|
Jesus speaks through Republicans? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ResonantDrag
and sorry opus, i just don't think that jesus has a place in the thinking of the "moral majority". |
Nor do I, which is why I'm trying to understand the logic of the Christian Right more.
| quote: | you can't think of jesus as the example of mankind and at the same time justify the evangical perspective of the need to preserve tradition.
[/soapbox] |
Exactly my point, thank you. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYGblue
Wow I guess the American Conservatives on this board actually have logical opinions. I guess some of the stuff you say is just to incite people? |
Explain. How was my question inciting anyone? I have sincere questions about the Christian Right and their interpretation of morality, especially in the political sense. Granted, I see contradictions from the start, but I welcome anyone to defend such contradictions. As of yet, and with specific regard to the Christian Right, or even more specifically the Evangelicals (thanks for the clarification ResonantD), I have not seen a very sound refutation. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Well I think if we should play "devil's advocate" as Shakka has done, and we apply the same standards that the Conservatives gave towards Clinton and his private affairs, I see no reason why we cannot do the same for Guiliani and his marital affairs as well.
And what's more, we don't even have to spend $65 million of our taxpayers' money to do it! Ain't that grand? |
Did Guiliani lie to a grand jury, in a video camera broadcasting to the entire American public? That's one thing that rubbed me the wrong way with Clinton(aside from his horrible taste in women). That he could knowingly lie to every American face to face like that(before you go calling Dubya a liar in any similar regard). |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Reverend_Trance
As my avatar says and the avatar is from Moore's website. I fall in the new nation of Jesusland. Many people have a sense of morality or believe in a higher power whether it be Allah, God, Jesus, Yahweh, Buddha, Confucius, Zoaster, Nature/Wicca/Taoism, etc. Many people have some type of moral compass. |
Why would a moral compass necessarily involve a deity of any kind?
| quote: | The idea of gay marriage is revolutionary. For thousands of years, marriage is between a man and his wife/wives. As time progressed it became man and wife (singular) Mormons were forced to move to salt Lake due to the barbaric custom of muliple wives. As a point of admission as a state, Utah had to ban plural marriage.
Two years ago, gay marriage was not even an issue. According to the averages of state amendments to ban gay marriage, the average is 75% no and 25% yes. The one liberal state, Oregon, had it on the ballot and it passed.
Changing the meaning of marriage or any moral values goes beyond Christianity. For many Gay marriage is a TABOO. Like in the 1950s, pregnant was bad, instead she was with child. Changing marriage is like everyone converting to Macintosh and Microsoft going out of business. It might happen but the chances are slim. |
Not exactly sure of your history on Mormonism, but for right now I’ll take your word on it. Your history of gay marriages or “unions” or whatever you wish to call it, as well as your idea of the meaning of marriage is not factually accurate:
| quote: | In fact, many religious groups in Europe had special marriage ceremonies for gays and lesbians. Also, a recent book by the late Yale Historian John Boswell demonstrates that Christian churches both sanctioned and sanctified unions between partners of the same sex, until modern times. That book lists the original texts and English translations of a number of religious ceremonies:
*Office of Same-sex Union, (and similar names), 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th & 16th century translations, Greece.
*Office of Same-sex Union, 11th century Christian church in Greece.
*The Order for Uniting Two Men, 11-12 century, Old Church Slavonic.
*Office of Same-Gender Union, 12th century Italio-Greek.
*An Order for the Uniting of Two Men [or Two Women], 14th century Serbian Slavonic.
*Order of Celebrating the Union of Two Men, prior to 18th century, Serbian Slavonic.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/I...arioconsultanA/
http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/great.html
Politicians and ministers are fond of referring to the "5000 year history" of one man-one woman marriage. In fact, in some societies [including ancient Israel] there were many forms of legitimate, recognized relationships:
*A tomb of a same sex gay couple Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep was discovered in 1964 in the necropolis of Saqqara, Egypt. The tomb dates to the Fifth Dynasty (circa 2,500 BCE), and shows that homosexual marriages date back over 4 millennia!:
http://www.sirius.com/~reeder/niankh.html
*Some marriages were and/or were polygamous. In the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) Abraham, David, Solomon, and others had multiple wives. One version of the Creation story mentioned Lilith as Adam's first wife; Eve was his second. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints frequently entered polygamous marriages prior to 1890. Some excommunicated splinter Mormon groups still do.
