logo Sign In

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 634

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Dek Rollins said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Dek Rollins said:

Collipso said:

The “they’ll get the guns anyway even if illegally” argument is nonsense. By that logic, why bother having laws in the first place?

In many states, as well as federally, smoking pot is illegal. People still do it constantly because they have some sort of access to it illegally. The same applies to pretty much any other product. If there is demand for it, at least a few of those demanding it will get their hands on it somehow.

Any other illegal drug, alcoholic beverages during prohibition, alcoholic beverages to minors today, porn to minors, child porn, etc. is accessible in some way to those who seek it hard enough. The same applies to weapons, especially considering the whole 3D printing situation.

So we should stop regulating child porn, alcohol, etc. because people are going to get it anyway, right? That’s what I’m hearing and it’s fucking stupid.

I never said that. It should all be regulated, but regulation will not ultimately stop every possible instance. It will just keep it down to a minimum of occurrence.

Of course. That’s exactly what all of us who want stricter gun regulations wants and expects. So I don’t understand why anyone argues against it with the “They’ll still get guns illegally” defense and it infuriates me that that defense actually seems to be working, seeing as how there’s been essentially no meaningful legislation or really any steps taken toward the necessary regulation to reduce gun violence/mass shootings for years.

Also, a point - the pro-gun (or should I say anti-regulation) lobby seems to think that those of us who want tougher gun laws expect such laws to completely eliminate these incidents. We don’t, that’s pretty much impossible and we know that. But 50 people dead from a mass shooting or two in a year is a hell of a lot better than hundreds or thousands from dozens of mass shootings in a year.

The thing is, we are all being over protective of our stance, because of the extremes on both sides. Plenty of people actually want to ban personal ownership of guns. This angers people who want to keep their guns and they start thinking everyone thinks this way. Apply that to the other side of the arguement and you’ve got a bunch of people who can’t compromise.

I agree with you though.

Truth is, even though a lot of people would prefer if there were no guns at all, almost none of them are actually advocating for that right now. Most people just want some level of reform. So, essentially, the two sides of the debate are “please let’s do something/anything,” and the other side is “let’s do literally nothing at all.” Only one of those seem like an extreme to me.

But you’re just ignoring the different arguments now. Frink and Yackwicks both said they wouldn’t mind a total ban in this thread, and there are definitely those who actually advocate for it out there. And then there are just people who think the current laws ate the best they can be without stepping on rights. Regardless of whether you agree with them, that stance is not very extreme. Extreme are the people who don’t want any hoops to jump through.

Army of Darkness: The Medieval Deadit | The Terminator - Color Regrade | The Wrong Trousers - Audio Preservation
SONIC RACES THROUGH THE GREEN FIELDS.
THE SUN RACES THROUGH A BLUE SKY FILLED WITH WHITE CLOUDS.
THE WAYS OF HIS HEART ARE MUCH LIKE THE SUN. SONIC RUNS AND RESTS; THE SUN RISES AND SETS.
DON’T GIVE UP ON THE SUN. DON’T MAKE THE SUN LAUGH AT YOU.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

Yackwicks?

Sounds like a town in NJ.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Dek Rollins said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Dek Rollins said:

Collipso said:

The “they’ll get the guns anyway even if illegally” argument is nonsense. By that logic, why bother having laws in the first place?

In many states, as well as federally, smoking pot is illegal. People still do it constantly because they have some sort of access to it illegally. The same applies to pretty much any other product. If there is demand for it, at least a few of those demanding it will get their hands on it somehow.

Any other illegal drug, alcoholic beverages during prohibition, alcoholic beverages to minors today, porn to minors, child porn, etc. is accessible in some way to those who seek it hard enough. The same applies to weapons, especially considering the whole 3D printing situation.

So we should stop regulating child porn, alcohol, etc. because people are going to get it anyway, right? That’s what I’m hearing and it’s fucking stupid.

I never said that. It should all be regulated, but regulation will not ultimately stop every possible instance. It will just keep it down to a minimum of occurrence.

