Save America (a manifesto)

[Snorri1234]

There ya go again, shifting the terms of the discussion and now comparing us to Europe. They had to create a European Union with their own common currency because they had been lagging behind the U.S. for so many years. Still, the average American generates more GDP than even the closest competitor, Norwegian citizens. It's a good thing that the rich pay far less than European counterparts as THEY ARE THE ONES WHO PROVIDE JOBS! Poor people don't generate jobs or wealth. European productivity is only about 80-85% of American productivity.

Brilliant usage of lies there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Says US is 8th place. Norway is on 4th.

As far as healthcare goes, they're not "getting" health care. They pay for it over there through higher taxation.

Word. Still, the USA remains the country that spends the most on healthcare both as a percentage of GDP and on a per capita basis.
STOP DENYING SIMPLE TRUTHS!
Is it really that hard to admit that other countries have it better? That your system isn't working because it's ridiculous?

Also, access to health care doesn't guarantee better quality of care.

...
No indeed it doesn't. The fun thing is that at least it means acces to fucking healthcare!!! Sure, the systems have problems but at least people don't die all the fucking time or go bankrupt.

Nobody has a right to live wherever they want just because they desire it.

Never stopped you guys though.

Also, why not? Give a reason instead of a statement.

This is starting to sound a lot like the rational behind the gay marriage thread. "We want to have it so we deserve it. If you don't give it to us then we'll get angry."

Except that you don't have a good argument against giving it. Again.

It is really condescending of you to assume that other people would do the same thing under those circumstances.

Except it's pretty much fucking true for everyone. The fact that this has happenend countless of times like Player said earlier with italians and irish and stuff is proof of that. I don't believe those who stayed behind did so because they thought it was immoral to earn more money.

No wonder most of you liberals are against the war on terror. By this rationale let's not enforce laws because it's only going to cause the truly evil to become more violent and act out against society. The truth is that evil must be confronted and stopped. You may not get everyone, but at least you make it as hard as possible.

That rationale is actually not that bad. The outlawing of booze for example made criminals rich, as drugs do now.
As for the "war on terror", it has the same problem because the people you are against are willing to fucking sacrifice their lives while we're having discussions on whether to give up a little piece of privacy possibly. It's basically unwinnable for us.

Also holy crap illegal immigrants are evil now?

[PLAYER57832]

Illegal Immigrants: ahhh yes...you mean, that have cost the average Californian household $5.000 so far? What's that? But legal immigrants are so much better, are they? Nope, they cost the treasury $55.000 (yes, 5 figures) more than they input in toto, on average. Not, as Norse once mentionned, that anyone would care toput a price on the cultural damage they've caused. Of course, again, the capitalist businessman is the addie, because he refused to think at the margin in terms of costs. Silly him for following rule n.1 in "managing a succesful business based on sound economic principles"...he must be "re-educated", must he not?..

No sure where you get your figures. But they are fairly irrelevant. Illegal workers will naturally pay less into the government because one of the "benefits" (to employers) of hiring them is you don't have to pay all those pesky taxes.

My argument is not to keep allowing illegal workers. MY argument is to legalize the system so that those who want to work, can, without unduly harming citizens. Some folks think the best way to do this is to put up a wall and post gaurds at the border. I say it would be FAR more cost-effective to allow the vast majority of folks to come here (exclude the trouble makers, "regular" law-breakers, of course), but require them to have health insurance and a "return ticket" home AND I propose imposing a tax on their wages ... payable by the EMPLOYER to help pay for general social services.

I also suggest allowing them to bring their kids here ... and to get thorough grounded in Americanism and the American ideals ... so that whether they decide to becoem citizens or return home, they will be more likely to be friends and allies, not future terrorist enemies.

Welfare benefits...well, they've worked so fucking well in Britain. I mean, c'mon..only 5p in every working British man's pound going to the Treasury ends up in the hands of estimatedly fraudulent welfare seekers, and it hasn't created a culture of dependance and de-incentivized work at all, has it?

The British system and the American have little in common. The basic issue is whether there are folks who really and truly cannot work and whether we should help them (elderly, disabled) AND the reality that there are a great number of plain deadbeats out there... and whether it costs more to give them a bit of food, shelter or to have them on the street causing problems ... and if giving them food and shelter really does "keep them off the streets".