* Some marriages were considered an exchange of property in which total control of the woman was formally transferred from her father to her husband.
*Leverite Marriages existed in Biblical times in which a man had an obligation to marry his brother's wife and produce an heir if his brother died. This usually meant that he would be married to at least two women.
*Men engaged in sexual relations with one or more concubines. Concubines were women who had a lower marital status than a wife.
*Men engaged in sexual relations with their female slaves. Again, in the Hebrew Scriptures, Abraham raped his wife's slave, Hagar. She conceived and bore a son Ishmael.
* In all, the Bible mentions eight different family types. Only one of them is the "standard" one-man one-woman in a mutual committed relationship.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar7.htm
|
|
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Did Guiliani lie to a grand jury, in a video camera broadcasting to the entire American public? That's one thing that rubbed me the wrong way with Clinton(aside from his horrible taste in women). That he could knowingly lie to every American face to face like that(before you go calling Dubya a liar in any similar regard). |
Ahh, point taken. However, I never quite understood how $65 million could be spent on what was supposed to be a case on Whitewater and consequently turned up absolutely nothing, and then shifted into Clinton's rusty zipper. I understand he did lie, but Jesus it's a ing lie about his personal life! I'll spare you the comparisons between this lie and all those "Bush lies and people die" crap, but seriously, what the was up with the zealotry of the Conservatives at that time? I think in comparison you could never see Liberals show as much vitriol and hatred towards Bush as you did see Gingrich's bunch toward Clinton.
But then again, I suppose much remains to be seen in the next 4 years.;) |
|
|
| NYGblue |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Explain. How was my question inciting anyone? I have sincere questions about the Christian Right and their interpretation of morality, especially in the political sense. Granted, I see contradictions from the start, but I welcome anyone to defend such contradictions. As of yet, and with specific regard to the Christian Right, or even more specifically the Evangelicals (thanks for the clarification ResonantD), I have not seen a very sound refutation. |
No that a lot of the nonsensical things the conservatives say isn't how they actually feel but just to piss them off. The question was directed at them. My apologies. |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
having seen no refutions to the statement that the christian right doesn't follow jesus's will, should we now try to establish whom's will the christian right follows?
more specifically, is pat robertson the anti-christ? I've thought that since i first saw the "700 club".
where's technolover for a fresh perspective? |
|
|
| drizzt81 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Okay, first, what is your evidence to support the assertion that privately run charities are more effective than government run programs?
|
I think it is generally accepted that the government is inefficient. Since there is no competition, the government does not have any incentive to be efficient. Unlike that, private charities have to worry about their expenses etc, since they can 'go out of business'. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
But why shouldn't they? Wouldn't the Christian Right be best served by doing exactly what they profess - being Christians?
That is wholly irrelevant to my question at hand. We can expand further on the political implications later down the road when we get there, but right now I think it's more pertinent to examine these "traditional values" a little closer, and who exactly lines up with them better in terms of Christianity.
Hmmm, so the high voter evangelical turnout for Bush, the exit polls which clearly demonstrated that the highest issue on the voting block agenda was "moral values", was not because of religious motivation?
Irrelevant to the discussion of Jesus and traditional values. You are dodging the question.
Christ, FINALLY! How freakin' long did it take you to finally discuss the issue here, Speed? Man, you could have easily dispensed with everything above and cut right to the chase here. My God, are you running for office or something? Geez.
Second, and this is just the basis of rationale, my central argument stems from the fact that we have a President who wants to appoint pro-life judges, and wants to create a federal law banning gay marriage, which is exactly what the Christian Right wants. Yet we hear so very little from the Christian Right about government involvement with other Christian values such as feeding and helping the poor, getting people out of poverty, engagement in foreign countries involved with genocide such as Darfur and the Congo, and so forth.
