Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You imagine a lot of things - don't you snowflake?That may not be you to a T, but it how I imagine you to be, based on your childish posts and the enormous ignorance which they expose.
1. No....f'real......I do.
Real Liberals....the sort who stand for liberty....
Hey, great job of defending your social contract assertion. You couldn't run away fast enough.Sorry buttercup - if your lazy, greedy ass was doing anything to "mitigate human suffering" you wouldn't need me to do it for you. I do know. You don't do shit but sit on your ass crying and spreading lies.You can "mitigate human suffering". You choose not to. Why is that?No matter how you attack the the Social Contract Theory, you cannot refute it's goodness and effectiveness in mitigating human suffering, no matter how much you mock such governance.
You have no idea what I've done or will do. In fact not voting for trump was an effort to mitigate human suffering.
If I had to make a character in a novel or short story, based on your posts, I would use your comments in the dialogue, a written dialogue one might expect to be written by an immature 14 year old boy with no close friends and few acquaintances; a child who has spend a good deal of his life in his/her room room watching TV, playing games on his/her computer, and attempting to convince readers he or she had real life experiences, a child who had never lived outside the next, never experienced life unsupported by his/her parents, and never faced adversity or needed to make serious decisions.
That may not be you to a T, but it how I imagine you to be, based on your childish posts and the enormous ignorance which they expose.
Too bad. It's always best to spell better than a fourth grader when insulting someone's intellect.Hey, great job of defending your social contract assertion. You couldn't run away fast enough.Sorry buttercup - if your lazy, greedy ass was doing anything to "mitigate human suffering" you wouldn't need me to do it for you. I do know. You don't do shit but sit on your ass crying and spreading lies.You can "mitigate human suffering". You choose not to. Why is that?
You have no idea what I've done or will do. In fact not voting for trump was an effort to mitigate human suffering.
If I had to make a character in a novel or short story, based on your posts, I would use your comments in the dialogue, a written dialogue one might expect to be written by an immature 14 year old boy with no close friends and few acquaintances; a child who has spend a good deal of his life in his/her room room watching TV, playing games on his/her computer, and attempting to convince readers he or she had real life experiences, a child who had never lived outside the next, never experienced life unsupported by his/her parents, and never faced adversity or needed to make serious decisions.
That may not be you to a T, but it how I imagine you to be, based on your childish posts and the enormous ignorance which they expose.
It wasn't posted to convince YOU of anything; you are in fact and in deed too dumb to understand abstractions (now that does not mean 1 over 2). As to where I first heard the term "Tacit" in terms of the Social Contract was in a pre-law class on the First Amendment as an undergrad. To bad so many nevergrads live a life of ignorance.
Problem is that isn't the rule of law we live under. You got mixed up. Various philosophies formed our foundation, Locke was widely read I'm sure but our founders had constitutional conventions and hammered out the Constitution. Not a social contract as outlined by John Locke. It's just the liberal's attempt to justify any government action.In response to the supposed college graduate, iceweasel:
"Just as natural rights and natural law theory had a florescence in the 17th and 18th century, so did the social contract theory. Why is Locke a social contract theorist? Is it merely that this was one prevailing way of thinking about government at the time which Locke blindly adopted? I think the answer is that there is something about Locke's project which pushes him strongly in the direction of the social contract. One might hold that governments were originally instituted by force, and that no agreement was involved. Were Locke to adopt this view, he would be forced to go back on many of the things which are at the heart of his project in the Second Treatise. Remember that The Second Treatise provides Locke's positive theory of government, and that he explicitly says that he must provide an alternative to the view “that all government in the world is merely the product of force and violence, and that men live together by no other rules than that of the beasts, where the strongest carries it...” So, while Locke might admit that some governments come about through force or violence, he would be destroying the most central and vital distinction, that between legitimate and illegitimate civil government, if he admitted that legitimate government can come about in this way. So, for Locke, legitimate government is instituted by the explicit consent of those governed. (See the section on consent, political obligation, and the ends of government in the entry on Locke's political philosophy.) Those who make this agreement transfer to the government their right of executing the law of nature and judging their own case. These are the powers which they give to the central government, and this is what makes the justice system of governments a legitimate function of such governments."
John Locke (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
For a more indepth understanding of John Locke, something likely not covered in iceweasles matriculation, see:
John Locke (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
And with a bit more specificity:
"Locke's most obvious solution to this problem is his doctrine of tacit consent. Simply by walking along the highways of a country a person gives tacit consent to the government and agrees to obey it while living in its territory."