If you read my post, you'd see that I am not precisely in favor of OUR current system.

Trade deficits...yes, which your Keynesian buddies fund by printing reams of dollars (at a rate 13 times faster than goldis being mined) to give to Abdul or Xiao before whinging when it turns out they can buy controlling stakes in your crumbling, stagflationnary economy.

Not quite, but I would rather not spend the next 10 hours debating this.

As for your final point...well, sweetheart, that's the Industrial bloody Revolution you've thrown out the window, but never mind, eh?

Not quite. I see around me plenty of folks who are now out of work because of NAFTA. I also see factories full of folks who work 10-20 hours of overtime and STILL have incomes below the US poverty line. This means that every tax payer in the nation is helping to pay for our kids school lunches. It means, in effect that taxpayers are having to subsidize those companies. Companies that are turning pretty hefty profits, companies that are getting further tax breaks because they are "supplying jobs". If you cannot afford to pay workers enough to have a reasonable standard of living, then you plain and simply CANNOT AFFORD TO DO BUSINESS.

Folks cry about the "welfare state" what we really have are a bunch of welfare businesses. Externalities (and actually, workers are not really externalities) have to be taken into account when you are judging whether a business is really and truly adding or taking away from a economy. The piper has to be paid!

[bradleybadly]

My figures are per capita which is a better pointer, obviously a developed country with 3 times the workers is likely to produce more overall but the per worker figure is the important one.

While I don't agree with your interpretation thanks for sharing the figures. We probably look at the figures that we want to believe to support our positions. But what I stated was correct and now I have a new set of data to consider. Thanks.

Brilliant usage of lies there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Says US is 8th place. Norway is on 4th.

Oh Snorri, there you go again jumping to conclusions. You can only make the 'liar liar pants on fire' excuse by claiming a different set of stats based on per capita.

Given that Bradley's usual contribution to debates is "Stop calling me fucking names you fags! Calling names is what you do when you don't have points, you gays!!! No I won't reply to any of the arguments you have presented, no I won't provide any arguments of my own, but fags are fucking faggy twats and I fucking wish they were dead!!! Here's some pictures of a gay-pride festival. You fags!!", it's only fair to suggest that he might be reaping what he's sown.

It's all very well spending half your life whinging about people calling each other names, but if you spend the other half doing exactly the same thing yourself, then you kind of give up your right to be taken seriously... Exhibit A: BradleyBadly

Easy sparky! You're having another one of your famous meltdowns. You're in serious need of a reality check if you're going to go make up stories about what I've posted in the past. Then again, it does show how imbalanced some liberals are when challenged with something they don't agree with so maybe it's instructional for everyone when you rant like that. Of course you're pissed off at me because I've called attention to your favorite tactic - shouting and calling names at people in order to get them to quit disagreeing with you. I returned the favor to show you how stupid of a tactic it is. I'm not gonna tell you that I'm innocent, just that I use it to show you how fucked up it is. It obviously bothers you.

ill be honest with you bradley...as long as you take such a simplistic mindset toward policy making, your never going to have much of an understanding about why things occur in the fashion that they do.

Typical - maybe one day you'll honor the rest of us mere mortals with more than arrogance.

[protectedbygold]

You certainly are a feisty one, bradley

[CoffeeCream]

I ask you, do you think policy making is simply about how a policy is enacted and what it does? If this is anyones response i feel they are missing important parts about the policy creation and its enacting that cause them to miss important things. Im sorry if it was condescending, but it didnt seem like it was a point that needed to be spent another 500 words on, when the response was likely to be very similar.

No, but joecoolfrog showed with just a couple sentences how it could have been handled better. By just saying that the other side is too simplistic it comes off as nobody is good enough to even talk to you. Remember when you pm'd me with specific information about health care? You took the time to show me some information I'd never seen before. If you had told me I was being simplistic I probably would never have taken you serious ever again.