Of course. That’s exactly what all of us who want stricter gun regulations wants and expects. So I don’t understand why anyone argues against it with the “They’ll still get guns illegally” defense and it infuriates me that that defense actually seems to be working, seeing as how there’s been essentially no meaningful legislation or really any steps taken toward the necessary regulation to reduce gun violence/mass shootings for years.

Also, a point - the pro-gun (or should I say anti-regulation) lobby seems to think that those of us who want tougher gun laws expect such laws to completely eliminate these incidents. We don’t, that’s pretty much impossible and we know that. But 50 people dead from a mass shooting or two in a year is a hell of a lot better than hundreds or thousands from dozens of mass shootings in a year.

The thing is, we are all being over protective of our stance, because of the extremes on both sides. Plenty of people actually want to ban personal ownership of guns. This angers people who want to keep their guns and they start thinking everyone thinks this way. Apply that to the other side of the arguement and you’ve got a bunch of people who can’t compromise.

I agree with you though.

Truth is, even though a lot of people would prefer if there were no guns at all, almost none of them are actually advocating for that right now. Most people just want some level of reform. So, essentially, the two sides of the debate are “please let’s do something/anything,” and the other side is “let’s do literally nothing at all.” Only one of those seem like an extreme to me.

But you’re just ignoring the different arguments now. Frink and Yackwicks both said they wouldn’t mind a total ban in this thread, and there are definitely those who actually advocate for it out there. And then there are just people who think the current laws ate the best they can be without stepping on rights. Regardless of whether you agree with them, that stance is not very extreme. Extreme are the people who don’t want any hoops to jump through.

I’m not ignoring that people say that, especially considering I’ve said something to that effect here before myself. What you’re saying though is that people can’t reach a compromise because their proposals are too disparate. That’s not really true - it would be if everyone who wanted to get rid of guns said “I will only accept a bill that makes all guns illegal,” but that’s simply not the case.

Almost anyone pro-gun control at this point would accept any additional regulation they could get, they’re not just being obstinate when it comes to any sort of compromise. It’s the people on the other side that are, saying that whenever a new gun control bill is proposed that they can’t pass it because it’s a slippery slope that will lead to taking away all the guns. Which is ridiculous. Even if many people hope that it is the first step to doing just that, that doesn’t mean that that step in and of itself is doing that. So stopping every piece of gun control legislation on principle just because it’s gun control legislation and who knows what the next bill might be is absolutely absurd and, yes, extreme.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

TV’s Frink said:

None of it means anything in relation to the current topic.

I don’t know, my name is Jacob and I do in fact use ladders from time to time.

Ok but I need to know if you’re a Rush fan, a Huey Lewis fan, or an Adrian Lyne fan.

That’s like Sophie’s choice, man. Harsh. Sometimes bad is bad.

These are 1/3 of fighting words.

Oh, so I’m walking on a thin line, am I?

WRONG 1/3

If this is it, please let me know.

The men who hold high places must be the ones to start.

You crack me up.

Be cool or be cast out.

I said cool is the rule.

I was at this obligatory social event with a friend once. We didn’t really want to be there, so we entertained ourselves by inventing a game. While we were having conversations, every time one of us named a band from the 80’s, we’d get a point, but only if nobody else noticed what we’d done – i.e. if it worked relatively well in the conversation and nobody said, “Hey, wasn’t that a band from the eighties?” There were lots of easy ones – the Police, for example. I was particularly proud of working the Dead Milkmen into normal conversation without anyone noticing.

Not sure what made me think of that. And no, I’m not suggesting it. Yet.

Aha ha ha ha. That sounds fun.

I don’t think anyone noticed, you won! 😉

Author
Time

Warbler said:

Warbler said:

Yackwicks?

still waiting for an answer for this.

Sometimes you can get cheaper fares there than Heathrow, that’s all I know.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

Warbler said:

Warbler said:

Yackwicks?

still waiting for an answer for this.

yhwx-

I mean Bruce.

