Lucky...

what is a cop moron ? I think they are all cop morons, we abbreviate by calling them, "cops."

Not a chance. Another fine product from a neck state, from AZ, I can attest to what a toilet the legislators are here with the Nazizona, 'show us your papers.' But you have (on this site) shown support for "show us your papers"???? Which do you believe? It's so much more fun when you cite your example You support us showing the IRS papers proving we health insurance That was clearly the part of the bill I don't like and have said that it probably won't hold up to SCOTUS test. I've said this a few times; do a search. Shame for you, back to the drawing board: Rush = Not to mention a fiscal requirement is in way = to a law that: - Cops can be sued if a person feels they aren't enforcing it the way that person likes - Subjects any brown person to random searches - Takes families where let's say the parents are illegals and makes the legals (kids) into felons if the parents stay at their house, ride in their car. Even if the ins req sticks, there is no way you can compare that to this POS bill. The Pima county Sheriff has denouncd it and said he won't go along with it, will sue to have it nullified, etc. One thing for sure, the law really shows neck color, there's no hiding.

Not a chance. Another fine product from a neck state, from AZ, I can attest to what a toilet the legislators are here with the Nazizona, 'show us your papers.' But you have (on this site) shown support for "show us your papers"???? Which do you believe? It's so much more fun when you cite your example

Are sewer workers inherently big? I'm not small. Furthermore, point was that we have all this sensitivity toward cops; why?

Yea but when you type, "applesauce" you get 2.3M hits.

If you type "Barack Obama" into Google one of the top ten autocompletions that comes up is "birth certificate". Evidently it is NOT a dead horse for a lot of people Well then I say: fuck them and the dead horse tehy rode in on.

Look, I don't like what's going on in politics today either (by either side), but that horse has been dead for a couple of years now and its not going to get any new life. The Dems let go of the 200 election BS, tea baggers cannot let this go; sucks to be them.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fluctuates Not sure what language you're speaking, I like English. fluc·tu·ate (flkch-t) v. fluc·tu·at·ed, fluc·tu·at·ing, fluc·tu·ates v.intr. 1. To vary irregularly. See Synonyms at swing. 2. To rise and fall in or as if in waves; undulate. fluctuate [ˈflʌktjʊˌeɪt] vb 1. to change or cause to change position constantly; be or make unstable; waver or vary 2. (intr) to rise and fall like a wave; undulate Quite obviosly a fluctuation is more of a wide swing, instability, etc...... but that's under the rules of English. Yea, a box with wheels; how tricky Uh, yea. After failing to know what, "swell and draw" means in regard to rivets, you said, "the test is over." I would never try to convine someone that has done an occupation all his life that I know more than him, but hey, that's just the way I Troll. fixed it for u Thx for popping in, sorry that the market rebounded 50+ points, maybe another 911 under Obama would bring you joy.

And you just posted projected #'s going >6 years into the future? I'm embarrassed for you

Yea, the fascist pig ran it up for no good reason. It was measureably reduced under each. Both closed bases, both cut massive troops. Yes, Clinton managed a real surplus,. sorry the country didn't tank under him making all conservatives smile with gleee. 50% is about right. No, 30 years of spending by today's dollars 600B/yr. Let's 1/2 that and mult by 30, shall we? 600B x 30 = 18T X .5 = 9T which is ironically about what the total debt increase was from 1981 until Obama took office. Altho yes, it's not that simple, the massive tax cuts under Reagan and smaller ones under GWb were big in that too. As well, the bank/mortgage industry has ass-raped us hard too. Ah yes, using projected #'s from >6 years away is prudent and you cite the Onion deal, of course ignore hwt's CNNBC to hep a brother out. Why not use what we have, unempm GDP, market, etc? Oh, they don't support your opinions well? Ok, I see.

Oh I'm sorry, I expect adults to deal in larger periods of time. Hell, break it down to the microcosm of minuites; it would be massively crazy. When you talk trends, you talk larger periods of time; http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EDJI+Basic+Chart&t=my Look at teh max period and now you see major fluctuations. These are great for profit takers who often orchestrate them, but bad for many individuals. As for sarcasm, now that's a backpeddal. You posted to try to show the Dem recovery is not working, wanna try to show that's not true - good luck.

