Why be liberal?

[Southern Man]

I think it’s fair to say that there are extreme liberals in America as well as extreme conservatives, and the majority of Americans consider themselves too clean to be in either camp and call themselves moderates.

Let’s examine what would happen if either fringe simply went away.

If all the conservatives went away the liberals would have their way and you’d have rampant socialism. That has failed every time it’s been tried.

If all the liberals went away we would return to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. All men are created equal, certain unalienable rights, minimization of government, low taxes, and maximum freedom. Who would not want that?

So why would anyone choose to be liberal, in the contemporary sense of the word?

[Bill]

The sex is better. Then there's all the money.

But it's the sex that clinches it.

[kres24GT]

I think it’s fair to say that there are extreme liberals in America as well as extreme conservatives, and the majority of Americans consider themselves too clean to be in either camp and call themselves moderates.

Let’s examine what would happen if either fringe simply went away.

If all the conservatives went away the liberals would have their way and you’d have rampant socialism. That has failed every time it’s been tried.

If all the liberals went away we would return to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. All men are created equal, certain unalienable rights, minimization of government, low taxes, and maximum freedom. Who would not want that?

So why would anyone choose to be liberal, in the contemporary sense of the word?


I assume you don't vote for Dems or Reps right, the parties of big government? Libertarian???

[Southern Man]

What evidence do you have that suggests that liberals have more sex and money than conservatives?

But knock yourself out. I'll take the conservative chics any day. :D

[Southern Man]

I assume you don't vote for Dems or Reps right, the parties of big government? Libertarian??? I think anyone would be a fool to throw their vote away and vote libertarian. Although I agree with most of their ideas. For example:
1. Fair Tax or whatever Bortz is calling it. Good idea.
2. Legalize all drugs. Again good idea. But the purity and concentration have to be regulated, just like booze.
3. On the local level, zero zoning/ planning. Bad idea, as it devalues property and stifles investment.

[Moby]

Another Southern Man that listens to Fox instead or learning. Do you know the difference between a conservative and a neo-con? The republican party is controlled by the neo-cons now. Read the fucking white papers and tell me again that they want smaller government and freedom.

You have Internet access and it appears that you can read. Show me the data to support it.

"There can be no peace as long as there are different moral values." How does that point to freedom?

[Southern Man]

Another Southern Man that listens to Fox instead or learning. Do you know the difference between a conservative and a neo-con? The republican party is controlled by the neo-cons now. Read the fucking white papers and tell me again that they want smaller government and freedom.

You have Internet access and it appears that you can read. Show me the data to support it.

"There can be no peace as long as there are different moral values." How does that point to freedom?
Where did I mention support for the GOP in my OP?

Is the Straw Man the only tactic liberals know in this forum?

[kres24GT]

I think anyone would be a fool to throw their vote away and vote libertarian. Although I agree with most of their ideas. For example:
1. Fair Tax or whatever Bortz is calling it. Good idea.
2. Legalize all drugs. Again good idea. But the purity and concentration have to be regulated, just like booze.
3. On the local level, zero zoning/ planning. Bad idea, as it devalues property and stifles investment.

To me throwing your vote away os voting for the same garbage over and over again (Reps and Dems) an expecting change. If you are for freedom and small government voting for Rs or Ds is throwing your vote away.

[Southern Man]

To me throwing your vote away os voting for the same garbage over and over again (Reps and Dems) an expecting change. If you are for freedom and small government voting for Rs or Ds is throwing your vote away. I suspect that you are looking for the 'home run' in politics, and our system is not set up that way. That is unless you are advocating a revolution. So you'll have to settle with pushing the pendulum as hard as you can when it starts to swing towrd your side. That plus using persuasion.

[kres24GT]

I suspect that you are looking for the 'home run' in politics, and our system is not set up that way. That is unless you are advocating a revolution. So you'll have to settle with pushing the pendulum as hard as you can when it starts to swing towrd your side. That plus using persuasion.

If people like yourself truly loved freedom, and weren't bound by party lines, it wouldn't be a problem. More and more people are getting fed up with the Reps and Dems, before too long they will no longer be a minority.

[Southern Man]

If people like yourself truly loved freedom, and weren't bound by party lines, it wouldn't be a problem. More and more people are getting fed up with the Reps and Dems, before too long they will no longer be a minority.
I don't see the Democrat Party losing membership lately, nor do I see any of their candidates more in line with my philosophy than Republicans. So until there is a viable 3rd party I'll keep voting for the lesser of two evils.

[kres24GT]

I don't see the Democrat Party losing membership lately, nor do I see any of their candidates more in line with my philosophy than Republicans. So until there is a viable 3rd party I'll keep voting for the lesser of two evils.