Army of Darkness: The Medieval Deadit | The Terminator - Color Regrade | The Wrong Trousers - Audio Preservation
SONIC RACES THROUGH THE GREEN FIELDS.
THE SUN RACES THROUGH A BLUE SKY FILLED WITH WHITE CLOUDS.
THE WAYS OF HIS HEART ARE MUCH LIKE THE SUN. SONIC RUNS AND RESTS; THE SUN RISES AND SETS.
DON’T GIVE UP ON THE SUN. DON’T MAKE THE SUN LAUGH AT YOU.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Dek Rollins said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Dek Rollins said:

Collipso said:

The “they’ll get the guns anyway even if illegally” argument is nonsense. By that logic, why bother having laws in the first place?

In many states, as well as federally, smoking pot is illegal. People still do it constantly because they have some sort of access to it illegally. The same applies to pretty much any other product. If there is demand for it, at least a few of those demanding it will get their hands on it somehow.

Any other illegal drug, alcoholic beverages during prohibition, alcoholic beverages to minors today, porn to minors, child porn, etc. is accessible in some way to those who seek it hard enough. The same applies to weapons, especially considering the whole 3D printing situation.

So we should stop regulating child porn, alcohol, etc. because people are going to get it anyway, right? That’s what I’m hearing and it’s fucking stupid.

I never said that. It should all be regulated, but regulation will not ultimately stop every possible instance. It will just keep it down to a minimum of occurrence.

Of course. That’s exactly what all of us who want stricter gun regulations wants and expects. So I don’t understand why anyone argues against it with the “They’ll still get guns illegally” defense and it infuriates me that that defense actually seems to be working, seeing as how there’s been essentially no meaningful legislation or really any steps taken toward the necessary regulation to reduce gun violence/mass shootings for years.

Also, a point - the pro-gun (or should I say anti-regulation) lobby seems to think that those of us who want tougher gun laws expect such laws to completely eliminate these incidents. We don’t, that’s pretty much impossible and we know that. But 50 people dead from a mass shooting or two in a year is a hell of a lot better than hundreds or thousands from dozens of mass shootings in a year.

The thing is, we are all being over protective of our stance, because of the extremes on both sides. Plenty of people actually want to ban personal ownership of guns. This angers people who want to keep their guns and they start thinking everyone thinks this way. Apply that to the other side of the arguement and you’ve got a bunch of people who can’t compromise.

I agree with you though.

Truth is, even though a lot of people would prefer if there were no guns at all, almost none of them are actually advocating for that right now. Most people just want some level of reform. So, essentially, the two sides of the debate are “please let’s do something/anything,” and the other side is “let’s do literally nothing at all.” Only one of those seem like an extreme to me.

But you’re just ignoring the different arguments now. Frink and Yackwicks both said they wouldn’t mind a total ban in this thread, and there are definitely those who actually advocate for it out there. And then there are just people who think the current laws ate the best they can be without stepping on rights. Regardless of whether you agree with them, that stance is not very extreme. Extreme are the people who don’t want any hoops to jump through.

I’m not ignoring that people say that, especially considering I’ve said something to that effect here before myself. What you’re saying though is that people can’t reach a compromise because their proposals are too disparate. That’s not really true - it would be if everyone who wanted to get rid of guns said “I will only accept a bill that makes all guns illegal,” but that’s simply not the case.

Almost anyone pro-gun control at this point would accept any additional regulation they could get, they’re not just being obstinate when it comes to any sort of compromise. It’s the people on the other side that are, saying that whenever a new gun control bill is proposed that they can’t pass it because it’s a slippery slope that will lead to taking away all the guns. Which is ridiculous. Even if many people hope that it is the first step to doing just that, that doesn’t mean that that step in and of itself is doing that. So stopping every piece of gun control legislation on principle just because it’s gun control legislation and who knows what the next bill might be is absolutely absurd and, yes, extreme.

Your argument veers away from discussing policy and turns into a debate about whether a position counts as “extreme” or not. You’re advocating for a slippery slope where any time someone resists adopting a gun control law you may call them “extreme.” So even if bump stocks are outlawed and universal background checks implemented, as soon as another mass shooting happens, you call the people who voted for those things extreme if they resist further regulation. That is a weird definition of “extreme.”

As I suggested, I think there are other things that can be done to try to prevent gun violence. I don’t think someone is extreme if they push for such changes and concludes that various proposed gun regulations are either too extreme or ineffective.

That’s not to say a case can’t or shouldn’t be made for a proposal, I just don’t buy your definition or strategy of labeling certain positions “extreme.”

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Warbler said:

Yackwicks?

still waiting for an answer for this.

Sometimes you can get cheaper fares there than Heathrow, that’s all I know.

You made me google Yackwicks. Interesting top result.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Warbler said:

Yackwicks?

still waiting for an answer for this.

Sometimes you can get cheaper fares there than Heathrow, that’s all I know.

You made me google Yackwicks. Interesting top result.

Can’t make me 😉

But… back to the topic at hand, ineffective legislation is not necessarily bad. If your legislation addresses 0.000001% of cases, but A) it can pass and B) it doesn’t actually harm or even really inconvenience anyone, there’s no reason not to go ahead with it, assuming more effective legislation is simply unworkable. Which is why background checks, waiting periods, assault weapons bans are all okay in my book, even though they fall well short of a handgun ban. Well, except for “A” they’re okay 😦

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Dek Rollins said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Dek Rollins said:

Collipso said:

The “they’ll get the guns anyway even if illegally” argument is nonsense. By that logic, why bother having laws in the first place?

In many states, as well as federally, smoking pot is illegal. People still do it constantly because they have some sort of access to it illegally. The same applies to pretty much any other product. If there is demand for it, at least a few of those demanding it will get their hands on it somehow.

Any other illegal drug, alcoholic beverages during prohibition, alcoholic beverages to minors today, porn to minors, child porn, etc. is accessible in some way to those who seek it hard enough. The same applies to weapons, especially considering the whole 3D printing situation.

So we should stop regulating child porn, alcohol, etc. because people are going to get it anyway, right? That’s what I’m hearing and it’s fucking stupid.

I never said that. It should all be regulated, but regulation will not ultimately stop every possible instance. It will just keep it down to a minimum of occurrence.

Of course. That’s exactly what all of us who want stricter gun regulations wants and expects. So I don’t understand why anyone argues against it with the “They’ll still get guns illegally” defense and it infuriates me that that defense actually seems to be working, seeing as how there’s been essentially no meaningful legislation or really any steps taken toward the necessary regulation to reduce gun violence/mass shootings for years.

Also, a point - the pro-gun (or should I say anti-regulation) lobby seems to think that those of us who want tougher gun laws expect such laws to completely eliminate these incidents. We don’t, that’s pretty much impossible and we know that. But 50 people dead from a mass shooting or two in a year is a hell of a lot better than hundreds or thousands from dozens of mass shootings in a year.

The thing is, we are all being over protective of our stance, because of the extremes on both sides. Plenty of people actually want to ban personal ownership of guns. This angers people who want to keep their guns and they start thinking everyone thinks this way. Apply that to the other side of the arguement and you’ve got a bunch of people who can’t compromise.

I agree with you though.

Truth is, even though a lot of people would prefer if there were no guns at all, almost none of them are actually advocating for that right now. Most people just want some level of reform. So, essentially, the two sides of the debate are “please let’s do something/anything,” and the other side is “let’s do literally nothing at all.” Only one of those seem like an extreme to me.

But you’re just ignoring the different arguments now. Frink and Yackwicks both said they wouldn’t mind a total ban in this thread, and there are definitely those who actually advocate for it out there. And then there are just people who think the current laws ate the best they can be without stepping on rights. Regardless of whether you agree with them, that stance is not very extreme. Extreme are the people who don’t want any hoops to jump through.

I’m not ignoring that people say that, especially considering I’ve said something to that effect here before myself. What you’re saying though is that people can’t reach a compromise because their proposals are too disparate. That’s not really true - it would be if everyone who wanted to get rid of guns said “I will only accept a bill that makes all guns illegal,” but that’s simply not the case.

Almost anyone pro-gun control at this point would accept any additional regulation they could get, they’re not just being obstinate when it comes to any sort of compromise. It’s the people on the other side that are, saying that whenever a new gun control bill is proposed that they can’t pass it because it’s a slippery slope that will lead to taking away all the guns. Which is ridiculous. Even if many people hope that it is the first step to doing just that, that doesn’t mean that that step in and of itself is doing that. So stopping every piece of gun control legislation on principle just because it’s gun control legislation and who knows what the next bill might be is absolutely absurd and, yes, extreme.

Your argument veers away from discussing policy and turns into a debate about whether a position counts as “extreme” or not. You’re advocating for a slippery slope where any time someone resists adopting a gun control law you may call them “extreme.” So even if bump stocks are outlawed and universal background checks implemented, as soon as another mass shooting happens, you call the people who voted for those things extreme if they resist further regulation. That is a weird definition of “extreme.”

As I suggested, I think there are other things that can be done to try to prevent gun violence. I don’t think someone is extreme if they push for such changes and concludes that various proposed gun regulations are either too extreme or ineffective.

That’s not to say a case can’t or shouldn’t be made for a proposal, I just don’t buy your definition or strategy of labeling certain positions “extreme.”

Um, no. First of all whether or not I consider someone’s position “extreme” is the least important part of my posts. It only matters insofar as it relates to one’s actions on the matter. Even if you have an “extreme” position like “we should ban all guns,” in practice that extreme position isn’t an issue if you’re willing to compromise and pass less extreme common sense gun laws.

Just because someone doesn’t pass a law doesn’t make them extreme, but if they refuse to pass any laws and trot out the same tired nonsense every time (“slippery slope government will steal all our guns next”) then that’s extreme, I think. But again, I use the word “extreme” only in the sense that they’re being obstinate and not willing to compromise.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Careful Arizona, you might (effectively) lose your independent voting commission:

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arizona/articles/2018-02-14/legislative-leaders-push-redistricting-commission-changes

As Arizona turns more and more purple, it seems fairly predictable there’d be pressure on the GOP to go the way of Virginia and North Carolina on this, to maintain certain control of the state for another few decades.

How’s it work? Keep the commission, but guarantee gridlock in the commission, then the legislature effectively draws the maps because the commission mysteriously stops performing its stated function, and right in 2020 when Arizona needs it most.

Please vote Hell No on this if you live in AZ. Why overhaul something that seems to be working reasonably well, right before you need to use it?

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

Mrebo said:

The nation’s highest military court has thrown out the 2012 rape conviction of a Coast Guard enlisted man because admirals and prosecutors packed the seven-member jury with five women, four of whom held jobs as advocates for victims of sexual assault.

Due process?

I’m still annoyed by what appear to be the beliefs of some of this forum’s regulars. It’s not just the tolerance for improper jury selection, but the apparent perception of those who advocate for proper justice as well.

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

but the apparent perception of those who advocate for proper justice as well.

?

Author
Time

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

but the apparent perception of those who advocate for proper justice as well.

?

Though I could be wrong, it seems yhwx and Frink think that my reason for supporting a fair trial may be rooted in sexism or tolerance for a culture of rape.

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

but the apparent perception of those who advocate for proper justice as well.

?

Though I could be wrong, it seems yhwx and Frink think that my reason for supporting a fair trial may be rooted in sexism or tolerance for a culture of rape.

Um…what?

Author
Time

Sir Ridley said:

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

TV’s Frink said:

None of it means anything in relation to the current topic.

I don’t know, my name is Jacob and I do in fact use ladders from time to time.

Ok but I need to know if you’re a Rush fan, a Huey Lewis fan, or an Adrian Lyne fan.

That’s like Sophie’s choice, man. Harsh. Sometimes bad is bad.

These are 1/3 of fighting words.

Oh, so I’m walking on a thin line, am I?

WRONG 1/3

If this is it, please let me know.

The men who hold high places must be the ones to start.

You crack me up.

Be cool or be cast out.

I said cool is the rule.

I was at this obligatory social event with a friend once. We didn’t really want to be there, so we entertained ourselves by inventing a game. While we were having conversations, every time one of us named a band from the 80’s, we’d get a point, but only if nobody else noticed what we’d done – i.e. if it worked relatively well in the conversation and nobody said, “Hey, wasn’t that a band from the eighties?” There were lots of easy ones – the Police, for example. I was particularly proud of working the Dead Milkmen into normal conversation without anyone noticing.

Not sure what made me think of that. And no, I’m not suggesting it. Yet.

Aha ha ha ha. That sounds fun.

I don’t think anyone noticed, you won! 😉

D’oh! Nobody noticed until you did! Now the only way he can earn the point is if you’re also playing.

The trick is that this was initially conceived as a verbal, in-person game, and rules may need to be adjusted for text. So instead of making a reference and raising an eyebrow at the other player, maybe you’d use a winking smiley or something. The other problem is that many of the references might only be visible if you say the words out loud, as the reference may cross all sorts of lexical boundaries in text form but be pretty straightforward when spoken. This would be especially visible as your references drift further away from vanilla. I see we’re off to a pretty good start though 😉

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

CatBus said:

Sir Ridley said:

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

Possessed said:

TV’s Frink said:

None of it means anything in relation to the current topic.

I don’t know, my name is Jacob and I do in fact use ladders from time to time.

Ok but I need to know if you’re a Rush fan, a Huey Lewis fan, or an Adrian Lyne fan.

That’s like Sophie’s choice, man. Harsh. Sometimes bad is bad.

These are 1/3 of fighting words.

Oh, so I’m walking on a thin line, am I?

WRONG 1/3

If this is it, please let me know.

The men who hold high places must be the ones to start.

You crack me up.

Be cool or be cast out.

I said cool is the rule.

I was at this obligatory social event with a friend once. We didn’t really want to be there, so we entertained ourselves by inventing a game. While we were having conversations, every time one of us named a band from the 80’s, we’d get a point, but only if nobody else noticed what we’d done – i.e. if it worked relatively well in the conversation and nobody said, “Hey, wasn’t that a band from the eighties?” There were lots of easy ones – the Police, for example. I was particularly proud of working the Dead Milkmen into normal conversation without anyone noticing.

Not sure what made me think of that. And no, I’m not suggesting it. Yet.

Aha ha ha ha. That sounds fun.

I don’t think anyone noticed, you won! 😉

D’oh! Nobody noticed until you did! Now the only way he can earn the point is if you’re also playing.

The trick is that this was initially conceived as a verbal, in-person game, and rules may need to be adjusted for text. So instead of making a reference and raising an eyebrow at the other player, maybe you’d use a winking smiley or something. The other problem is that many of the references might only be visible if you say the words out loud, as the reference may cross all sorts of lexical boundaries in text form but be pretty straightforward when spoken. This would be especially visible as your references drift further away from vanilla. I see we’re off to a pretty good start though 😉

I’m in on the rules, so technically maybe I’m playing even though I haven’t made a reference yet. So let him have the point! Somebody has to notice or nobody would get a point.

Let’s just say this is part of the Electric Boogaloo because I don’t have anything to add about politics at this point.

I’ll say Cobb has a point or two (or three), though, not just from 80s references.

Author
Time

Do you guys think we wouldn’t be in this position regarding guns if the constitution was uncodified? Do you guys think it’d be worth it?

I saw some people arguing that and I personally don’t think it’d be worth it but maybe we wouldn’t be in this situation right now.