So why does the Christian Right deem it necessary to have government engagement in one set of Christian values, but not the other? How can allowing the government to do nothing about the 4 million people in poverty over the last 4 years be considered Christian? What's worse, I heard on NPR this morning about some of the subjects on the Christian Right's agenda for Bush in the next 4 years - among them was permanent tax cuts.
How does tax cuts play in the teachings of Jesus? In fact, doesn't Jesus say something to the effect of the opposite? And what's more, we have seen how these tax cuts have put the burden on the middle class, as evidenced by the GAO report last July - how is this considered Christian?
Well I don't believe anyone here, including yourself, ever claimed you to be a dutiful Christian. These are the people I am addressing, and everything you just stated here is most certainly not in line with Jesus' teachings, is it?
|
Jesus Christ!The Republican Party does not have the Jesus Christ Logo :wtf:
Because traditional American values don't need to have anything to do with religion!The Republicans don't get it either, they just get it a lil bit more than the Democrats..... In the midwest and south, there is a building mentality that the Democratic party defends those who exhibit lousy choices in life and that those with all the answers and most logical views are a long list of Hollywood celebrities and left-wing money-bags like George Soros..... When people listen to the views of people like Michael Moore, George Soros etc, they hear contempt and disdain for people who work hard for a living, mothers that raise children and people that happen to like shooting their food once in awhile....... Kerry tried to distance himself from these people, but he did not do so with any credibility whatsoever....as was evidenced by Michael Moore sitting RIGHT NEXT TO a former President during the DNC convention.. Moore, for better or worse should have been watching the convention on a 13" monitor in the basement...(Or maybe in a donut shop down the street)
As I've said before, it's about perception not reality. It's also about results, not intentions....
In many cases, I see that while they have good intentions, the programs supported mainly by Democrats have "less than ideal" results to say the least...... So I view them as being out of touch with moral values because they don't realize that reality doesn't care about your intentions....
There's a slogan that applies here that's at least partially based in reality.... "Democrats view compassion by how many people are on government assistance while Republicans view compassion by how many no longer need it."
I think it's far better when people can find the jobs to earn their own way than for them to be reliant on handouts..... Anything I can do to foster the environment where they do have access to jobs (worldwide, not just here in the US) instead of government handouts as their sole means of survival, I'll support..... The system that does that the best is a free market economy. The system that is the worst is socalism
Why even try to ask a question completely out of context to what the Republican Party stands for. The party lays out its morals position. If the Christians want to believe in this party then maybe this is why:
Quote:
| quote: | | "Voters rejected the party of gay activists, radical feminists, the Hollywood elite, pornographers, death-peddlers, anti-Christian bigots and apostate Catholics." |
Its that simple.
Taken from:
| quote: |
Liberals Dismayed by 'Moral Values' Claims
Tue Nov 9,10:12 AM ET U.S. National - AP
By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer
NEW YORK - Family values, traditional values and now, "moral values." Most American adults would say they have them, and yet that two-word phrase is the focus of an ideological tug-of-war heightened by President Bush (news - web sites)'s re-election, with conservatives declaring principal ownership and liberals scrambling to challenge them.
AP Photo
Latest Headlines:
· Gov. Jeb Bush Not Eyeing Presidential Run
AP - 53 minutes ago
· Dean Ponders Bid to Become DNC Chairman
AP - 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
· Traumatized Kerry supporters in Florida seek therapy: report
AFP - 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Election Coverage
"We need to work really hard at reclaiming some language," said the Rev. Robert Edgar, general secretary of the liberal-leaning National Council of Churches.
"The religious right has successfully gotten out there shaping personal piety issues — civil unions, abortion — as almost the total content of 'moral values,'" Edgar said. "And yet you can't read the Old Testament without knowing God was concerned about the environment, war and peace, poverty. God doesn't want 45 million Americans without health care."
Many of the advocacy groups that helped mobilize conservative voters for Bush concentrate on a narrow range of issues — notably opposing abortion and gay rights. Conservative leaders say these were the main issues on voters' minds when many, in exit polls, designated unspecified "moral values" as their foremost Election Day priority.