I'm not even sure which that is anymore. I'll vote for something meaningful, not the same old crap.

[Southern Man]

I'm not even sure which that is anymore. I'll vote for something meaningful, not the same old crap. I made that mistake with Perot and look what it got me. "Fool me twice...."

[Linkster]

As far as your suggestion of advocating a revolution - I would go along with that - seems that would be the only thing that would really put us back at the basic level of what the founding fathers intended with the Constitution.
Can you imagine how nice it would be to finally have religion no longer supported or displayed by the government like it was prior to the 1950s, congressional representatives that at least listened to their constituents instead of the party line, and true powerful state government instead of a federal one.
Just think - no military, no IRS, no welfare etc etc - what a wonderful place the US would be

[Southern Man]

As far as your suggestion of advocating a revolution - I would go along with that - seems that would be the only thing that would really put us back at the basic level of what the founding fathers intended with the Constitution.
Can you imagine how nice it would be to finally have religion no longer supported or displayed by the government like it was prior to the 1950s, congressional representatives that at least listened to their constituents instead of the party line, and true powerful state government instead of a federal one.
Just think - no military, no IRS, no welfare etc etc - what a wonderful place the US would be I agree that would be just about perfect.

How long has the ten commandments and Moses been cast into the edifice of the SCOTUS building?

[Linkster]

Since 1947 when the court held that the 14th amendment incorporated the 1st amendments establisment clause - thats the first real time they got involved with making rules that would filter down to requirements for states since they were getting federal money for thier public schools

[Southern Man]

Since 1947 when the court held that the 14th amendment incorporated the 1st amendments establisment clause - thats the first real time they got involved with making rules that would filter down to requirements for states since they were getting federal money for thier public schools
I was talking about the physical building- the architecture. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf

[Kinky Jones]

If all the liberals went away we would return to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. All men are created equal, certain unalienable rights, minimization of government, low taxes, and maximum freedom. Who would not want that?

seeing as that just happened in the first years of the bush administration where libs had no power and threw away what little they did have, and we got the patriot act, which is the farthest thing from the declaration of independence, i would say that you are not correct sir


just curious but what are your reasons for believing the the reds are the lesser of two evils?

[Southern Man]

seeing as that just happened in the first years of the bush administration where libs had no power and threw away what little they did have, and we got the patriot act, which is the farthest thing from the declaration of independence, i would say that you are not correct sir


just curious but what are your reasons for believing the the reds are the lesser of two evils?

1. I think the Patriot act is prudent in these modern times when we are at war with a religion. In fact if I had it my way I would do more to target muslims and in fact regulate the religion, the way islamist goverments regulate non-muslim religions.
2. When you refer to reds I'm assuming that you mean GOP, which may or may not mean conservative. It is rare that Democrats (blues) are conservative.

[Linkster]

I agree that would be just about perfect.

How long has the ten commandments and Moses been cast into the edifice of the SCOTUS building?

I dont believe that is there because of religious reasons - I might be wrong but isnt that a sculpture of a whole bunch of different people that instituted laws on different parts of society - like I see Confucious in there

[Linkster]

1. I think the Patriot act is prudent in these modern times when we are at war with a religion

I would have to disagree with part of that in that I dont think any sort of "Enabling Act" is prudent ever in the US - I have never liked how it was used in the late 1930s by Hitler and I certainly dont like how this current administration has used it (or in some cases ignored the parts they dont like)

As far as being at war with religion - I would have to say that is each citizens personal choice - Im certainly not at war with anyone and I dont believe the US has declared any wars that I know of in the last 50 years that I remember hearing about - maybe some in the media and in higher political positions use the terms to scare the populace into doing what they want - but then my motto has always been that you are not free as long as you are afraid - and I choose to be not afraid of anything ever :)

[Kinky Jones]

1. I think the Patriot act is prudent in these modern times when we are at war with a religion. In fact if I had it my way I would do more to target muslims and in fact regulate the religion, the way islamist goverments regulate non-muslim religions.
2. When you refer to reds I'm assuming that you mean GOP, which may or may not mean conservative. It is rare that Democrats (blues) are conservative.

so you want to get back to the declaration of independence by supporting the people who brought us the patriot act? and we ar not at war with a religion we are at war with "terror" which makes even less sense and thus most US citizens went along with it without asking questions or trying to find "the truth" as you said you were looking for previously...

are you a bush supporter still or are you a "bush is the one bad conservative" conservative?

reds = republicans, there are two choices and you choose the lesser of the evils and stated you don't vote for democrats so what is your reasoning behind believing republican politicians are "conservative" these days... unless a religious conservative with no money sense whatsoever passes for a conservative these days i tend to think that neither side has a lot of true conservatives...

