I was born in 1970. I am a Democrat. Because there were some racist Democrats before I was born, according to you, I need to "think twice" before I comment on a racial matter.
You missed it again. It has NOTHING to do with what I think. It has everything to do with Obama's remarks on Christianity.
Viewed through the prism of Obama logic with regards to Christianity, given the Democrats spotty past record on race, if he's consistent the Democrats should never again play the race card. Seems only fair.
According to Barack Obama, not me.
10/22/13 - Topic of thread started by alloak41 - "Maybe He Forgot Who Founded the KKK" - First two words of first post - "The Democrats"
4/17/14 - alloak41 - "The KKK was founded by Democrats."
Yeah, buddy.
They were also Christians. In fact God is mentioned in the KKK oath as far back as the 1870s. I don't see any mention of political affiliation in the oath. alloak clearly to wants to hold the current democratic party responsible in some way for the KKK, or at least link them together. I'm not sure if they were Christians first and democrats second or vice versa, but again there is no reference to political party affiliation in their pledge but there is a reference to God. So I guess you could also say that the "The KKK was founded by Christians" and by his logic, hold the feet of all Christians to the fire for giving us the KKK (which would let Obama off the hook, he being a Muslim and all).
[Edited on 2/11/2015 by gondicar]
___________________________________________________________________
The KKK was started as a social club in the South by and for the Democrats that controlled The South through slavery.
BTW - Martin Luther King Jr. was a card-carrying Republican.
Thus proving Bhawk's point and skewering alloak's point.
Dream on. He doesn't even get the point. (Intentionally I would suspect.)
Oh, he gets it. You still don't. Again.
Sorry, but that article has nothing to do with me. You missed your big gotcha moment.
Maybe next time.
None of this is about you no matter how many times you say it.
Brawl has stated how the parties change over time.
AlloaktheGreat says that the Dems of 50 or more years ago were made up of racists from the south. The alloaktheGreat says the all Dems are therefore racist based on what Obama said. Except nowhere in his speech did Obama blame the people of today for anything done in the past. Alloak doesn't get either because he is incapable of complex thinking or he is a troll just trying to piss people off. Which is it?
None of this is about you no matter how many times you say it.
The alloaktheGreat says the all Dems are therefore racist based on what Obama said.
Except nowhere in his speech did Obama blame the people of today for anything done in the past.
Alloak doesn't get either because he is incapable of complex thinking or he is a troll just trying to piss people off. Which is it?
1. Hey, he got it!
2. Wrong. Never said that.
3. Nowhere have I claimed that he did.
4. Neither
Vivid imagination. Keep trying.
Seriously? Do you really not see that the point is that the president is wrong to blame modern Christians for the sins of the past as it would be wrong to blame modern Democrats for the party's sins of the past?
This is particularly cogent given how Obama sees fit to somehow blame Christianity for slavery and Jim Crow but not his past Democratic party. Naturally he also ignores the very important role Christianity played in the abolition movement as well of course as the 20th century civil rights movement.
IYou are free to feel that way. Sorry that, as a modern Christian your feelings are hurt.
I didn't hear him blaming anyone. I recognize he has said that in the past atrocities have been carried out in the name of Christianity. And just as it wouldn't be correct to punish all Christians for those atrocities it is not right to punish all Muslims for the current atrocities.
If you don't get that - your have a real problem with reading, or listening for comprehension.
am not a Christian and my feelings aren't hurt. You really don't get it. You don't get at all what is wrong about these idiotic pronouncements he constantly makes.
[Edited on 2/12/2015 by dougrhon]
Seriously? Do you really not see that the point is that the president is wrong to blame modern Christians for the sins of the past as it would be wrong to blame modern Democrats for the party's sins of the past?
This is particularly cogent given how Obama sees fit to somehow blame Christianity for slavery and Jim Crow but not his past Democratic party. Naturally he also ignores the very important role Christianity played in the abolition movement as well of course as the 20th century civil rights movement.
You are free to feel that way. Sorry that, as a modern Christian your feelings are hurt.
I didn't hear him blaming anyone. I recognize he has said that in the past atrocities have been carried out in the name of Christianity. And just as it wouldn't be correct to punish all Christians for those atrocities it is not right to punish all Muslims for the current atrocities.
If you don't get that - your have a real problem with reading, or listening for comprehension.
