In Politics and Society: Is it Intolerant to be Intolerant of Intolerance?

[The T]

And what did they threaten them with?

And now I can you to the list of conservatives who want to criminalize liberals expressing their opinions to corporations.

Priceless. This thread is working out much better than I ever thought it would. lol, no wonder I'm addicted to it.

First come statements (calls for action) then come lawsuits. Yeah, there was a threat implied, not stated.

A statement of pure and utter desperation. An act of self conflation. How cute.

I love how you twisted Fox's words to mean what you wanted them to mean. You had no argument, just a desire to launch a smear campaign, which is absent any cogent facts pertaining to the OP.

Typical of the left. With them it's 'live and let live' until someone else wants to live differently than their approved 'live and let live.'

Or approved by the Imperial Federal Government.

 

[WillReadmore]

PR has the right to express his religious views without repercussions.

He most certainly does NOT!

Good Lord!

He has the right to say anything he wants, but there are many forms of repercussion from which he has no legal protection at all.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So you are intolerant of my decision?



My sister is a lesbian, my niece-in-law is biracial. I asked you if you agreed with the things Phil said, and you said yes.

There is nothing left to say after that.

How does someone else's opinion on this issue affect your relationship with your circle of friends and family? If it affects that at all, then you need to reexamine your relationships. Personally, I think gay people should definitely marry one another. The old gay lifestyle was doing nothing but spreading disease. The fact that they caught on to this and have done something to change it is admirable. And second, gays marrying one another saves some other person the heartbreak of learning that their spouse is on the down low. To marry someone of the opposite sex when you know you are gay is unconscionable. But that is what many did before the 80s.

Does all of what I said above mean that I think being gay is righteous and holy? No, not at all. And I have as much right to say that as they have to do their thing. It is also unconscionable for a person or persons to take away the livelihood of someone who does not share the popular beliefs of the day.

People on this forum who are not Christians have no problem throwing the Bible up to the Christians. Well, here's a flash: Jesus did not conform to the PC thinking of His day. And He was clearly not 'tolerated.' So what has changed since then? Apparently nothing. If leftists can't legally take Robertson's life, then they will take his livelihood. But we all know, you all would kill him if you could.

Now, it should be noted that GLAAD is whining about the 'backlash' and angry emails and letters. So sad. Too bad. They claim to believe in the 'live and let live' philosophy. They should have stuck with it. I don't know what A&E or the Robertson family will do. But Cracker Barrel has put all the DD stuff back on the shelves because of the backlash. Money talks and it talks VERY loudly sometimes.

Gays aren't the only people with rights. And nowhere do the laws of our nation state that American citizens are required to approve of them. They don't want 'tolerance.' They want 100% unopposed approval. Well, here's another flash: As long as there are Christians who believe what the Bible has to say on they matter, they will not get it.

To the bolded - I didn't say it did. I said I do not want to be friends with someone who agrees with the things Phil said.

Of course it goes without saying that TK had been in a manic episode for many hours by that point, and undiagnosed, untreated people have a tendency to trigger me.

That's cute. You went on about how I agreed with something that somehow directly impacted your family. Give me a break. You could not stand it when I broke with what you thought I should be. That again is an act of intolerance. Questioning my manhood is an act of intolerance. Having preconceived notions and standards of what someone should or shouldn't be is intolerant. The list goes on and on.

I change my stance from earlier in this thread. It is indeed intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance. When you are intolerant of someone else's intolerance, you are robbing them of their right to be intolerant. When you break friendships with someone who has an opinion different from yours, that's intolerance.

 

[ShawnChris13]

PR has the right to express his religious views without repercussions.

He most certainly does NOT!



Good Lord!



He has the right to say anything he wants, but there are many forms of repercussion from which he has no legal protection at all.

Such as? I need examples if I'm going to agree or disagree with you.

If you mean be fired: it is a slippery slope we trod when one form of speech is protected while others are punished. There are protections in law that prevent religious discrimination.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Uh huh, GLAAD has enough sway that just by threatening A&E they got them to react. In fear, politically motivated fear. They called for them to respond to the remarks with appropriate action... 'called.' Yeah, right.

I agree with Fox, yes I do. I agree with Fox and not with you.

Capische?

And what did they threaten them with?

And now I can you to the list of conservatives who want to criminalize liberals expressing their opinions to corporations.

Priceless. This thread is working out much better than I ever thought it would. lol, no wonder I'm addicted to it.