Oh, I see, the 07-09 congress, which has the House Dem-controlled and Senate tied, Cheney broke 8 ties, 11th most of 47 VP's, and you say the Senate was Dem-controlled, counselor? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tie-breaking_votes_cast_by_Vice_Presidents_of_the_United_States Oh, what spending occurred under the 07-09 congress? The bank bailout presided over by your turd? The same one where he did nothing? Just like 911, spent the entire moth before 911 on vacation, he watched as the country took a shit and the banks were failing and you say that was bad to bail them out? Don't you understand history? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Law_110-343 HERE' HOW TARP WAS FUNDED: The first version of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (structured as an amendment to H.R. 3997) was rejected by the House of Representatives on September 29. After its defeat, Senate leaders decided to amend an existing bill from the House in order to circumvent the revenue origination clause of U.S. Constitution, and chose H.R. 1424 as the vehicle for the the legislation.[5][6][7][8] H.R. 1424 was sponsored by United States House Representative Patrick J. Kennedy.[3] On September 30, 2008, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell announced the proposed draft had been formalized for the amendment that would transform H.R. 1424 into the Senate version of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.[9][10][11] On October 1, 2008, the amendment to H.R. 1424 was approved by a vote of 74 to 25, and the entire amended bill was passed by 74 to 25, (with one not voting, the cancer-stricken Senator Ted Kennedy). The bill was returned to the House for consideration.[12][13] On October 3, 2008, the bill as passed by the Senate was accepted by a vote of 263 to 171 in the House. Every member of the House voted, though the House has a vacant seat of the recently-deceased Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law a few hours later.[14][15] So it was a bipartisan bill, yet you want to blame the Dems as you pretend not to be a Reapublican. Again, leting the banks fail was a good idea? I guess good for you, cheap labor, but as a nation it would be bad. I would have preferred to socialize the banks, but the US won;t do that so we need to make teh billionaires whole again. [Reply]Not to mention the mess was made, the house mess peaked in late 2006, so just as Obama inherited the huge mess, the Jan 07 senate got to enjoy the start of that mess and unfucking it with a turd in place to veto all kinds of shit. I love your examples, nothing like being ridiculously vague. I guess Obama implemented the stimulus taking the GDP from -6-4 to +5.6% in < a year, enacted children's HC as your hero killed it, his policies stopped the freefall of unemp as it soared 3.4% form Feb 08 to Feb 09, now's it tailed off and jobs are being created, he's making friends with the world again. I realize you don't care about poor people, no one in here doesn't get that, but Obama's policies have helped eons and will continmue to regardless of your dislike for him. [Reply]Turd in chief vertoed 1 bill in 5.5 years, then vetoed 11 more as the Dems took the House and tied the Senate. 2 uneventful years? As compared to GWB's 5.5 years with all kinds of turmoil, perhaps the most caustic 8 years altogether since WWII and you want to compare? Also, what did Clinton sign that he should have vetoed? All the good was done in the first 2 years, all the tax increases that started working immediatley and eventually balanced the budget. Not to mention that you didn't answer the point I made: Turd in chief vertoed 1 bill in 5.5 years, then vetoed 11 more as the Dems took the House and tied the Senate So tell me now that the Dems did nothing to stop your guy. They did all they could and forced tie break votes. Go ahead and continue to ignore this, I know you will. [Reply]In fact, President Turd had 4 of the last 11 vetoes overriden, a 36% rate after the Dems took the House and tied the Senate (33% over all). Only 2 presidents had a higher rate of overrides, Pierce and Andrew Johnson; worst president and 1st to be impeached. So you say the Dems didn't do anything positive; they did all they could to shut down your guy by forcing 11 vetoes and overriding 4 of them. Counselor; no answer? It was teh start of teh healing. Handcuffing your Republican president taht you love so much was about as good as we could do with a tied senate and lead in the house. What is spun? You usually have cogent answers, now you sound like Ron. 36% override rate since Jan 07 - 09, 3rd highest ever, 4 overrides in 2 years and you still the Dems did nothing with a small house lead and tied senate. Right, and I will lend you my 200k mile car and if it breaks it's your fault. BTW, what did the dems in the house do from Jan 07 until mid-late 07 (start of recession) to induce this failure? What bills did they pass or refuse to pass that could have averted the failure or that you say caused the failure? Again, crickets; I get it. Anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together knows the housing mess started in 03-04, peaked at the end of 06 and then the mess mounted. Post it. And yet you support conservative ideals . Not only that, but you just blamed the Dem congress. [Reply]All this after inheriting a market about to crash. Yea, the market really crashed at the end of the Clinton years. It went from 3500 to 9800 in 8 years and due to it undergoing a NASDAQ crash, the rest of the market did well, and you call it a crash? [Reply] Counselor, you lost this one. My assertion was in regard to you blaming the Dem House was at fault for GWB's mess, I've clearly shown