[Simon Viavant]

You're joking, right? That we should cut ties with the rest of the world, blockade North Korea and Iran (say hello to $15 a gallon gas), force a woman to bring a child into the world as a result of rape, disband the U.N., outlaw any immigration?
And by the way, how would you force this country to do this and order this country to pay for this and that? (They have nukes too, you know) The ignorance in this post is astounding.
By the way, idiot: forcing countries to do things militarily takes money. Lots of money. How will you pay for your tax cuts AND build the army to the level necessary to force countries to do anything? Our army has been unable to defeat some militias in some little third world desert countries. How will you do in dozens of countires what we've failed to do in two countries. How will you do it AND give benefits to people with heterosexual marriages AND pay for steep tax cuts? And enforce major crackdowns on petty domestic lawbreaking while cutting government agencies on top of all that?

[MeDeFe]

Brilliant usage of lies there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Says US is 8th place. Norway is on 4th.

Oh Snorri, there you go again jumping to conclusions. You can only make the 'liar liar pants on fire' excuse by claiming a different set of stats based on per capita.

Except that per capita was also what joecoolfrog initially used, when you came along and claimed that the USA would still be ranked highest.

[got tonkaed]

I ask you, do you think policy making is simply about how a policy is enacted and what it does? If this is anyones response i feel they are missing important parts about the policy creation and its enacting that cause them to miss important things. Im sorry if it was condescending, but it didnt seem like it was a point that needed to be spent another 500 words on, when the response was likely to be very similar.

No, but joecoolfrog showed with just a couple sentences how it could have been handled better. By just saying that the other side is too simplistic it comes off as nobody is good enough to even talk to you. Remember when you pm'd me with specific information about health care? You took the time to show me some information I'd never seen before. If you had told me I was being simplistic I probably would never have taken you serious ever again.

perhaps, i suppose i was just frustrated some offline things. I apologize. I think what frustrates me the most when i read bradleys posts is that people can take all the time in the world to explain where they are coming from on a variety of issues, and then in the next thread respond to an insult in kind, and then they become nothing but the same as all those others. It is as if he chooses not to recognize what a number of people have done in previous threads with him.

[Dancing Mustard]

Tell you what GT, how about I just stop pissing about with Bradley's constant moaning and stereotyping, quit dealing with him sensitively (after all, he seems to reply with the same line no matter what you type) and just tell him how I really feel, in my soft, cuddly, liberal way?

Easy sparky! You're having another one of your famous meltdowns.

And you're having one of your famous 'make up bollocks and state it as fact' sessions.
Sorry, but no matter how much you want to dip me in melted chocolate and suckle it from my toes, this isn't a meltdown. It's just me calmly pointing out the fact that you're talking bullshit. Again.

You're in serious need of a reality check if you're going to go make up stories about what I've posted in the past.

Well given that I'm just stating as fact things that you have posted in the past I guess we can leave the reality-checker on standby for the time being eh?
Nice attempt at misrepresenting what I was saying though... you right-wing chaps really have a knack for that.

you're pissed off at me because I've called attention to your favorite tactic - shouting and calling names at people in order to get them to quit disagreeing with you.

No no no, you have it all wrong. You're pissed at me because I've called attention to your favourite tactic - shouting and calling names at people in order to get them to quit disagreeing with you, then accusing them of doing the same when they tell you you're acting like an infant.

Seriously, you're the most argument-light insult-heavy 'debater' on this entire forum. Your entire schtick is repeating "Waaaa don't insult me. Fags!" on every page of every debate that takes your fancy. Your hypocrisy seems to know no limits (yes yes, "Waaa, stop calling me names! Fag!") and your ability to intelligently critique other's arguments has been consistently demonstrated to be nil.
You are irrelevant Bradley, and your repeated shrieking one-liner is nothing more than a crock of illusory shite. Please return to your seat and refrain from speaking until you have something intelligent to say.

Let me guess, here it comes again "Stop being horrible to me!! You Gay!!... but I'm afraid it's still not intelligent Bradley, no matter how loudly, and how many times you say it. It's still just boring hypocrisy.

I returned the favor to show you how stupid of a tactic it is. I'm not gonna tell you that I'm innocent, just that I use it to show you how fucked up it is.

So what you're saying is "I do this just as much as anybody else, but when I do it then it's ok, because I say so. Fags.". Convincing stuff I'm sure...