Locke's Political Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Problem is that isn't the rule of law we live under. You got mixed up. Various philosophies formed our foundation, Locke was widely read I'm sure but our founders had constitutional conventions and hammered out the Constitution. Not a social contract as outlined by John Locke. It's just the liberal's attempt to justify any government action.In response to the supposed college graduate, iceweasel:
"Just as natural rights and natural law theory had a florescence in the 17th and 18th century, so did the social contract theory. Why is Locke a social contract theorist? Is it merely that this was one prevailing way of thinking about government at the time which Locke blindly adopted? I think the answer is that there is something about Locke's project which pushes him strongly in the direction of the social contract. One might hold that governments were originally instituted by force, and that no agreement was involved. Were Locke to adopt this view, he would be forced to go back on many of the things which are at the heart of his project in the Second Treatise. Remember that The Second Treatise provides Locke's positive theory of government, and that he explicitly says that he must provide an alternative to the view “that all government in the world is merely the product of force and violence, and that men live together by no other rules than that of the beasts, where the strongest carries it...” So, while Locke might admit that some governments come about through force or violence, he would be destroying the most central and vital distinction, that between legitimate and illegitimate civil government, if he admitted that legitimate government can come about in this way. So, for Locke, legitimate government is instituted by the explicit consent of those governed. (See the section on consent, political obligation, and the ends of government in the entry on Locke's political philosophy.) Those who make this agreement transfer to the government their right of executing the law of nature and judging their own case. These are the powers which they give to the central government, and this is what makes the justice system of governments a legitimate function of such governments."
John Locke (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
For a more indepth understanding of John Locke, something likely not covered in iceweasles matriculation, see:
John Locke (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
And with a bit more specificity:
"Locke's most obvious solution to this problem is his doctrine of tacit consent. Simply by walking along the highways of a country a person gives tacit consent to the government and agrees to obey it while living in its territory."
Locke's Political Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
My opinion? You can't back up assertion and shot yourself in the foot by referencing the DoI. It isn't a contract but the rationale behind rebelling against the crown. Which is the opposite of what post modern liberals want, they want the big government.Problem is that isn't the rule of law we live under. You got mixed up. Various philosophies formed our foundation, Locke was widely read I'm sure but our founders had constitutional conventions and hammered out the Constitution. Not a social contract as outlined by John Locke. It's just the liberal's attempt to justify any government action.In response to the supposed college graduate, iceweasel:
"Just as natural rights and natural law theory had a florescence in the 17th and 18th century, so did the social contract theory. Why is Locke a social contract theorist? Is it merely that this was one prevailing way of thinking about government at the time which Locke blindly adopted? I think the answer is that there is something about Locke's project which pushes him strongly in the direction of the social contract. One might hold that governments were originally instituted by force, and that no agreement was involved. Were Locke to adopt this view, he would be forced to go back on many of the things which are at the heart of his project in the Second Treatise. Remember that The Second Treatise provides Locke's positive theory of government, and that he explicitly says that he must provide an alternative to the view “that all government in the world is merely the product of force and violence, and that men live together by no other rules than that of the beasts, where the strongest carries it...” So, while Locke might admit that some governments come about through force or violence, he would be destroying the most central and vital distinction, that between legitimate and illegitimate civil government, if he admitted that legitimate government can come about in this way. So, for Locke, legitimate government is instituted by the explicit consent of those governed. (See the section on consent, political obligation, and the ends of government in the entry on Locke's political philosophy.) Those who make this agreement transfer to the government their right of executing the law of nature and judging their own case. These are the powers which they give to the central government, and this is what makes the justice system of governments a legitimate function of such governments."
John Locke (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
For a more indepth understanding of John Locke, something likely not covered in iceweasles matriculation, see:
John Locke (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
And with a bit more specificity:
"Locke's most obvious solution to this problem is his doctrine of tacit consent. Simply by walking along the highways of a country a person gives tacit consent to the government and agrees to obey it while living in its territory."
Locke's Political Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Hmmm... "We the People" seems a good place to rebut your opinion. The Preamble is not law, per se, it is and remains a mission and a vision statement until the Dumbsters decide it was a communist plot and have it repealed.
My opinion? You can't back up assertion and shot yourself in the foot by referencing the DoI. It isn't a contract but the rationale behind rebelling against the crown. Which is the opposite of what post modern liberals want, they want the big government.Problem is that isn't the rule of law we live under. You got mixed up. Various philosophies formed our foundation, Locke was widely read I'm sure but our founders had constitutional conventions and hammered out the Constitution. Not a social contract as outlined by John Locke. It's just the liberal's attempt to justify any government action.In response to the supposed college graduate, iceweasel:
"Just as natural rights and natural law theory had a florescence in the 17th and 18th century, so did the social contract theory. Why is Locke a social contract theorist? Is it merely that this was one prevailing way of thinking about government at the time which Locke blindly adopted? I think the answer is that there is something about Locke's project which pushes him strongly in the direction of the social contract. One might hold that governments were originally instituted by force, and that no agreement was involved. Were Locke to adopt this view, he would be forced to go back on many of the things which are at the heart of his project in the Second Treatise. Remember that The Second Treatise provides Locke's positive theory of government, and that he explicitly says that he must provide an alternative to the view “that all government in the world is merely the product of force and violence, and that men live together by no other rules than that of the beasts, where the strongest carries it...” So, while Locke might admit that some governments come about through force or violence, he would be destroying the most central and vital distinction, that between legitimate and illegitimate civil government, if he admitted that legitimate government can come about in this way. So, for Locke, legitimate government is instituted by the explicit consent of those governed. (See the section on consent, political obligation, and the ends of government in the entry on Locke's political philosophy.) Those who make this agreement transfer to the government their right of executing the law of nature and judging their own case. These are the powers which they give to the central government, and this is what makes the justice system of governments a legitimate function of such governments."
John Locke (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
For a more indepth understanding of John Locke, something likely not covered in iceweasles matriculation, see:
John Locke (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
And with a bit more specificity:
"Locke's most obvious solution to this problem is his doctrine of tacit consent. Simply by walking along the highways of a country a person gives tacit consent to the government and agrees to obey it while living in its territory."
Locke's Political Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Hmmm... "We the People" seems a good place to rebut your opinion. The Preamble is not law, per se, it is and remains a mission and a vision statement until the Dumbsters decide it was a communist plot and have it repealed.
But OK, let's look at the text:
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, notice professor, the good of the people is defined pretty well. It's the limitation of our freedoms, restricting travel, courts, taxes ,etc.
Nothing about providing goodies as per the leftist wet dream.
Huh? I just said it was law, no contract. You referenced the DoI, not me. It's the opposite of what you think. It's a rationale for rebelling against oppression, the pursuit of freedoms, etc. No social programs that provide for all. No contract to provide goods or services.And yet in the words of the self describe college graduate, this document is not the rule of law. It is, as is the Preamble, a mission statement in full, and a vision statement in this long phase too:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the govern"
That they're a News Organization......What did they give credence to that was proven false?
Smack me in the face?!? Buttercup....I'm not the one who just had my ass handed to me in the past three elections. Reality is smacking you in the face. It's your ideology which is being unilaterally rejected by the American people. We own the House, the Senate, the White House, and 33 out of 50 states. The Obama Administration oversaw the loss of almost 1,000 seats previously held by Dumbocrats.You're a sheep, a biddable (you could look it up) follower of what has lead to lynchings, concentration camps for dissidents and civil wars. It's time to grow up, reality is soon to smack you in the face.
And yet in the words of the self describe college graduate, this document is not the rule of law. It is, as is the Preamble, a mission statement in full, and a vision statement in this long phase too:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the govern"
Huh? I just said it was law, no contract. You referenced the DoI, not me. It's the opposite of what you think. It's a rationale for rebelling against oppression, the pursuit of freedoms, etc. No social programs that provide for all. No contract to provide goods or services.
Have a grade schooler walk you through it.
Smack me in the face?!? Buttercup....I'm not the one who just had my ass handed to me in the past three elections. Reality is smacking you in the face. It's your ideology which is being unilaterally rejected by the American people. We own the House, the Senate, the White House, and 33 out of 50 states. The Obama Administration oversaw the loss of almost 1,000 seats previously held by Dumbocrats.You're a sheep, a biddable (you could look it up) follower of what has lead to lynchings, concentration camps for dissidents and civil wars. It's time to grow up, reality is soon to smack you in the face.
But you always were devoid of facts - uh Wry?
The assertion I challenged was your claim we have a social contract. The DoI was our excuse to rebel against too much government control, taxes more freedom, etc.And yet in the words of the self describe college graduate, this document is not the rule of law. It is, as is the Preamble, a mission statement in full, and a vision statement in this long phase too:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the govern"
Huh? I just said it was law, no contract. You referenced the DoI, not me. It's the opposite of what you think. It's a rationale for rebelling against oppression, the pursuit of freedoms, etc. No social programs that provide for all. No contract to provide goods or services.
Have a grade schooler walk you through it.
LOL, the theory of holes is a study you need to embark upon, after, of course, a freshman course in a U. offering reading with comprehension and expository writing.
To quote someone who has an education, "this document (the DoI), "is, AS IS THE PREAMBLE, a mission statement in full, and a vision statement .... too".
Now, I have a quandary.
- Are you a fool who echoes meme's, and thus has no ability to think for them self
- A person who lacks the ego strength to admit he has been fooled. or
- A liar, a fool and as stubborn as a mule.
We use the electoral college in this country. Go back to grade school.Smack me in the face?!? Buttercup....I'm not the one who just had my ass handed to me in the past three elections. Reality is smacking you in the face. It's your ideology which is being unilaterally rejected by the American people. We own the House, the Senate, the White House, and 33 out of 50 states. The Obama Administration oversaw the loss of almost 1,000 seats previously held by Dumbocrats.You're a sheep, a biddable (you could look it up) follower of what has lead to lynchings, concentration camps for dissidents and civil wars. It's time to grow up, reality is soon to smack you in the face.
But you always were devoid of facts - uh Wry?
No, but facts, i.e. are statistics easily manipulated as you have, and often do. Three Million American registered voters did not vote for trump; most voted for HRC, and the rest for one of the lesser candidates, one so uninformed he was unaware of the horror in Aleppo (one must wonder if trump is less informed than Johnson, his tweets suggest so).
We use the electoral college in this country. Go back to grade school.Smack me in the face?!? Buttercup....I'm not the one who just had my ass handed to me in the past three elections. Reality is smacking you in the face. It's your ideology which is being unilaterally rejected by the American people. We own the House, the Senate, the White House, and 33 out of 50 states. The Obama Administration oversaw the loss of almost 1,000 seats previously held by Dumbocrats.You're a sheep, a biddable (you could look it up) follower of what has lead to lynchings, concentration camps for dissidents and civil wars. It's time to grow up, reality is soon to smack you in the face.
But you always were devoid of facts - uh Wry?
No, but facts, i.e. are statistics easily manipulated as you have, and often do. Three Million American registered voters did not vote for trump; most voted for HRC, and the rest for one of the lesser candidates, one so uninformed he was unaware of the horror in Aleppo (one must wonder if trump is less informed than Johnson, his tweets suggest so).
You destroyed your own argument.We use the electoral college in this country. Go back to grade school.Smack me in the face?!? Buttercup....I'm not the one who just had my ass handed to me in the past three elections. Reality is smacking you in the face. It's your ideology which is being unilaterally rejected by the American people. We own the House, the Senate, the White House, and 33 out of 50 states. The Obama Administration oversaw the loss of almost 1,000 seats previously held by Dumbocrats.You're a sheep, a biddable (you could look it up) follower of what has lead to lynchings, concentration camps for dissidents and civil wars. It's time to grow up, reality is soon to smack you in the face.
But you always were devoid of facts - uh Wry?
No, but facts, i.e. are statistics easily manipulated as you have, and often do. Three Million American registered voters did not vote for trump; most voted for HRC, and the rest for one of the lesser candidates, one so uninformed he was unaware of the horror in Aleppo (one must wonder if trump is less informed than Johnson, his tweets suggest so).
Stop digging, you're a fool and no amount of idiot-grams you post will rescue you.
You destroyed your own argument.We use the electoral college in this country. Go back to grade school.Smack me in the face?!? Buttercup....I'm not the one who just had my ass handed to me in the past three elections. Reality is smacking you in the face. It's your ideology which is being unilaterally rejected by the American people. We own the House, the Senate, the White House, and 33 out of 50 states. The Obama Administration oversaw the loss of almost 1,000 seats previously held by Dumbocrats.You're a sheep, a biddable (you could look it up) follower of what has lead to lynchings, concentration camps for dissidents and civil wars. It's time to grow up, reality is soon to smack you in the face.
But you always were devoid of facts - uh Wry?
No, but facts, i.e. are statistics easily manipulated as you have, and often do. Three Million American registered voters did not vote for trump; most voted for HRC, and the rest for one of the lesser candidates, one so uninformed he was unaware of the horror in Aleppo (one must wonder if trump is less informed than Johnson, his tweets suggest so).
Stop digging, you're a fool and no amount of idiot-grams you post will rescue you.
LOL