First come statements (calls for action) then come lawsuits. Yeah, there was a threat implied, not stated.

A statement of pure and utter desperation. An act of self conflation. How cute.

I love how you twisted Fox's words to mean what you wanted them to mean. You had no argument, just a desire to launch a smear campaign, which is absent any cogent facts pertaining to the OP.

1. what basis could GLAAD possibly have for a lawsuit.

2. when did objecting to a cable channel's content rise to the level of a crime?

 

[candycorn]

Tolerance. Hmmm.

This is a christian pastor, 31 years old, on a radio program:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4kO-rxuSfc

17:50 :



39:05: (asked by a listener about sex with his wife, what to do if she refuses)



51:00:




Who is this guy?

He is pastor of the "Faithful Word Baptist Church" in Tempe, AZ.

This is the same "Christian" pastor who wanted Obama to die of brain cancer. One who prayed the "imprecatory" prayer alot.

Hmmmmm, tolerance.

And then there is Bradlee Dean, who was once a big fan of Michele Bachmann's, who also thought that gay people should be executed.


Hmmmm, tolerance.

So, when gay people or their straight allies (that would be me) are displeased when someone like the Duck yahoo dude says stupid stuff, we are intolerant? Really?

There is a group of "Christians" who claim to be "Christians" who spread nothing more than hatred and then get their dander all up when people call them on the carpet for it. And to think that they throw the main word of Jesus right out the window because they hate gays so much. Wow. Simply wow.

Everytime I think that radical Christian Right cannot possibly get more batshit crazy, it surprises me and proves that it can.


I totally support Mr. Crazyass Duckdude's right to say anything he wants, and if people ignore or boycott or laugh at him, then that's his own problem. Anyone here seriously think that he was tolerant?

Well, hold on a sec. Nobody should take one person's rants and attribute them to the entire group in my view. I know that we do that here all the time but it's something I wish we didn't do. So I don't think you can look at this guy and say, "well, you see, Intolernance."

To your point however, I don't think it is a coincidence that almost down to the last woman/man that the debate about this guy from DD breaks along political party lines. Which is why I call bullshit on the supposed theme of this thread and dub it just a thinly disguised attempt to cloak bigotry in some sort of moral cloth; and not a particularly effective attempt at that. If there was any true ambiguity about the man and his actions; you'd get a mix of people who support and a mix of people who think A&E was right for what they did.

Me, I fully support his right to say (and whomever is reading this as well) whatever they want as long as they recognize that there may be consequences.

That the group that supports constantly invokes the Bible is hilarious since we've proven that ONLY those parts of the bible that align with GOP superstition concerning women and homosexuals are what is taken; the rest may as well be flushed down the toilet it seems. You can't accept some parts of the Bible and just ignore other parts and still use the Holy text as any sort of authority.

You're wrong of course. Most people side with the right of Duck Dynasty to express opinions without fear of censorship or other repercussions. This includes democrats and gays. John Stewart, Andrew Sullivan,etc.
You don't understand that this is a free speech issue and not a religious issue. Your own intolerance of free speech limits your ability to argue on the topic at hand. Your authoritarian views wont allow it.
Gay CNN Anchor Defends 'Duck Dynasty' Star - Video

It is a free speech issue.

But when he quotes the bible as his guide for his feelings about gays, he introduces the teachings, right? He's the one citing the bible as his spiritaul guide to make him think the way he thinks. I didn't bring it up. What I did bring up is that there are parts of the same text that are ignored out of convenience sake Of course, as I have demonstrated, part-time Christians seem to be the norm and in terms of politics, it's only that part of the bible that is in line with GOP supersition that seems to be harped upon. That you think this is just fine...well, that's between you and whom you worship I suppose.

However, you can't cite part of the work and think it elevates your stance/reinforces your positition when you ignore parts of the rest of the work as being totally out of step with 2013/2014 civilized society. Otherwise, those who oppose his viewpoints, can do the same thing, right?

 

[TemplarKormac]

And what did they threaten them with?

And now I can you to the list of conservatives who want to criminalize liberals expressing their opinions to corporations.

Priceless. This thread is working out much better than I ever thought it would. lol, no wonder I'm addicted to it.

First come statements (calls for action) then come lawsuits. Yeah, there was a threat implied, not stated.

A statement of pure and utter desperation. An act of self conflation. How cute.

I love how you twisted Fox's words to mean what you wanted them to mean. You had no argument, just a desire to launch a smear campaign, which is absent any cogent facts pertaining to the OP.