the Dems did great measures to stop GWB. [Reply] And that debt is huge, why? Could it be mostly due to hammered receipts from your guy? http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/growth-federal-spending-revenue Historically that is the case, but as you run from my point, the real issue was that Obama inherited ultra-low receipts from your guy, which is the main reason for the deficit. Of course the massive spending under GWB doesn't help, but at least if he could pay for it, it wouldn't be so catastrophic. Again, the point is, Obama inherited very low receipts and per the graph has turned it around, per the graph the spending has shaded off. [Reply]As the Heritage FOundation graph clearly shows, the spending was set vertical up, the revenues set vertically down and all Obama has done is reverse the revenues and shade off the spending. I wasn't talking Clinton oh master of the strawman, you've brought that in several times and I've addressed all of your tangents, but the point is that in 08 the spending was vertically up, shaded off in 09, receipts were vertically downwad, now slightly upward. To address your strawman misdirect, revenues under Clinton wer flat in Jan 93, then took off massively in the greatest growth period in US history from 700B to 2.5T, in 2000, a year before his exit they fell. You can see teh kink in mid 2001 where GWB's giveaway killed receipts. Strawman #2 of yours: Spending increased 20% IN 8 FUCKING YEARS UNDER CLINTON, which is about the rate of inflation + the rate of population growth; are you sure you're able to read this graph - blue is spending. from 03-01 is the flatest part of teh graph on teh spending side, revenues the steeepest part under Clinton all while the deficit fell EVERY SINGLE YEAR OF CLINTON'S TERM. If you think you're pulling off misdirecting the argument from GWB to Clinton, you're sadly mistaken. [Reply]This graph is from the CBO posted by your rag. So tell me what Obama is doing wrong? Obama is the lead legislator, absent a veto followed by an override, Obama owns it. Again, SHOW ME WHERE THE GRAPH FROM 09 ON LOOKS LIKE SPENDING IS ANYTHING BUT DOWN, RECEIPTS ANYTHING BUT UP. Ya can't, just keep the misdiects coming. [Reply]He's cutting spending and increasing revenues; I guess that's a bad thing for Republicans like you, otherwise you would approve. The cart reads that spending is less from 09 - 10, is that hard to see? [Reply] Yea, make sure and leave military pensions out and declare it under entitlement or other spending. I don't care about you personally, military spending is hidden under entitlement / other / social spending and is part of the military operations. You still can't answer a question directly, can you? You might be really good in cross or in depo (post), but it's not working here. [Reply] Since GHWB and Clinton cut spending Really? The Dem congress sent the bills to GHWB and Clinton they then played a role, the most significant role; any clue what that was? Furthermore, the budget starts as a proposition from the pres. [Reply]and very slightly incr taxes and that fixed everything, I see your point . No. Congress did. And the surplus was also from a tax cut on other places. Oh god, not another Mike trying to tell us the Clinton success that was deep-rooted by the 07 cap gains tax cut, where revenues actually fell, was the cause of the Clinton success. Furthermore, the pres is the ultimate legislator. [Reply]As everyone has said, CUT WHAT YOU THINK IS WASTE, KEEP PILING ON WHAT YOU THINK IS NECCESSARY; you aren't about spending cuts, you are about SOCIAL spending cuts. I just never read you talking military cuts unless cornered, you don't bring it up. Dude, we get you loud and clear. You just don't give a shit about social issues. [Reply] Saying European Socialism is not a fiscally successful venture? If tehy were smart they would follow the US fascist Capitalist model, right? [Reply]Look at how great American Capitalism is by GDP: http://www.visualeconomics.com/gdp-vs-national-debt-by-country/ Since our GDP has grown in the last year, we have moved down in the debtor nation by GDP ranking. So basically a RW moralist killing an abortion doctor; great example. I don't see your analogy. [Reply]By gross debt we are by far the largest. . Like Taiwan? Yea, don't they have socialized meds? Who else is laissez faire w/o soc med? Again, WE ARE TEH LARGEST GROSS DEBTOR NATION UNDER CAPITALISM. [Reply] 4% of the world's population and we match the rest of the world $ for $; yea, that's sick. Right, you just never introduce military cuts; DUDE, WE FUCKING GET YOU. You pretend to advocate military cuts to further pretend to be a libertarian. Then massively introduce social cuts at evry turn. FUCK; WE GET IT ALREADY. [Reply] Unlike your Republican idols? Right, sending people to the streets like your primary hero, Hoover is the way we should do it. [Reply] And no, the debt was EXTREMELY manageable until that fascist pig came along. What the fuck are you talking about? I was talking about the great fascist pig, Ronnie the elitist sociopath Reagan. Where does Bush enter the conversation when I was refering to Reagan hammering the debt???? [Reply] Then GHWB and mostly Clinton stopped teh belleding; most of the mess occurred under Reagan and GWB. Gee, I stated, GHWB and Clinton and you accuse me of partisanship.... NEWSFLASH: they are from different parties. The explain how I like these presidents a lot: - FDR - Eisenhower - Clinton - GHWB - Obama - Teddy Roosevelt Presidents I can't stand: - Reagan - LBJ (altho he did a great deal of good with the 64 cicil rts) - GWB - Hoover - Nixon - Truman So once again, your partisan arument is just a way of not actually answering an issue.

please point out to me where in those definitions it alludes to amplitude of change. I see many words describing modalities of change, "waver", "vary", "rise and fall" I do not however, see anything alluding to the amplitude of that change. Just admit you failed to see the sarcasm and let it go. I'm sorry, it was written in simple English where it stated: be or make unstable. Also, To vary irregularly.See Synonyms at swing. And, To rise and fall in or as if in waves; undulate. Unstable, swing, waves, vary irregularly; these sound like minor adjustments to you? Here's language for minor adjustments: incremement, gradual adjustment, fine tune, etc. If you want to consider a fluctuation to be an incremental adjustment, hey, you have the right to do English how you choose. As for sarcasm, no, like you, Belgian is a hardcore righty and absolutley loves if there are any failures of the Obama era. So sorry, maybe another 911 can happen so you will be pleased.

Not a chance. Another fine product from a neck state, from AZ, I can attest to what a toilet the legislators are here with the Nazizona, 'show us your papers.'

How do you know it was a cop if the car wasnt marked? Sorry to hear about your niece, that is shitty. Is she ok? And there are jackass cops. Just like there are jackass jumpers, politicians, ect.... Some people are just jackasses. My dad was a cop for 20+ years. He knew a few morons in his career. And I bet you do too (no matter what job you have). The proportion of assholes is far greater in the piggy field than other fields. And why the over-sensitivity of calling cops, pigs from not you, but from everyone? If I called a sewer worker a shit-collector or that sort of nickname, what's the big deal?

Only a true syock market guru would think months of constant, slow growth followed by 1 day of a 200-point drop would be considered: be or make unstable; or to rise and fall like a wave; undulate. BRILLAINT. Sure I do, the CG, track and all that are incorporated. SOme trailers have a convex to carry the load so that the trailer bed levels with a load. But am I an expert? No way and I would never challenge a person who was, a person who has spent years designing and building them. That would be assinine and pathetic for me to challenge a person like that, I stick to my business and do it well. No, I have enclosed a 16 ft trailer beefore and I could build one, but why not let people do that who have done it all their lives, kinda like acft, people come to me to have their acft fixed, as that is my speciality. Every now and then I get a guy thinking he knows more after barely knowing a thing; makes my day . Come to my repair station with that lingo we run you out the door: Hey chief, I think I'll go and swell and draw the cherry rivet up there.... . Call the contratc house and geet this idiot out of here is what happens next. You've never seen my work and you make a ridiculous assertion like that? Again, you make wild assertions over things for which you don't know. I have sent pics of wing extensions, cuffs, etc to a member here. Top notch work, only rub is I take too long as I'm a perfectionist. BTW, I don't need to see a pic of a box on wheels.

You're not an officer in the military anymore. Oh, I see, the 07-09 congress, which has the House Dem-controlled and Senate tied, Cheney broke 8 ties, 11th most of 47 VP's, and you say the Senate was Dem-controlled, counselor? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tie-breaking_votes_cast_by_Vice_Presidents_of_the_United_States Not to mention the mess was made, the house mess peaked in late 2006, so just as Obama inherited the huge mess, the Jan 07 senate got to enjoy the start of that mess and unfucking it with a turd in place to veto all kinds of shit. Turd in chief vertoed 1 bill in 5.5 years, then vetoed 11 more as the Dems took the House and tied the Senate. In fact, President Turd had 4 of the last 11 vetoes overriden, a 36% rate after the Dems took the House and tied the Senate (33% over all). Only 2 presidents had a higher rate of overrides, Pierce and Andrew Johnson; worst president and 1st to be impeached. So you say the Dems didn't do anything positive; they did all they could to shut down your guy by forcing 11 vetoes and overriding 4 of them. All this after inheriting a market about to crash. Counselor, you lost this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes And that debt is huge, why? Could it be mostly due to hammered receipts from your guy? http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/growth-federal-spending-revenue As the Heritage FOundation graph clearly shows, the spending was set vertical up, the revenues set vertically down and all Obama has done is reverse the revenues and shade off the spending. This graph is from the CBO posted by your rag. So tell me what Obama is doing wrong? He's cutting spending and increasing revenues; I guess that's a bad thing for Republicans like you, otherwise you would approve. Yea, make sure and leave military pensions out and declare it under entitlement or other spending. Since GHWB and Clinton cut spending and very slightly incr taxes and that fixed everything, I see your point . As everyone has said, CUT WHAT YOU THINK IS WASTE, KEEP PILING ON WHAT YOU THINK IS NECCESSARY; you aren't about spending cuts, you are about SOCIAL spending cuts. Your point? Saying European Socialism is not a fiscally successful venture? Look at how great American Capitalism is by GDP: http://www.visualeconomics.com/gdp-vs-national-debt-by-country/ Since our GDP has grown in the last year, we have moved down in the debtor nation by GDP ranking. By gross debt we are by far the largest. Or by president: [/url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms[url] 4% of the world's population and we match the rest of the world $ for $; yea, that's sick. Unlike your Republican idols? And no, the debt was EXTREMELY manageable until that fascist pig came along. Then GHWB and mostly Clinton stopped teh bleeding; most of the mess occurred under Reagan and GWB.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fluctuates Not sure what language you're speaking, I like English. fluc·tu·ate (flkch-t) v. fluc·tu·at·ed, fluc·tu·at·ing, fluc·tu·ates v.intr. 1. To vary irregularly. See Synonyms at swing. 2. To rise and fall in or as if in waves; undulate. fluctuate [ˈflʌktjʊˌeɪt] vb 1. to change or cause to change position constantly; be or make unstable; waver or vary 2. (intr) to rise and fall like a wave; undulate Quite obviosly a fluctuation is more of a wide swing, instability, etc...... but that's under the rules of English. Yea, a box with wheels; how tricky Uh, yea. After failing to know what, "swell and draw" means in regard to rivets, you said, "the test is over." I would never try to convine someone that has done an occupation all his life that I know more than him, but hey, that's just the way I roll.