Also that's Obama and the left's favorite tactic, to beat the straw horse. NO ONE has said all Muslims should be blamed therefore it is not necessary for the morally superior one to constantly remind us of this fact.
[Edited on 2/12/2015 by dougrhon]
Also that's Obama and the left's favorite tactic, to beat the straw horse. NO ONE has said all Muslims should be blamed therefore it is not necessary for the morally superior one to constantly remind us of this fact.
Ha! There are plenty of American citizens who do indeed blame and hate all Muslims ever since 9/11. Right or wrong, there are many of them. It seems like you take his decisions personally...as if he was speaking to you directly, and arrogantly insisting on lecturing you about something you already know. Others might see it as an honest attempt at reminding those folks who hate Muslims to keep a cool head.
Seriously? Do you really not see that the point is that the president is wrong to blame modern Christians for the sins of the past as it would be wrong to blame modern Democrats for the party's sins of the past?
This is particularly cogent given how Obama sees fit to somehow blame Christianity for slavery and Jim Crow but not his past Democratic party. Naturally he also ignores the very important role Christianity played in the abolition movement as well of course as the 20th century civil rights movement.
You are free to feel that way. Sorry that, as a modern Christian your feelings are hurt.
I didn't hear him blaming anyone. I recognize he has said that in the past atrocities have been carried out in the name of Christianity. And just as it wouldn't be correct to punish all Christians for those atrocities it is not right to punish all Muslims for the current atrocities.
If you don't get that - your have a real problem with reading, or listening for comprehension.
Also that's Obama and the left's favorite tactic, to beat the straw horse. NO ONE has said all Muslims should be blamed therefore it is not necessary for the morally superior one to constantly remind us of this fact.
Nor did anyone ever claim that Christianity was perfect. Straw horse #2.
I do think it's a little weird that he said atrocities have been committed in the name of Christ, but failed to mention Mohammed.
I do think it's a little weird that he said atrocities have been committed in the name of Christ, but failed to mention Mohammed.
Use his speech time to acknowledge the existence of Islamic terrorism? I think our media does a good enough job beating that horse to death. Anyone who thinks there isn't a significant growing anti-muslim population here in the US is sorely mistaken. There are plenty of people who will hate them forever because of 9/11 and nothing will change their mind. Obama chose to use that time to speak to those people and recommend them to be rational in their thinking.
Nor did anyone ever claim that Christianity was perfect. Straw horse #2.
I do think it's a little weird that he said atrocities have been committed in the name of Christ, but failed to mention Mohammed.
Are you still droning on? Wow! The Right has officially run out of crap to whine about.
Way to go President Obama! You Win!
Again.
Seriously? Do you really not see that the point is that the president is wrong to blame modern Christians for the sins of the past as it would be wrong to blame modern Democrats for the party's sins of the past?
This is particularly cogent given how Obama sees fit to somehow blame Christianity for slavery and Jim Crow but not his past Democratic party. Naturally he also ignores the very important role Christianity played in the abolition movement as well of course as the 20th century civil rights movement.
You are free to feel that way. Sorry that, as a modern Christian your feelings are hurt.
I didn't hear him blaming anyone. I recognize he has said that in the past atrocities have been carried out in the name of Christianity. And just as it wouldn't be correct to punish all Christians for those atrocities it is not right to punish all Muslims for the current atrocities.
If you don't get that - your have a real problem with reading, or listening for comprehension.
Also that's Obama and the left's favorite tactic, to beat the straw horse. NO ONE has said all Muslims should be blamed therefore it is not necessary for the morally superior one to constantly remind us of this fact.
Nor did anyone ever claim that Christianity was perfect. Straw horse #2.
I do think it's a little weird that he said atrocities have been committed in the name of Christ, but failed to mention Mohammed.
I think you are out of your element.
If Obama's words are to be taken to heart, the Democrat's Bush-lied-to-start-a-war talking point should be put on the shelf forever.
USS Maddox- Gulf of Tonkin
Also that's Obama and the left's favorite tactic, to beat the straw horse. NO ONE has said all Muslims should be blamed therefore it is not necessary for the morally superior one to constantly remind us of this fact.