[Southern Man]

I dont believe that is there because of religious reasons - I might be wrong but isnt that a sculpture of a whole bunch of different people that instituted laws on different parts of society - like I see Confucious in there But it still blows that "separation of church and state" thing all to hell, don't it?

[Southern Man]

I would have to disagree with part of that in that I dont think any sort of "Enabling Act" is prudent ever in the US - I have never liked how it was used in the late 1930s by Hitler and I certainly dont like how this current administration has used it (or in some cases ignored the parts they dont like)

As far as being at war with religion - I would have to say that is each citizens personal choice - Im certainly not at war with anyone and I dont believe the US has declared any wars that I know of in the last 50 years that I remember hearing about - maybe some in the media and in higher political positions use the terms to scare the populace into doing what they want - but then my motto has always been that you are not free as long as you are afraid - and I choose to be not afraid of anything ever :)

As you don'r have any evidence of abuse of the Patriot act I am making the bold assumption that the Bush Administration is using it wisely.

We have been at war with muslims since revolutionary days, "The Halls of Montezuma" and all that. I think an interpretation of the Constitution would allow regulation of Islam within our borders in order to fight that enemy.

[Southern Man]

so you want to get back to the declaration of independence by supporting the people who brought us the patriot act? and we ar not at war with a religion we are at war with "terror" which makes even less sense and thus most US citizens went along with it without asking questions or trying to find "the truth" as you said you were looking for previously...

are you a bush supporter still or are you a "bush is the one bad conservative" conservative?

reds = republicans, there are two choices and you choose the lesser of the evils and stated you don't vote for democrats so what is your reasoning behind believing republican politicians are "conservative" these days... unless a religious conservative with no money sense whatsoever passes for a conservative these days i tend to think that neither side has a lot of true conservatives... I have know many republicans to have boughts with conservativism but very few Democrats. Especially lately now that the are cow-towing to the George Soros Very Large Dollars Committee.

[Kinky Jones]

I have know many republicans to have boughts with conservativism but very few Democrats. Especially lately now that the are cow-towing to the George Soros Very Large Dollars Committee.

would you care to go out on a limb and name some names of good conservatives in the republican party today? or blow more the democrats are worser smoke...

[Southern Man]

Why not start your own thread instead of trying to derail this one. So why are you liberal?

[Kinky Jones]

Why not start your own thread instead of trying to derail this one. So why are you liberal?

i'm gonna make a broad assumption that this thread was pretty much derailed from the start :rolleyes:

[Southern Man]

i'm gonna make a broad assumption that this thread was pretty much derailed from the start :rolleyes:
You have the rare opportunity here to explain why you are liberal. Apparently you can't.

[Linkster]

As you don'r have any evidence of abuse of the Patriot act I am making the bold assumption that the Bush Administration is using it wisely.

We have been at war with muslims since revolutionary days, "The Halls of Montezuma" and all that. I think an interpretation of the Constitution would allow regulation of Islam within our borders in order to fight that enemy.

I do actually have evidence that they are abusing it - and they have recently issued new rules on torture to the CIA based on that abuse which automatically put them in the position of admitting that they had abused it - there are numerous other cases that are in the court system right now with proof however I would guess that its going to be at least two year before they are settled and Bush will be long gone to Venezuala or wherever he bought the retirement ranch in So America so no one will get prosecuted.

WE havent been at war with muslims - maybe some in the US are mentally at war with the based on their own prejudices but that is only because they choose to not adopt the Constitution in the spirit of the writers
and BTW - Montezuma was an Aztec Indian ruler - which has nothing whatsoever to do with muslims :banghead:

[Moby]

Monkey Sees Fox News, Monkey Believes Fox News

lib·er·al /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
–noun 14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.

[Southern Man]

I do actually have evidence that they are abusing it - and they have recently issued new rules on torture to the CIA based on that abuse which automatically put them in the position of admitting that they had abused it - there are numerous other cases that are in the court system right now with proof however I would guess that its going to be at least two year before they are settled and Bush will be long gone to Venezuala or wherever he bought the retirement ranch in So America so no one will get prosecuted.

WE havent been at war with muslims - maybe some in the US are mentally at war with the based on their own prejudices but that is only because they choose to not adopt the Constitution in the spirit of the writers
and BTW - Montezuma was an Aztec Indian ruler - which has nothing whatsoever to do with muslims :banghead:

1. What's your definition of torture? Does it include waterboarding?

2. http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles...ic_slavery.htm



What Thomas Jefferson learned
from the Muslim book of jihad

By Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
January 2007

....
Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.

The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and women as possible so the preferred "booty" of only young women and children could be collected.

Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow.

Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created "eunuch stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.

When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.

Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.

Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.

Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.

In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain.

The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.

During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.

Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.

The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.

In 1805, American Marines marched across the desert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.

During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.

Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli, We fight our country's battles in the air, on land and sea."

It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.

Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.

[Southern Man]

Monkey Sees Fox News, Monkey Believes Fox News

lib·er·al /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
–noun 14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.

The definition of liberal in a political sense is defined by the leaders of the liberal wing of the Democrat party, as well as the leaders in the liberal movement. Hellow Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Mike Moore and Cindy Sheehan.

[stefan segal]

"Why be liberal?"

The notion of liberal, is anyone who takes the longer view of a healthy, prosperous society...the belief that the tide should lift all boats.

The other named groupings, from the unforgiving libertarian to conservative to neo-con and those using christiananity to hide their programs of non-christianity, are all depict varying levels of selfish greediness...allow god to sort the bodies of the less fortunate and less agressive...as the liberals aren't counted among those, being mostly successful or at least sufficient to thier own needs.

I read all the comments here...no one seems to address the question of "why be liberal?". I could more rightoly ask: 'why be so competitive you feel moved to stand on your fellows necks to insure your financial balance?"

What is wrong with a social plan, like the financial high we all experienced as a direct result of the GI Bill, that gave everyone (left alive to claim it) money for education?

What is so wrong with everyone sharing a piece of the pie? I believe these grab-bag names like liberal/conservative only serve the real problem of corporate coup of our gavernment. We should be united in demanding changes in corporate law...we need defang these paracites before it is too late for us to do anything to help ourselves. A list like this on should be used to unify and promote remedies...we are fast loosing this war and don't have the time or resorces to waste on nonsense.

Stefan

[Southern Man]

"Why be liberal?"

The notion of liberal, is anyone who takes the longer view of a healthy, prosperous society...the belief that the tide should lift all boats.

The other named groupings, from the unforgiving libertarian to conservative to neo-con and those using christiananity to hide their programs of non-christianity, are all depict varying levels of selfish greediness...allow god to sort the bodies of the less fortunate and less agressive...as the liberals aren't counted among those, being mostly successful or at least sufficient to thier own needs.

I read all the comments here...no one seems to address the question of "why be liberal?". I could more rightoly ask: 'why be so competitive you feel moved to stand on your fellows necks to insure your financial balance?"

What is wrong with a social plan, like the financial high we all experienced as a direct result of the GI Bill, that gave everyone (left alive to claim it) money for education?

What is so wrong with everyone sharing a piece of the pie? I believe these grab-bag names like liberal/conservative only serve the real problem of corporate coup of our gavernment. We should be united in demanding changes in corporate law...we need defang these paracites before it is too late for us to do anything to help ourselves. A list like this on should be used to unify and promote remedies...we are fast loosing this war and don't have the time or resorces to waste on nonsense.

Stefan

This is a confusing posts. The reference to "rising tide" is actually a conservative doctrine, and in direct conflict with much of the remainder of your post. This is more evidence to support my theory that liberals don't understand basic modern economics.

[Kinky Jones]

You have the rare opportunity here to explain why you are liberal. Apparently you can't.

you are one big walking contradiction, otherwise known today as a hypocrite... why don't you prove that a self labeled conservative can actually discuss something with intelligence, you are proving that conservtives are incapable of it and i'm seeing why they refuse to debate anything in congress, they don't know how :(

[stefan segal]

Southern man..."the tde raising all ships" is refererncing the sharing of wealth among all.

I don't know from where you draw your comment of this being a conservative view...it was definately a liberalizing view when it was introduced...in fact, many accused FDR of being a communist for his programs...definitely not conservative.

In fact, his programs were designed to stimulate our economy by broadening the wealth among the many..."thus rising all ships".

Stefan

[Bill]

You guys are wasting your time.

There's only one answer necessary, and I already gave it.

[Southern Man]

you are one big walking contradiction, otherwise known today as a hypocrite... why don't you prove that a self labeled conservative can actually discuss something with intelligence, you are proving that conservtives are incapable of it and i'm seeing why they refuse to debate anything in congress, they don't know how :( Substitute 'liberal' for 'conservative' in that sentence and you've hit the nail square.

[Southern Man]

Southern man..."the tde raising all ships" is refererncing the sharing of wealth among all.

....


Actually JFK said that, just prior to cutting tax rates on the wealthy. As conservative Democrat, somewhat of a rarity these days, he understood that this would enable them to make capital investments, hire more people, and increase productivity. As a result the economy soared and the population as a whole got richer. Ronald Reagan did the same thing after the Carter debacle. The Bush 43 did it after the Bush 41- Clinton debacle. It has worked every time it's been tried.

[Southern Man]

You guys are wasting your time.

There's only one answer necessary, and I already gave it.

Oh center of all knowledge: where?