1. what basis could GLAAD possibly have for a lawsuit.

2. when did objecting to a cable channel's content rise to the level of a crime?

1. Defamation, Slander, Libel

2. Is that what she said, or is that what YOU said?

Next

 

[candycorn]

Some here don't seem to be getting it. The issue is not whether we agree with or approve of what Robertson said or how he said it. (I attribute that to reading dysfuncion as I don't know how many times now that I've said I don't agree with Robertson'a interpretation of what the Bible teaches nor do I approve of the way he said it in that particular bruhaha.)

That is not the point.

Nor do I see this as a free speech issue. That is not the point either. Nor does it matter what Bible verse is used or how that verse is interpreted.

The point here is the issue of tolerance: the unalienable right of each of us to be who and what we are with impunity so long as we do not interfere with the rights of others.

There is no right to be 'accepted' by anybody. There is no right for Robertson's fundamentalist views to be accepted or acceptable to GLAAD than there is a right for gay people to be seen as no different from heterosexuals by a Phil Robertson. Tolerance is not accepting or even respecting the beliefs or point of view of another. Tolerance is not being silent when we think somebody else is wrong in their views. But tolerance does allow each person his point of view without fear of angry mobs and retribution by those who just don't like what he/she says. Each is allowed to be who and what he/she is.

To seek to threaten, punish, hurt, and/or destroy somebody for no other reason than they express an opinion you don't like is pure evil.

So whoever pressured Cracker Barrel to put the DD stuff back on their shelves is "pure evil" now?

Are you fucking insane?

 

[The T]

Well, hold on a sec. Nobody should take one person's rants and attribute them to the entire group in my view. I know that we do that here all the time but it's something I wish we didn't do. So I don't think you can look at this guy and say, "well, you see, Intolernance."

To your point however, I don't think it is a coincidence that almost down to the last woman/man that the debate about this guy from DD breaks along political party lines. Which is why I call bullshit on the supposed theme of this thread and dub it just a thinly disguised attempt to cloak bigotry in some sort of moral cloth; and not a particularly effective attempt at that. If there was any true ambiguity about the man and his actions; you'd get a mix of people who support and a mix of people who think A&E was right for what they did.

Me, I fully support his right to say (and whomever is reading this as well) whatever they want as long as they recognize that there may be consequences.

That the group that supports constantly invokes the Bible is hilarious since we've proven that ONLY those parts of the bible that align with GOP superstition concerning women and homosexuals are what is taken; the rest may as well be flushed down the toilet it seems. You can't accept some parts of the Bible and just ignore other parts and still use the Holy text as any sort of authority.

You're wrong of course. Most people side with the right of Duck Dynasty to express opinions without fear of censorship or other repercussions. This includes democrats and gays. John Stewart, Andrew Sullivan,etc.
You don't understand that this is a free speech issue and not a religious issue. Your own intolerance of free speech limits your ability to argue on the topic at hand. Your authoritarian views wont allow it.
Gay CNN Anchor Defends 'Duck Dynasty' Star - Video

It is a free speech issue.

But when he quotes the bible as his guide for his feelings about gays, he introduces the teachings, right? He's the one citing the bible as his spiritaul guide to make him think the way he thinks. I didn't bring it up. What I did bring up is that there are parts of the same text that are ignored out of convenience sake Of course, as I have demonstrated, part-time Christians seem to be the norm and in terms of politics, it's only that part of the bible that is in line with GOP supersition that seems to be harped upon. That you think this is just fine...well, that's between you and whom you worship I suppose.

However, you can't cite part of the work and think it elevates your stance/reinforces your positition when you ignore parts of the rest of the work as being totally out of step with 2013/2014 civilized society. Otherwise, those who oppose his viewpoints, can do the same thing, right?

Synopsis? A&E didn't KNOW about the Characters they introduced to the world and what they stood for?

About cover it?

*LAME*

 

[candycorn]

When have you ever seen conservatives defend a liberal's 'free speech rights' with the amount of frenzied zeal that they are putting into this defense of this guy Robertson?

I'll help you. The answer is never.

So keep in mind, as much as they might claim to stand on 'principles', they are not.

This is not about conservatives being principled; this is all about conservatives having embraced hypocrisy, inconsistency, and double standards as just more weapons to use in the cause.

Will McAvoy:

"I'm seen as liberal because I believe hurricanes are caused by low barometric pressure and not Gay Marriage."