Ha! There are plenty of American citizens who do indeed blame and hate all Muslims ever since 9/11. Right or wrong, there are many of them. It seems like you take his decisions personally...as if he was speaking to you directly, and arrogantly insisting on lecturing you about something you already know. Others might see it as an honest attempt at reminding those folks who hate Muslims to keep a cool head.
And others might see him on the highest the most remarkably highest of all horses, a disgusting hypocrite. Why do you say I take it personally? I think it sucks for the United States to have an arrogant scold constantly lecturing the country instead of leading us. I think it sucks for the United States. Not to mention the rest of the world. It is you who seem to take personal offense when I or anyone states our disdain for Obama. It's almost like you feel we are insulting you rather than him.
I do think it's a little weird that he said atrocities have been committed in the name of Christ, but failed to mention Mohammed.
Use his speech time to acknowledge the existence of Islamic terrorism? I think our media does a good enough job beating that horse to death. Anyone who thinks there isn't a significant growing anti-muslim population here in the US is sorely mistaken. There are plenty of people who will hate them forever because of 9/11 and nothing will change their mind. Obama chose to use that time to speak to those people and recommend them to be rational in their thinking.
You are in such a left wing bubble. Polls consistently show that vast majorities of Americans do NOT hate all Muslims or blame all Muslims. If there is growing concern it is because these atrocities keep happening more and more and our leadership says things like "They shot a bunch of random folks in a deli". How you think that helps anything or anyone I have no idea.
I do think it's a little weird that he said atrocities have been committed in the name of Christ, but failed to mention Mohammed.
Use his speech time to acknowledge the existence of Islamic terrorism? I think our media does a good enough job beating that horse to death. Anyone who thinks there isn't a significant growing anti-muslim population here in the US is sorely mistaken. There are plenty of people who will hate them forever because of 9/11 and nothing will change their mind. Obama chose to use that time to speak to those people and recommend them to be rational in their thinking.
And the best way to accomplish this is to malign Christianity? Never mind the Muslims, there are plenty of people who hate Christians forever and nothing will change their mind. Perhaps Obama should use some time speaking to those people and recommend them to rational in their thinking.
But noooo, not Obama. He goes out and does the exact opposite.
I do think it's a little weird that he said atrocities have been committed in the name of Christ, but failed to mention Mohammed.
Use his speech time to acknowledge the existence of Islamic terrorism? I think our media does a good enough job beating that horse to death. Anyone who thinks there isn't a significant growing anti-muslim population here in the US is sorely mistaken. There are plenty of people who will hate them forever because of 9/11 and nothing will change their mind. Obama chose to use that time to speak to those people and recommend them to be rational in their thinking.
And the best way to accomplish this is to malign Christianity? Never mind the Muslims, there are plenty of people who hate Christians forever and nothing will change their mind. Perhaps Obama should use some time speaking to those people and recommend them to rational in their thinking.
But noooo, not Obama. He goes out and does the exact opposite.
He did not malign Christianity. His reference was about the people that have committed terrible acts in the name of Christ. Big, big difference.
I do think it's a little weird that he said atrocities have been committed in the name of Christ, but failed to mention Mohammed.
Use his speech time to acknowledge the existence of Islamic terrorism? I think our media does a good enough job beating that horse to death. Anyone who thinks there isn't a significant growing anti-muslim population here in the US is sorely mistaken. There are plenty of people who will hate them forever because of 9/11 and nothing will change their mind. Obama chose to use that time to speak to those people and recommend them to be rational in their thinking.
And the best way to accomplish this is to malign Christianity? Never mind the Muslims, there are plenty of people who hate Christians forever and nothing will change their mind. Perhaps Obama should use some time speaking to those people and recommend them to rational in their thinking.
But noooo, not Obama. He goes out and does the exact opposite.
But how did he malign Christianity exactly as he was stating historical facts? he was trying to put into context that all religions have their dark sides IMHO.
If he really wanted to be honest he could have pointed out how the U.S., which is governed by Christians, have been killing innocent Moslem's in Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of fighting terrorism. Or how his sponsored drone attacks kills innocents at times. Or how we would use napalm in Vietnam which killed scores of innocent civilians. We just shrug our shoulders call it collateral damage.
I do think it's a little weird that he said atrocities have been committed in the name of Christ, but failed to mention Mohammed.
Use his speech time to acknowledge the existence of Islamic terrorism? I think our media does a good enough job beating that horse to death. Anyone who thinks there isn't a significant growing anti-muslim population here in the US is sorely mistaken. There are plenty of people who will hate them forever because of 9/11 and nothing will change their mind. Obama chose to use that time to speak to those people and recommend them to be rational in their thinking.
You are in such a left wing bubble. Polls consistently show that vast majorities of Americans do NOT hate all Muslims or blame all Muslims.
Sorry but he's right, polls consistently show that anti-muslim sentiments are growing.
And while the word "hate" may not be the right description, at least one 2014 poll found that the majority of Americans have an unfavorable rating of Arabs and Muslims. It also found favorability toward Arab-Americans at just 36 percent, down from 43 percent in 2010. For Muslim-Americans, favorability was just 27 percent, compared with 36 percent in 2010. In terms of political party, Democrats gave Arab-Americans a 30 percent unfavorable rating and Muslim-Americans a 33 percent unfavorable rating, while Republicans gave Arab-Americans a 54 percent unfavorable rating and Muslim-Americans a 63 percent unfavorable rating.
Pew research agrees, and even shows that most Americans have a more positive view of atheists than muslims.
http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-about-religious-groups/
That High Horse must have some really good weed.
He doesn't even get the point. (Intentionally I would suspect.)
Hmmm, no, I got the point pretty clearly from the get-go.
Never mind the Muslims, there are plenty of people who hate Christians forever and nothing will change their mind. Perhaps Obama should use some time speaking to those people and recommend them to rational in their thinking.
Are you referring to foreigners who hate Christians? If so, then there is no reason for Obama to address people from another country.
And others might see him on the highest the most remarkably highest of all horses, a disgusting hypocrite.
A politician that is a hypocrite? You don't say! "Disgusting hypocrite"....wow. Usually, when 2 people disagree, there is some tension for sure. But for there to be such a high level of animosity and hatred coming from your end, it's reasonable to assume it must be about something other than his politics, because a mere disagreement of policy would never typically create such venom.
Why do you say I take it personally? I think it sucks for the United States to have an arrogant scold constantly lecturing the country instead of leading us. I think it sucks for the United States. Not to mention the rest of the world.
Lecturing instead of leading....purely subjective, but how is his style of speech different from past Presidents? (aside from a subjective "he's arrogant" explanation).
It is you who seem to take personal offense when I or anyone states our disdain for Obama. It's almost like you feel we are insulting you rather than him.
There are definitely a few times here and there where I do take it personally (I don't expect this type of honesty and humility from you). When people state whey they oppose his policies, I am never offended. Fujirich is a great example. All of his posts criticize Obama, but they are not mean, angry, personal, hateful attacks. They are simply posts about policy.
Then there are nasty, unfair, hate-filled accusations from the more extreme right-wingers, and yes, this gets to me on a personal level. Regardless of anyone's passion for an issue, nasty hate-filled accusations are never ok. It's never ok for moral reasons, nor is it ok for intellectual reasons. It serves no educational or informational purpose, other than to serve one's own anger. Furthermore, since politics are subjective in nature and impossible to predict outcomes, it is beyond ludicrous to hate someone without knowing if their plan is going to help or hurt.
I've felt this way ever since Bush first left office in 2008. W is a good man who did what he believed was right for the country. He made a choice that was not popular with many Americans, but he went forward with it anyway because he believed it was the right thing to do. History has not yet determined whether he helped or hurt, yet he was bashed by the left everyday and celebrated when he left office. Shameful. Bush didn't deserve that kind of treatment from Americans, and neither does Obama. They are both good people doing what they think is right.
State why you object until you're blue in the face for all I care. But I choose to speak out against undesireable behavior that comes from both the left and right. And if you remember, I am consistent about this....I spoke out against those who bashed George Zimmerman - they didn't know what happened that night, nor did the evidence suggest he did anything wrong, so why bash him? Same principle.
That high horse should share.
Seriously? Do you really not see that the point is that the president is wrong to blame modern Christians for the sins of the past as it would be wrong to blame modern Democrats for the party's sins of the past?
This is particularly cogent given how Obama sees fit to somehow blame Christianity for slavery and Jim Crow but not his past Democratic party. Naturally he also ignores the very important role Christianity played in the abolition movement as well of course as the 20th century civil rights movement.