"Those who view the appeal to 'moral values' as mere political manipulation and ideological posturing have a basic misunderstanding of people of faith," said Janice Shaw Crouse of the conservative Concerned Women for America.
"The 'moral values' that were a top priority in this election — abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, same-sex unions — are rooted in deep religious beliefs."
Such statements of moral grounding have frustrated Democratic-leaning activists — in past campaigns and particularly this year. They question the vagueness of the "moral values" exit poll question and contend that their own political priorities, such as fighting poverty and discrimination, have moral weight and popular support.
Proponents of same-sex unions, for example, believe it is moral to afford partnership rights to two men or two women who have committed themselves to each other and, in many cases, are raising children.
"We have a thing or two to say about the 'moral values' involved with permitting a couple who wish to build a life together to enjoy full legal standing as a family," said Ron Schlittler, director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.
Similarly, abortion-rights advocates believe it is moral to allow the option of abortion to a poor, newly pregnant woman, rather than compel her to bear a child she didn't plan for and cannot afford to raise.
"When the religious right co-opted the term 'pro-life,' that was a coup," said the Rev. Carlton Veazey of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (news - web sites). "Sometimes 'choice' sounds too casual."
"We have to go back and examine what we are we saying, why is it not resonating," Veazey added. "We don't just cave in and say they've got a monopoly on morality."
Asked if their rivals on the left indeed held viable moral values, several conservatives replied with a qualified "yes," suggesting the liberals' social concerns were valid but not as important as opposition to abortion or same-sex marriage.
"We believe in biblical principles; I'm sure they believe in biblical principles," said Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition of America. "But I don't understand how they can defend abortion and homosexuality. That's wrong."
The Rev. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life said poverty was far less urgent a problem then abortion, which he considers genocide.
"The other side has not been deprived of the opportunity to make their case," he said. "Voters can think for themselves."
Some put the issue even more starkly.
"There is no reconciliation between good and evil," wrote Mary Ann Kreitzer of Les Femmes, an organization of conservative Roman Catholic women. "Voters rejected the party of gay activists, radical feminists, the Hollywood elite, pornographers, death-peddlers, anti-Christian bigots and apostate Catholics."
For some moderates, the values debate is less simple — they may oppose abortion and gay marriage yet share liberals' view on other issues.
Mike Allen of Catholic Charities of Trenton, which serves the needy in southern New Jersey, said his organization's mission entails seeking "a more just and compassionate society" on for the disadvantaged.
Regarding partisan promotion of "moral values," Allen said, "Oversimplifying is a technique that seems to win elections."
The Rev. Thomas Reese, editor of the Jesuit weekly America, said John Kerry (news - web sites) could have been more effective at portraying his goals — fairer wages, better health care — as "moral values."
"The Democratic Party seems almost embarrassed talking about family issues or religion," he said.
A future battleground in the values tug-of-war will be for black and Hispanic support. Some conservatives believe wariness of gay marriage will enable Republicans to steadily win more of their votes.
"You're seeing a bridge being built between African-Americans and evangelicals who tend to be Republican," said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. "Right now that dialogue is focused on marriage, but as we share and learn, you'll see it broadening."
However, the Rev. Stephen Bouman, a New York-based bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, worries that conservative Christians' definition of "moral values" may be too narrow to accommodate those of different faiths and backgrounds, including new immigrants.
"One thing Jesus was absolutely clear about was helping the poor, and the welcoming of strangers," Bouman said. "Maybe this election was a wake-up call to have a serious conversation about what morality means, to look at what sort of country we're becoming."
Story Tools
Email Story
Post/Read
|
Maybe this thread should be renamed "Jesus Speaks through Christians" Or "Christians Choose their Party Affiliation Because.."| quote: | | "Voters rejected the party of gay activists, radical feminists, the Hollywood elite, pornographers, death-peddlers, anti-Christian bigots and apostate Catholics." |
:toothless |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dave Piazza
As one can see in this thread. When you try to understand the link between Christ/Religion and the Republican Ideology one comes to the conclusion that this link can not be established.
This is discussion Kerry failed to enguage in this election. Instead of being on the offensive, he thought Bush would just say something stupid and he would win. He should have attacked his actions and his religions morals. Kerry did not. He failed to have a central theme in his campaign like Bush had. Stupid people watching on TV could not latch onto the Kerry message as a result.
Kerry and the other democrats fail to mobilize people to act. They try to play it safe like pussies. They don't want to discuss religion because they are scared they might alienate those non-religious voters or the Jewish population who don’t believe in Christ.
We also fail to realize that the young voters didn't show up at all. Same % as the last elections. What does this show? It shows that young people in this country saw no difference in Bush or Kerry. I don't blame them. I see the bull too. I just thought Kerry was a lesser evil than Bush. Is this a true democracy when only two political parties exist ? Is this a true democracy when only of elite rich white men run for government office? Is this a true democracy when money becomes the source of power? Is this a true democracy when appearance reign supreme over ideas?
Democracy is in a decline; identical to what occurred in Rome. |
I must say...You have definitely turned it around since november2nd
You sir, are one smart guy.
WELCOME TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. I NOW OPEN THEE gate FOR YOU.
  Time to heal |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
Jesus Christ!The Republican Party does not have the Jesus Christ Logo :wtf:
Because traditional American values don't need to have anything to do with religion!The Republicans don't get it either, they just get it a little bit more than the Democrats..... In the midwest and south, there is a building mentality that the Democratic party defends those who exhibit lousy choices in life and that those with all the answers and most logical views are a long list of Hollywood celebrities and left-wing moneybags like George Soros..... When people listen to the views of people like Michael Moore, George Soros etc, they hear contempt and disdain for people who work hard for a living, mothers that raise children and people that happen to like shooting their food once in awhile....... Kerry tried to distance himself from these people, but he did not do so with any credibility whatsoever....as was evidenced by Michael Moore sitting RIGHT NEXT TO a former President during the DNC convention. Moore, for better or worse should have been watching the convention on a 13" monitor in the basement...
As I've said before, it's about perception not reality. It's also about results, not intentions....
In many cases, I see that while they have good intentions, the programs supported mainly by Democrats have "less than ideal" results to say the least...... So I view them as being out of touch with moral values because they don't realize that reality doesn't care about your intentions....
There's a slogan that applies here that's at least partially based in reality.... "Democrats view compassion by how many people are on government assistance. Republicans view compassion by how many no longer need it."
I think it's far better when people can find the jobs to earn their own way than for them to be reliant on handouts..... Anything I can do to foster the environment where they do have access to jobs (worldwide, not just here in the US) instead of government handouts as their sole means of survival, I'll support..... The system that does that the best is a free market economy. The system that is the worst is socalism
Why even try to ask a question completely out of context to what the Republican Party stands for. The party lays out its morals position. If the Christians want to believe in this party then maybe this is why:
Quote:
Its that simple.
|
I gotta say--Speedracer makes some pretty valid points with these comments. You can read into it on many levels too.
I like the compassion quote as well.
My opinion is that the government shouldn't exist to help the people, government should exist to foster an environment where the people can help themselves. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dave Piazza
We also fail to realize that the young voters didn't show up at all. Same % as the last elections. What does this show? It shows that young people in this country saw no difference in Bush or Kerry. |
, I meant to reply to this earlier. I hate to mention his name, but I do find it interesting that Michael Moore seems to think the opposite.
Michael Moore...loves the cock.
| quote: | Sunday, November 7th, 2004
The Kids Are Alright
Dear Friends,
If there was one group who really came through on Tuesday, it was the young people of America. Their turnout was historic and record-setting. And few in the media are willing to report this fact.
Unlike 2000 when Gore and Bush almost evenly split the youth vote (Gore: 48%, Bush: 46%), this year Kerry won the youth vote in a LANDSLIDE, getting a full ten points more than Bush (Kerry: 54%, Bush: 44%).
Young people were the ONLY age group that voted for Kerry. In every other age group (30-39, 40-49, 50-59, etc.), the majority voted for Bush.
In my state of Michigan, observers noted that it was the record youth vote that helped to put Kerry over the top in the state (AP: "Young Voters Played Big Role in Kerry's Michigan Victory")
Contrary to all predictions and to tradition, MORE young adults (18-29) voted in last week's election than in any other since 18-year-olds were given the right to vote in 1972.
It was the first time that a MAJORITY of all young adults came out to the polls: 51.6%.
Young adult turnout was UP more than 9% higher than the 2000 election ("Big Voter Turnout Seen Among Young People").
4.7 million MORE young adults voted in this election than in the last one. All these numbers are likely to go up when the millions of provisional ballots (and absentee ballots) are counted later this week (it is believed that young people were among the hardest hit in being forced to vote provisionally and students away at college make up a large bulk of the absentee ballots).
Rock the Vote and MTV's "Choose or Lose" had set the seemingly unattainable goal of getting 20 million young people out to vote. In the end, nearly 21 million youth voters cast their ballots last Tuesday -- A RECORD.
From the beginning, I believed that young adults and "slackers" would rise up in this election. As we began our slacker tour in Syracuse's football stadium on September 20, we could tell that this election would be like no other. It was no longer uncool to talk politics like it was five or ten years ago. Now, you were considered a loser if you didn't know what was going on in the world.
After speaking to the 10,000 gathered in Syracuse, we went on to hold rallies in 63 cities, mostly on campuses. Every night the events were packed, with anywhere from 5,000 to 15,000 people showing up. We registered thousands to vote and got tens of thousands more to sign up to volunteer with Move On, ACT, the College Dems and other groups like Vote Mob and the League of Pissed Off Voters. We reached perhaps a half-million people in person and millions more on local TV and radio in those 63 cities (all but three of them in swing states).
To be honest, this tour was a killer and not the easiest thing to do for a guy who isn't 18-29. Two (sometimes three) cities a day for over a month, crisscrossing the country, is enough to make you want to sleep for a year. But I was deeply inspired by what I saw. The level of dedication and commitment amongst everyday, average citizens was overwhelming. Each night from the stage I could see it in people's eyes that they were not going to give up -- and they, too, would not rest until Bush was removed from the White House.
In every town, this movement was being fueled and often led by young people. I don't ever want to hear another adult talk about how apathetic the youth are or how they don't have "it" in them. What you are about to see in the coming months is going to shock you. These kids aren't going away. They have a resilience that cannot be snuffed out by older people's whining and moaning about the state of America. THEIR America has yet to be formed as they see it, and this one setback is not going to stop them.
Witness the students at Boulder High School in Boulder, Colorado on Thursday, two days after the election. These kids can't even vote yet but that was not going to get in their way of expressing their outrage over what we adults had just done. The high school students took over the school by staging a sit-in and would not leave the building. They stayed there all Thursday night. They told the media that they were protesting the election results and putting Bush on notice that there was no way they were going to allow the draft to come back. It was the most uplifting moment of the week.
In the day after the election, the pundits were spewing their hot air about how the youth vote didn't matter this year. I wonder, even though they have the same facts available to them as I do -- the ones I've cited above -- do they just chose to ignore them because it doesn't fit into their tired old routine they call "conventional wisdom." I guess it is easier to simply repeat the same broken down clichés than it is to find out what the truth really is.
And it's even more important to kill what smells like teen spirit to them. God forbid if young people ever realized their true power and used it. Maybe what young adults need to continue to do is keep creating their own new media and news sources on the Internet and through other new technologies. Just bypass the old farts on Fox and CNN and all the rest. One thing's for sure -- by never challenging this president on his lies that sent our young off to war, they have proven which side they are on and it isn't on the side of the young or the future.
Congratulations, 18 to 29-year-olds -- you rocked.
Yours,
Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
[email protected][/email] (if full, try [email][email protected]) |
Nothing against you--just a point of comparison. |
|
|
|
|