 

[TemplarKormac]

Some here don't seem to be getting it. The issue is not whether we agree with or approve of what Robertson said or how he said it. (I attribute that to reading dysfuncion as I don't know how many times now that I've said I don't agree with Robertson'a interpretation of what the Bible teaches nor do I approve of the way he said it in that particular bruhaha.)

That is not the point.

Nor do I see this as a free speech issue. That is not the point either. Nor does it matter what Bible verse is used or how that verse is interpreted.

The point here is the issue of tolerance: the unalienable right of each of us to be who and what we are with impunity so long as we do not interfere with the rights of others.

There is no right to be 'accepted' by anybody. There is no right for Robertson's fundamentalist views to be accepted or acceptable to GLAAD than there is a right for gay people to be seen as no different from heterosexuals by a Phil Robertson. Tolerance is not accepting or even respecting the beliefs or point of view of another. Tolerance is not being silent when we think somebody else is wrong in their views. But tolerance does allow each person his point of view without fear of angry mobs and retribution by those who just don't like what he/she says. Each is allowed to be who and what he/she is.

To seek to threaten, punish, hurt, and/or destroy somebody for no other reason than they express an opinion you don't like is pure evil.

So whoever pressured Cracker Barrel to put the DD stuff back on their shelves is "pure evil" now?

Are you fucking insane?

There are things called "acts of pure volition" of which you are unaware. They were compelled by their customers (of whom they are ultimately at the mercy of) to put the merchandise back on the shelf. To imply that each and every one of these customers are criminals for exerting pressure on an establishment is preposterous, something you completely fabricated.

You liberals...

You liberals are so dense. You're enough to knock the Earth out of orbit.

 

[hunarcy]

1. what basis could GLAAD possibly have for a lawsuit.

2. when did objecting to a cable channel's content rise to the level of a crime?

1. Who knows? Maybe they'd try a defamation suit of some kind. But, what they would also do is use such a suit, even if it were frivolous, to bash A&E again and again and again. Obviously A&E didn't want to face it.

2. When it become harassment...such as "researching" to ensure than anyone who has used Robertson as a spokesman would be contacted and possibly intimidated into not giving him work. You've never addressed how that's tolerant.

 

[Foxfyre]

PR has the right to express his religious views without repercussions.

He most certainly does NOT!

Good Lord!

He has the right to say anything he wants, but there are many forms of repercussion from which he has no legal protection at all.

He DOES however have an unalienable right to express his religious or any other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after him to punish him, hurt him, harm him, destroy him. Just as they have a right to express their contempt for any of his religious or other views without having some angry mob or organized group go after them to punish them, hurt them, harm them, destroy them.

Too many here--people I actually like, enjoy and admire--seem unable to grasp that simple concept. Tolerance is NOT agreement, endorsement, acceptance, or anything of that nature. Tolerance IS allowing the other person, however disagreeable, to be who or what he/she is so long as s/he is not infringing on the rights of others.

Phil Robertson's expressed opinions whenever, whatever, wherever, just as one example, are one man's opinion. Phil isn't running for political office. He is not calling for retribution or action against anybody. He has no power or intent or motive whatsoever to harm anybody, including gay and lesbian people, purely by stating what he believes.

To attempt to physically or materially harm him (or anybody else) for no reason other than he said something somebody disagrees with is evil.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Okay, we've established that Foxfyre, and now TemplarKormac - and probably some others - believe that what GLAAD did should be a crime (yes, newcomers, as outrageous as that sounds, it's true)

But I'll bet a dollar they won't say that this (virtually the same thing) should be a crime:

Boycott A&E' Facebook Support Page

'Boycott A&E' Facebook Support Page for Phil Robertson Gets over 1M Likes

 

[The T]

Some here don't seem to be getting it. The issue is not whether we agree with or approve of what Robertson said or how he said it. (I attribute that to reading dysfuncion as I don't know how many times now that I've said I don't agree with Robertson'a interpretation of what the Bible teaches nor do I approve of the way he said it in that particular bruhaha.)

That is not the point.

Nor do I see this as a free speech issue. That is not the point either. Nor does it matter what Bible verse is used or how that verse is interpreted.

The point here is the issue of tolerance: the unalienable right of each of us to be who and what we are with impunity so long as we do not interfere with the rights of others.