Scuttle back off under your soapbox and work on yet another "Waaa you are insulting me. You fags!!!1" post... after all, why change your habits of a lifetime? They are apparently all you are capable of.

[Napoleon Ier]

There ya go again, shifting the terms of the discussion and now comparing us to Europe. They had to create a European Union with their own common currency because they had been lagging behind the U.S. for so many years. Still, the average American generates more GDP than even the closest competitor, Norwegian citizens. It's a good thing that the rich pay far less than European counterparts as THEY ARE THE ONES WHO PROVIDE JOBS! Poor people don't generate jobs or wealth. European productivity is only about 80-85% of American productivity.

Brilliant usage of lies there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Says US is 8th place. Norway is on 4th.

As far as healthcare goes, they're not "getting" health care. They pay for it over there through higher taxation.

Word. Still, the USA remains the country that spends the most on healthcare both as a percentage of GDP and on a per capita basis.
STOP DENYING SIMPLE TRUTHS!
Is it really that hard to admit that other countries have it better? That your system isn't working because it's ridiculous?

Also, access to health care doesn't guarantee better quality of care.

...
No indeed it doesn't. The fun thing is that at least it means acces to fucking healthcare!!! Sure, the systems have problems but at least people don't die all the fucking time or go bankrupt.

Nobody has a right to live wherever they want just because they desire it.

Never stopped you guys though.

Also, why not? Give a reason instead of a statement.

This is starting to sound a lot like the rational behind the gay marriage thread. "We want to have it so we deserve it. If you don't give it to us then we'll get angry."

Except that you don't have a good argument against giving it. Again.

It is really condescending of you to assume that other people would do the same thing under those circumstances.

Except it's pretty much fucking true for everyone. The fact that this has happenend countless of times like Player said earlier with italians and irish and stuff is proof of that. I don't believe those who stayed behind did so because they thought it was immoral to earn more money.

No wonder most of you liberals are against the war on terror. By this rationale let's not enforce laws because it's only going to cause the truly evil to become more violent and act out against society. The truth is that evil must be confronted and stopped. You may not get everyone, but at least you make it as hard as possible.

That rationale is actually not that bad. The outlawing of booze for example made criminals rich, as drugs do now.
As for the "war on terror", it has the same problem because the people you are against are willing to fucking sacrifice their lives while we're having discussions on whether to give up a little piece of privacy possibly. It's basically unwinnable for us.

Also holy crap illegal immigrants are evil now?

Actually snorri, immigrants cost the US an average of $55.000 a pop.

The NHS also kills 13.000 people a year, according to James Bartholomew.


It's brilliant. In 1948, the Soviet Red Army had more employees than any other organization in Europe. The NHS was a close second, and yet it still killed off more people...

[suggs]

Hmmm. Nap seems to have reverted to BALLS. I can only assume its exam pressure. 13.000 people killed by the NHS per annum? Maybe.
How many lives does it save? Rhetorical question, the answer, very roughly, and taking the mean, medium AND mode, is SHIT LOADS.

[Dancing Mustard]

Can't help but think that figure might not be making the distinction between 'kills' and 'sees die on its watch'... rather too big a difference to gloss over I think.

[suggs]

No, Peter Sutcliffe roams our hospital beds. See his wife's exclusive "Why I like sheep dogs since Hubby became Prostitute Murderer" -NHS IN CRISIS exclusive, in The Mail on Sunday.

[Snorri1234]

Brilliant usage of lies there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Says US is 8th place. Norway is on 4th.

Oh Snorri, there you go again jumping to conclusions. You can only make the 'liar liar pants on fire' excuse by claiming a different set of stats based on per capita.

Yeah duder, I was referring to this:

Still, the average American generates more GDP than even the closest competitor, Norwegian citizens

The main problem here is that using total GDP is ridiculous as the USA is fucking big. Ofcourse they make more in total than Norway or Luxembourg, they have about 4,7 million and 0,5 million people living there compared to the 300+ million in the US.

[Napoleon Ier]

Can't help but think that figure might not be making the distinction between 'kills' and 'sees die on its watch'... rather too big a difference to gloss over I think.

The study in question is based on comparisons of international standards of healthcare.

[joecoolfrog]

Can't help but think that figure might not be making the distinction between 'kills' and 'sees die on its watch'... rather too big a difference to gloss over I think.

The study in question is based on comparisons of international standards of healthcare.

Link please.

[Napoleon Ier]

Can't help but think that figure might not be making the distinction between 'kills' and 'sees die on its watch'... rather too big a difference to gloss over I think.

The study in question is based on comparisons of international standards of healthcare.

Link please.

As quoted in "The Welfare State We're In", James Bartholomew.

Source: Prof. Sikora, based on WHO figures and estimates quoted by NAO.

Minimum number of deaths per annum resulting from NHS' below average position in world healthcare:
Cancer 10.000
Hospital Infection 5.000
Infant Deaths 140

TOTAL 15.140

[/quote]

[bradleybadly]

Word. Still, the USA remains the country that spends the most on healthcare both as a percentage of GDP and on a per capita basis.
STOP DENYING SIMPLE TRUTHS!
Is it really that hard to admit that other countries have it better? That your system isn't working because it's ridiculous?

So ridiculous that people from other countries come over here to have their operations done or get prescriptions which government-run systems sometimes deny their citizens because it's not "cost-effective".

The fun thing is that at least it means acces to fucking healthcare!!! Sure, the systems have problems but at least people don't die all the fucking time or go bankrupt.

I'm not sure why you think people are just dying over here left and right but that's false. Access to health care means nothing if the quality is crap. Long waiting lists and denial of certain prescriptions are just some of the problems happening to people who live under these systems. Access means nothing unless it meets the actual medical needs.

Nobody has a right to live wherever they want just because they desire it.

Never stopped you guys though.

What are you talking about? Please explain.

Except that you don't have a good argument against giving it. Again.

Sure I have but it angers you to consider it. Consent and desire are not reasons to overturn the law. Simply wanting something to be legal isn't a good basis.

Except it's pretty much fucking true for everyone. The fact that this has happenend countless of times like Player said earlier with italians and irish and stuff is proof of that. I don't believe those who stayed behind did so because they thought it was immoral to earn more money.

Countless times? That's a bit of a stretch. But it did happen. That's no excuse to repeat the mistake again though.

That rationale is actually not that bad. The outlawing of booze for example made criminals rich, as drugs do now. As for the "war on terror", it has the same problem because the people you are against are willing to fucking sacrifice their lives while we're having discussions on whether to give up a little piece of privacy possibly. It's basically unwinnable for us.

The outlawing of booze didn't make people rich. The people who decided to break the law made themselves rich illegally and in some cases got caught. I'm really not sure where you're going with the whole war against terror comparison. It just sounds like you've concluded that we can't win and anyone who suggests otherwise should just be quiet.

Let's talk about this again -

Brilliant usage of lies there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
Says US is 8th place. Norway is on 4th.

I went back and checked that magazine and it was from 2004. So figures have changed since then. I didn't lie about anything, Snorri. I would have to have had previous knowledge of what you posted in order for me to be purposefully lying. I didn't state my case clearly enough and went by total GDP figures. Mr. JoeFrog was right to point it out and I learned something. But that's a far cry from lying. To be honest, his way of discussing it was more effective than screaming "STOP IGNORING THE FUCKING FACTS!" How old are you?

[bradleybadly]

perhaps, i suppose i was just frustrated some offline things. I apologize. I think what frustrates me the most when i read bradleys posts is that people can take all the time in the world to explain where they are coming from on a variety of issues, and then in the next thread respond to an insult in kind, and then they become nothing but the same as all those others. It is as if he chooses not to recognize what a number of people have done in previous threads with him.

OK then I apologize for the verbal diarrhea part. But simply taking the time to explain where you're coming from doesn't mean your position is automatically correct. You may be passionate about what you believe but that doesn't mean what you believe in can't be questioned.

I believe policies should be judged by whether or not they are successful in dealing with the issue in question. Bringing in other criteria just seems like an excuse to criticize and change things that you don't like about it. Invent some criteria and whammo! - all of a sudden an effective policy is useless. Common sense says that if it dealt with a problem then it's effective. I know that probably sounds simplistic but it's usually liberal university professors who hardly ever venture beyond a blackboard and deal in the real world, who are the ones to criticize these policies. Not always, but in many cases.

[Napoleon Ier]

Furthermore, the reality in the US simply isn't a completely free market for health care, but a far more complex and nuanced web of government regulations, subsidies and taxes designed to artificially manipulate perceived inconsistencies within the market.

[bradleybadly]

you're having one of your famous 'make up bollocks and state it as fact' sessions. Sorry, but no matter how much you want to dip me in melted chocolate and suckle it from my toes, this isn't a meltdown. It's just me calmly pointing out the fact that you're talking bullshit. Again.

Well given that I'm just stating as fact things that you have posted in the past I guess we can leave the reality-checker on standby for the time being eh?
Nice attempt at misrepresenting what I was saying though... you right-wing chaps really have a knack for that.

Breathe! Breathe!

No no no, you have it all wrong. You're pissed at me because I've called attention to your favourite tactic - shouting and calling names at people in order to get them to quit disagreeing with you, then accusing them of doing the same when they tell you you're acting like an infant.

So you try to throw it back on me! Boy, you really are pissed that your favorite tactic has been exposed

Seriously, you're the most argument-light insult-heavy 'debater' on this entire forum. Your entire schtick is repeating "Waaaa don't insult me. Fags!" on every page of every debate that takes your fancy. Your hypocrisy seems to know no limits (yes yes, "Waaa, stop calling me names! Fag!") and your ability to intelligently critique other's arguments has been consistently demonstrated to be nil.

You are irrelevant Bradley, and your repeated shrieking one-liner is nothing more than a crock of illusory shite. Please return to your seat and refrain from speaking until you have something intelligent to say.

So irrelevant that you took the time to respond to what I said. Your meltdown continues as you lie about what I've said....

Let me guess, here it comes again "Stop being horrible to me!! You Gay!!... but I'm afraid it's still not intelligent Bradley, no matter how loudly, and how many times you say it. It's still just boring hypocrisy.

So what you're saying is "I do this just as much as anybody else, but when I do it then it's ok, because I say so. Fags.". Convincing stuff I'm sure...

I never called anyone a "fag" I used the terms homosexuals & same sex couples in that thread. You're just making stuff up now and in your blind rage showing how unbalanced you are.

Scuttle back off under your soapbox and work on yet another "Waaa you are insulting me. You fags!!!1" post... after all, why change your habits of a lifetime? They are apparently all you are capable of.

We've got a live one here! Get out the restraints & administer his sedative quickly!!!

[tzor]

The United States in terms of hospitals is like the beginning or War and Peace, "it was the best of times, it was the worst of times." Clearly we have a few hospitals out there that are fantastic. They cure the impossible on a daily basis. Then there are hospitals that are generally good but if you have some types of cancer, going there as opposed to the fantastic ones is the difference between life and death. And there are those that are simply horrid.

True story. A friend of mine goes into a local hospital for a routine colon operation. Where there complications develop and he goes into ICU. Going out of ICU he is left overnight where due to a rare medical condition (a reverse hernia I was told) he throws up in his sleep and chokes to death on his own vommit. This is not the only horror story I've heard from the place.

[Dancing Mustard]

Breathe! Breathe!

What are you talking about?

So you try to throw it back on me! Boy, you really are pissed that your favorite tactic has been exposed

The word you need to look up in your dictionary is 'projection'.
Why do you need to look it up you cry? Well Bradley, it's because that's what you're doing.

Your meltdown continues as you lie about what I've said....

The only liar here is the one who keeps trying to invent this fictitious 'meltdown'.
Seriously, how desperate have you become?

You're just making stuff up now and in your blind rage showing how unbalanced you are.

Back to the 'P' section of the dictionary you go...

We've got a live one here! Get out the restraints & administer his sedative quickly!!!

And again; wild deluded fantasy about how you hope your posts make me feel. Sad stuff indeed from a man who seems utterly unable to deal in facts and reason, but who spends his life railing against insults and fiction.

It appears that you have become the very thing you spend ever waking hour of your CC existance whinging about... or else that's who you were from the very start.

[InkL0sed]

Honestly guys... take it to FW. I don't come to Chatter Box to read people insulting each other without an ounce of debate.

Be relevant at the very least...

[Dancing Mustard]

Are you fucking looking at me?