Continue to fluctuate? You mean START to fluctuate. The market has been incredibly stable and ascending; 1 day a fluctuation does not make. The market fluctuates constantly! It has NOTHING to do with stability until you look at the AMOUNT it fluctuates by! Don't quit your day job. But the term, "fluctuates" tends to be more about wide variances, unless you consider 7 and 20 point days a fluctuation You either, keep building trailers pretending to know acft construction. Belgian: The Dow closed at 10991.99 today. I guess that means the sky will soon be falling. It will be most interesting to see if the same people who raved about the Dow going over 11000 and crediting Obama will be as quick to blame him for it falling back under 11000. Gee I dunno, the market improvement since Obama, even in light of the freefall; you think it's coincidence. The overall economy went to shit under Reagan, Bush and Bush, healed under Clinton and now Obama and you think it's just a big free-for-all as to who's responsible???? The market fell due to 2 countries in Europe, but 200 points isn't even worth mentioning, but you have a beef with people credit Obama's policies for unfucking your heroes mess.....that's right, you refuse to chose a position (we'll keep pretending you aren't a card-carrying Republican).

Continue to fluctuate? You mean START to fluctuate. The market has been incredibly stable and ascending; 1 day a fluctuation does not make. The market fluctuates constantly! It has NOTHING to do with stability until you look at the AMOUNT it fluctuates by! Don't quit your day job. But the term, "fluctuates" tends to be more about wide variances, unless you consider 7 and 20 point days a fluctuation You either, keep building trailers pretending to know acft construction.

Feign? Yea, he actually paid me a compliment. He was trying to say something else, only his shrink knows for sure, but what he stated was: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feign feign   /feɪn/ Show Spelled[feyn] Show IPA –verb (used with object) 1.to represent fictitiously; put on an appearance of: to feign sickness. 2.to invent fictitiously or deceptively, as a story or an excuse. 3.to imitate deceptively: to feign another's voice. So he's saying: You represent ignorance fictitiously so you post this?? IOW's, he's saying I'm not ignorant. Now we'll see him squirm out of this.

Continue to fluctuate? You mean START to fluctuate. The market has been incredibly stable and ascending; 1 day a fluctuation does not make.

OMG, what took you so long? I was calling this for months now, the market recoverd rom 6500 to 11,200 and it drops to just under 11k and as I said, you would be here to *TRY* to make your claim that the market would tank, the one you made 6 MONTHS AGO. Why would I make that claim? You obviously have me confused with somebody else. Will you feel silly if it regains tomorrow, next week, etc? No, because i never made a prediction of any sort. But you like to predict what everyone knows will happen and then claim to be a market genius. Nostradamas, this is not a completed prediction, it's an S&P adjustment to Greece and Portugal tanking. Until and unless the market falls to 8-9k and stays, your prediction is as expeccted, useless. Even then I said it could make adjustments, but you predicted a soon slide; I did? Where???1 bad day 6 months later warrants you to claim victory. Hillarious. As I said, hang around long enough and you will see a bad day, bad week, and even a slide. Keeping your guess in the running for good until the market falls a mere 200 points is typical and expected from you. Lucky, you hate so many people on this forum you can't remember who you hate for what. Like I said, you obviously have me confused with somebody else. Try to keep your shitlist straight, ok? That's a good boy. Yep, I have you and stanley as the same person; can't really blame me, can ya. But thx for once again failing to address the issue. As for hate, naw, a different adjective, I will let you decide for yourself. Oh, and congratulations, the market has shaded off by 200 measly points from a low of 6500 to 11,200, so enjoy your win - you seem to marvel at any small hiccups this country has in its GREAT REPUBLICAN RECESSION recovery. Have a beer, maybe you'll luck out and the market will drop 200 more tomorrow.

Well, many of the reasons for the rise were outside of his control too, yet Lucky was perfectly happy to declare 11k as proof that it's all working well. But now that it sags, we'll blame Greece? Feels more like profit taking after 7 weeks of gains, with any negative being used as the explanation. 200 points? I don;t care if it falls 500 points, we are so ahead of schedule with the recovery it's sick. WHat's sick to Republicans like you is that the country isn;t failing. IT'S A FUCKING SHAME THE ONLY TIME YOU HEAR CONSERVATIVES CROW IS WHEN THE COUNTRY HAS SOMETHING BAD HAPPEN. Of course you guys are the true Americans. BTW, I declared victory at 10K and with 3 massive +++ Q's of GDP growth, just as you denied and felt horribly for the same.

What happens when the US fails under the load of spending 8 times that of the #2 in military budget? Oh, I see we are realizing that.