There is no right to be 'accepted' by anybody. There is no right for Robertson's fundamentalist views to be accepted or acceptable to GLAAD than there is a right for gay people to be seen as no different from heterosexuals by a Phil Robertson. Tolerance is not accepting or even respecting the beliefs or point of view of another. Tolerance is not being silent when we think somebody else is wrong in their views. But tolerance does allow each person his point of view without fear of angry mobs and retribution by those who just don't like what he/she says. Each is allowed to be who and what he/she is.

To seek to threaten, punish, hurt, and/or destroy somebody for no other reason than they express an opinion you don't like is pure evil.

So whoever pressured Cracker Barrel to put the DD stuff back on their shelves is "pure evil" now?

Are you fucking insane?

There are things called "acts of pure volition" of which you are unaware. They were compelled by their customers (of whom they are ultimately at the mercy of) to put the merchandise back on the shelf. To imply that each and every one of these customers are criminals for exerting pressure on an establishment is preposterous, something you completely fabricated.

You liberals...

You liberals are so dense. You're enough to knock the Earth out of orbit.

Or to think WE have the power to cause the Earth 'to have a fever'...

/OT

 

[ClosedCaption]

Intolerance of intolerance is in itself intolerance - Foxfyre.

Congrats this means nothing

 

[ShawnChris13]

I think in a thread in which the premise is tolerance and intolerance, all we've proven so far is how deep intolerance has become embedded in society.

Not to say society was ever tolerant in a fair and balanced way in the first place.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well, hold on a sec. Nobody should take one person's rants and attribute them to the entire group in my view. I know that we do that here all the time but it's something I wish we didn't do. So I don't think you can look at this guy and say, "well, you see, Intolernance."

To your point however, I don't think it is a coincidence that almost down to the last woman/man that the debate about this guy from DD breaks along political party lines. Which is why I call bullshit on the supposed theme of this thread and dub it just a thinly disguised attempt to cloak bigotry in some sort of moral cloth; and not a particularly effective attempt at that. If there was any true ambiguity about the man and his actions; you'd get a mix of people who support and a mix of people who think A&E was right for what they did.

Me, I fully support his right to say (and whomever is reading this as well) whatever they want as long as they recognize that there may be consequences.

That the group that supports constantly invokes the Bible is hilarious since we've proven that ONLY those parts of the bible that align with GOP superstition concerning women and homosexuals are what is taken; the rest may as well be flushed down the toilet it seems. You can't accept some parts of the Bible and just ignore other parts and still use the Holy text as any sort of authority.

You're wrong of course. Most people side with the right of Duck Dynasty to express opinions without fear of censorship or other repercussions. This includes democrats and gays. John Stewart, Andrew Sullivan,etc.
You don't understand that this is a free speech issue and not a religious issue. Your own intolerance of free speech limits your ability to argue on the topic at hand. Your authoritarian views wont allow it.
Gay CNN Anchor Defends 'Duck Dynasty' Star - Video

It is a free speech issue.

But when he quotes the bible as his guide for his feelings about gays, he introduces the teachings, right? He's the one citing the bible as his spiritaul guide to make him think the way he thinks. I didn't bring it up. What I did bring up is that there are parts of the same text that are ignored out of convenience sake Of course, as I have demonstrated, part-time Christians seem to be the norm and in terms of politics, it's only that part of the bible that is in line with GOP supersition that seems to be harped upon. That you think this is just fine...well, that's between you and whom you worship I suppose.

However, you can't cite part of the work and think it elevates your stance/reinforces your positition when you ignore parts of the rest of the work as being totally out of step with 2013/2014 civilized society. Otherwise, those who oppose his viewpoints, can do the same thing, right?

One thing you missed:

How does his quoting the Bible affect you? How does doing such imply action or ill will? Hmm? "Civilized" is a relative term to you. "Civilized" only happens to be those that hold the same opinion as yours. Actually, the word you're looking for is "narcissism." Even the homosexuals who watch the show disagree, they don't care about what Phil Robertson thinks, they care about the show!

Why can't you do that, candycorn?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Intolerance of intolerance is in itself intolerance - Foxfyre.

Congrats this means nothing

So does this^

 

[hunarcy]

Okay, we've established that Foxfyre, and now TemplarKormac - and probably some others - believe that what GLAAD did should be a crime (yes, newcomers, as outrageous as that sounds, it's true)

But I'll bet a dollar they won't say that this (virtually the same thing) should be a crime:

Boycott A&E' Facebook Support Page

'Boycott A&E' Facebook Support Page for Phil Robertson Gets over 1M Likes

"virtually" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA