving freedom of information.

No, what’s very disturbing is the propensity of you and most others on the right to lie – this thread being one of many examples.

 

[paulitician]

Oh boy. Come on Americans, stop stuffing your fat faces and shopping till you drop. Get informed for God's sake.

How did I know this was going to be another gullible swallowing-Mark-Dice-putting-words-in-people's-mouths video before even clicking in...

Needles to say he's once again making shit up, as no such comment was made by Hillary.

But meanwhile such a comment actually WAS made by another candy. The Orange one.

​

And let's not forget, some Democrats would like to only protect CFR and government licensed journalists. They want to set up a "test" to see who is qualified to be covered by the 1st Amendment. Nice.

Very disturbing. The Globalist Elites can't have a Free Press. They're working very hard to control media completely. They're beginning to go after the Internet now. They already control just about all media information.

Only a handful of large Corporations control all media information Americans receive. And they work very closely with Government. Saving the Internet is likely our last chance at preserving freedom of information.

No, what’s very disturbing is the propensity of you and most others on the right to lie – this thread being one of many examples.

If you Clinton Bootlickers say so.

 

[MisterBeale]

I really do think that if all things were being applied fairly, there is no way the MSM would have gotten away with characterizing him as saying he was calling for the assassination of Hillary, or that he was calling all Mexicans rapists, etc. etc. etc.

I don't think they did. They merely report what he says. How the meaning is "characterized" is up to the viewer/listener.

Well, here we'll just have to disagree. I saw the clips. I don't think he was implying that Hillary should be assassinated.

And when he made the statement about the illegals coming across the border, I did the research and was shocked to find out how many illegal immigrants got raped, mugged and murdered en route to the U.S. It would be naive to think those criminals stopped their activities once they arrived with the other illegals.

You have to consider that along with those desperate for more economic opportunity, the mindset that will break the law to get in, being those that will defy federal immigration law, the percentage of those that engage in other law breaking will necessarily be higher. The facts bear this out. In his speeches, he makes this pretty clear to those that can put two and two together.

I mean, c'mon, seriously? That does major damage to his campaign. Intelligent folks know, they KNOW it isn't the truth... He has lot of women and Mexicans working for him, intelligent folks know he isn't racist or misogynist. . They also know he isn't calling for a red neck revolution to slay Hillry.

What his actual meaning is only he knows but it's pretty clear what the insinuation is. Now what the purpose of that insinuation is, is a whole 'nother question and one for psychologists. But whatever the purpose, it clearly exists.

Now, YOU SAY the insinuation is pretty clear, and I guess since you say it, and the editorial board of the MSM deem to think the insinuation is pretty clear, I guess THEIR opinion is enough to allow libel then? Eh?

Donald Trump Cracks Hillary Clinton Assassination Joke | TMZ.com

Donald Trump hints at assassination of Hillary Clinton by gun rights

Donald Trump Hints at Hillary Clinton Assassination - Rolling Stone

Did Donald Trump Call for Hillary Clinton's Assassination?-The Daily

Trump hints at Clinton assassination | New York Post

Trump's Assassination Dog Whistle Was Scarier Than You Think ...

Did Trump Call for 'Second Amendment People' to Shoot Hillary ...

 

[paulitician]

I really do think that if all things were being applied fairly, there is no way the MSM would have gotten away with characterizing him as saying he was calling for the assassination of Hillary, or that he was calling all Mexicans rapists, etc. etc. etc.

I don't think they did. They merely report what he says. How the meaning is "characterized" is up to the viewer/listener.

Well, here we'll just have to disagree. I saw the clips. I don't think he was implying that Hillary should be assassinated.

And when he made the statement about the illegals coming across the border, I did the research and was shocked to find out how many illegal immigrants got raped, mugged and murdered en route to the U.S. It would be naive to think those criminals stopped their activities once they arrived with the other illegals.

You have to consider that along with those desperate for more economic opportunity, the mindset that will break the law to get in, being those that will defy federal immigration law, the percentage of those that engage in other law breaking will necessarily be higher. The facts bear this out. In his speeches, he makes this pretty clear to those that can put two and two together.

I mean, c'mon, seriously? That does major damage to his campaign. Intelligent folks know, they KNOW it isn't the truth... He has lot of women and Mexicans working for him, intelligent folks know he isn't racist or misogynist. . They also know he isn't calling for a red neck revolution to slay Hillry.

What his actual meaning is only he knows but it's pretty clear what the insinuation is. Now what the purpose of that insinuation is, is a whole 'nother question and one for psychologists. But whatever the purpose, it clearly exists.

Now, YOU SAY the insinuation is pretty clear, and I guess since you say it, and the editorial board of the MSM deem to think the insinuation is pretty clear, I guess THEIR opinion is enough to allow libel then? Eh?

Donald Trump Cracks Hillary Clinton Assassination Joke | TMZ.com

Donald Trump hints at assassination of Hillary Clinton by gun rights

Donald Trump Hints at Hillary Clinton Assassination - Rolling Stone

Did Donald Trump Call for Hillary Clinton's Assassination?-The Daily

Trump hints at Clinton assassination | New York Post

Trump's Assassination Dog Whistle Was Scarier Than You Think ...

Did Trump Call for 'Second Amendment People' to Shoot Hillary ...

It's shameful what they did to the man. He in no way, shape, or form called for assassinating Clinton. It's an outlandish slanderous accusation. The MSM is pathetic. I hope Americans go around it and elect Trump. It would be a glorious F-U to the corrupt hacks in the press.

 

[Pogo]

And when he made the statement about the illegals coming across the border, I did the research and was shocked to find out how many illegal immigrants got raped, mugged and murdered en route to the U.S. It would be naive to think those criminals stopped their activities once they arrived with the other illegals.

Uh... what??

The "criminals" you describe above are the parasites preying on the immigrants ---- not the immigrants themselves. The immigrants --- those who make it through... are their VICTIMS. Or potential victims.

Why in the blue fuck would rapists/kidnappers/extortionists etc give up their lucrative positions to tread into uncertain and dangerous treks into a foreign country ...... when their prey is readily at hand where they are? That is indeed the whole POINT of getting into human smuggling -- you go where the action is.

Now, YOU SAY the insinuation is pretty clear, and I guess since you say it, and the editorial board of the MSM deem to think the insinuation is pretty clear, I guess THEIR opinion is enough to allow libel then? Eh?

Donald Trump Cracks Hillary Clinton Assassination Joke | TMZ.com

Donald Trump hints at assassination of Hillary Clinton by gun rights

Donald Trump Hints at Hillary Clinton Assassination - Rolling Stone

Did Donald Trump Call for Hillary Clinton's Assassination?-The Daily

Trump hints at Clinton assassination | New York Post

Trump's Assassination Dog Whistle Was Scarier Than You Think ...

Did Trump Call for 'Second Amendment People' to Shoot Hillary ...

Seven links to the same story ---- what's the point?

One of which I might add is an editorial and one is topical entertainment -- you apparently didn't want to show the full "Daily Show" title. And the last one doesn't work.

In any case they're all links to the same story. What's your point?

 

[Pogo]

I really do think that if all things were being applied fairly, there is no way the MSM would have gotten away with characterizing him as saying he was calling for the assassination of Hillary, or that he was calling all Mexicans rapists, etc. etc. etc.

I don't think they did. They merely report what he says. How the meaning is "characterized" is up to the viewer/listener.

Well, here we'll just have to disagree. I saw the clips. I don't think he was implying that Hillary should be assassinated.

And when he made the statement about the illegals coming across the border, I did the research and was shocked to find out how many illegal immigrants got raped, mugged and murdered en route to the U.S. It would be naive to think those criminals stopped their activities once they arrived with the other illegals.

You have to consider that along with those desperate for more economic opportunity, the mindset that will break the law to get in, being those that will defy federal immigration law, the percentage of those that engage in other law breaking will necessarily be higher. The facts bear this out. In his speeches, he makes this pretty clear to those that can put two and two together.

I mean, c'mon, seriously? That does major damage to his campaign. Intelligent folks know, they KNOW it isn't the truth... He has lot of women and Mexicans working for him, intelligent folks know he isn't racist or misogynist. . They also know he isn't calling for a red neck revolution to slay Hillry.

What his actual meaning is only he knows but it's pretty clear what the insinuation is. Now what the purpose of that insinuation is, is a whole 'nother question and one for psychologists. But whatever the purpose, it clearly exists.

Now, YOU SAY the insinuation is pretty clear, and I guess since you say it, and the editorial board of the MSM deem to think the insinuation is pretty clear, I guess THEIR opinion is enough to allow libel then? Eh?

Donald Trump Cracks Hillary Clinton Assassination Joke | TMZ.com

Donald Trump hints at assassination of Hillary Clinton by gun rights

Donald Trump Hints at Hillary Clinton Assassination - Rolling Stone

Did Donald Trump Call for Hillary Clinton's Assassination?-The Daily

Trump hints at Clinton assassination | New York Post

Trump's Assassination Dog Whistle Was Scarier Than You Think ...

Did Trump Call for 'Second Amendment People' to Shoot Hillary ...

It's shameful what they did to the man. He in no way, shape, or form called for assassinating Clinton. It's an outlandish slanderous accusation. The MSM is pathetic. I hope Americans go around it and elect Trump. It would be a glorious F-U to the corrupt hacks in the press.

Bullshit. Your abject denialism doesn't just will it away. What in the fuck does "Second Amendment people" mean?
Go ahead --- just try to invent a rationalization. I like pretzels.
Actually it's not the pretzels themselves I like --- it's watching them being made.

 

[Dale Smith]

I really do think that if all things were being applied fairly, there is no way the MSM would have gotten away with characterizing him as saying he was calling for the assassination of Hillary, or that he was calling all Mexicans rapists, etc. etc. etc.

I don't think they did. They merely report what he says. How the meaning is "characterized" is up to the viewer/listener.

Well, here we'll just have to disagree. I saw the clips. I don't think he was implying that Hillary should be assassinated.

And when he made the statement about the illegals coming across the border, I did the research and was shocked to find out how many illegal immigrants got raped, mugged and murdered en route to the U.S. It would be naive to think those criminals stopped their activities once they arrived with the other illegals.

You have to consider that along with those desperate for more economic opportunity, the mindset that will break the law to get in, being those that will defy federal immigration law, the percentage of those that engage in other law breaking will necessarily be higher. The facts bear this out. In his speeches, he makes this pretty clear to those that can put two and two together.

I mean, c'mon, seriously? That does major damage to his campaign. Intelligent folks know, they KNOW it isn't the truth... He has lot of women and Mexicans working for him, intelligent folks know he isn't racist or misogynist. . They also know he isn't calling for a red neck revolution to slay Hillry.

What his actual meaning is only he knows but it's pretty clear what the insinuation is. Now what the purpose of that insinuation is, is a whole 'nother question and one for psychologists. But whatever the purpose, it clearly exists.

Now, YOU SAY the insinuation is pretty clear, and I guess since you say it, and the editorial board of the MSM deem to think the insinuation is pretty clear, I guess THEIR opinion is enough to allow libel then? Eh?

Donald Trump Cracks Hillary Clinton Assassination Joke | TMZ.com

Donald Trump hints at assassination of Hillary Clinton by gun rights

Donald Trump Hints at Hillary Clinton Assassination - Rolling Stone

Did Donald Trump Call for Hillary Clinton's Assassination?-The Daily

Trump hints at Clinton assassination | New York Post

Trump's Assassination Dog Whistle Was Scarier Than You Think ...

Did Trump Call for 'Second Amendment People' to Shoot Hillary ...

It's shameful what they did to the man. He in no way, shape, or form called for assassinating Clinton. It's an outlandish slanderous accusation. The MSM is pathetic. I hope Americans go around it and elect Trump. It would be a glorious F-U to the corrupt hacks in the press.

Bullshit. Your abject denialism doesn't just will it away. What in the fuck does "Second Amendment people" mean?
Go ahead --- just try to invent a rationalization. I like pretzels.
Actually it's not the pretzels themselves I like --- it's watching them being made.

We have had a tyrannical "gubermint" since 1933 when USA.INC filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy...it has only gotten more oppressive since then. We can either submit and be subservient to this corporate entity that is slowly decimating the middle class under admiralty law or we can finally wake the fuck up and reclaim our birthright because we are not defenseless....I am sure a gutless pussy like you would rollover like the good little sheeple you are. I would MUCH rather die fighting oppression than to to simply give into it.