You are free to feel that way. Sorry that, as a modern Christian your feelings are hurt.
I didn't hear him blaming anyone. I recognize he has said that in the past atrocities have been carried out in the name of Christianity. And just as it wouldn't be correct to punish all Christians for those atrocities it is not right to punish all Muslims for the current atrocities.
If you don't get that - your have a real problem with reading, or listening for comprehension.
Also that's Obama and the left's favorite tactic, to beat the straw horse. NO ONE has said all Muslims should be blamed therefore it is not necessary for the morally superior one to constantly remind us of this fact.
Nor did anyone ever claim that Christianity was perfect. Straw horse #2.
I do think it's a little weird that he said atrocities have been committed in the name of Christ, but failed to mention Mohammed.
I think you are out of your element.
Twat, kettle. 😛
Do you have any reason to be here other than to follow me around and make comments? It seems all you do is harass people, mainly me. Is this your purpose here? Do you ever have anything to add to the conversation? No? Then you have a lot of balls to criticize others. Carry on PerryBoy. 
Seriously? Do you really not see that the point is that the president is wrong to blame modern Christians for the sins of the past as it would be wrong to blame modern Democrats for the party's sins of the past?
This is particularly cogent given how Obama sees fit to somehow blame Christianity for slavery and Jim Crow but not his past Democratic party. Naturally he also ignores the very important role Christianity played in the abolition movement as well of course as the 20th century civil rights movement.
You are free to feel that way. Sorry that, as a modern Christian your feelings are hurt.
I didn't hear him blaming anyone. I recognize he has said that in the past atrocities have been carried out in the name of Christianity. And just as it wouldn't be correct to punish all Christians for those atrocities it is not right to punish all Muslims for the current atrocities.
If you don't get that - your have a real problem with reading, or listening for comprehension.
Also that's Obama and the left's favorite tactic, to beat the straw horse. NO ONE has said all Muslims should be blamed therefore it is not necessary for the morally superior one to constantly remind us of this fact.
Nor did anyone ever claim that Christianity was perfect. Straw horse #2.
I do think it's a little weird that he said atrocities have been committed in the name of Christ, but failed to mention Mohammed.
I think you are out of your element.
Twat, kettle. 😛
Do you have any reason to be here other than to follow me around and make comments? It seems all you do is harass people, mainly me. Is this your purpose here? Do you ever have anything to add to the conversation? No? Then you have a lot of balls to criticize others. Carry on PerryBoy.
Anyone can look at your posting history and see what you're all about. Not counting all the previous accounts you had deleted. Nice try old timer but you aren't fooling anyone. 😛
So a guy who has been here for two years is an expert on what has gone down here for years. Deleted accounts? How many do you have?
Seriously? Do you really not see that the point is that the president is wrong to blame modern Christians for the sins of the past as it would be wrong to blame modern Democrats for the party's sins of the past?
This is particularly cogent given how Obama sees fit to somehow blame Christianity for slavery and Jim Crow but not his past Democratic party. Naturally he also ignores the very important role Christianity played in the abolition movement as well of course as the 20th century civil rights movement.
You are free to feel that way. Sorry that, as a modern Christian your feelings are hurt.
I didn't hear him blaming anyone. I recognize he has said that in the past atrocities have been carried out in the name of Christianity. And just as it wouldn't be correct to punish all Christians for those atrocities it is not right to punish all Muslims for the current atrocities.
If you don't get that - your have a real problem with reading, or listening for comprehension.
Also that's Obama and the left's favorite tactic, to beat the straw horse. NO ONE has said all Muslims should be blamed therefore it is not necessary for the morally superior one to constantly remind us of this fact.
Nor did anyone ever claim that Christianity was perfect. Straw horse #2.
I do think it's a little weird that he said atrocities have been committed in the name of Christ, but failed to mention Mohammed.
I think you are out of your element.
Twat, kettle. 😛
Do you have any reason to be here other than to follow me around and make comments? It seems all you do is harass people, mainly me. Is this your purpose here? Do you ever have anything to add to the conversation? No? Then you have a lot of balls to criticize others. Carry on PerryBoy.
Anyone can look at your posting history and see what you're all about. Not counting all the previous accounts you had deleted. Nice try old timer but you aren't fooling anyone. 😛
So a guy who has been here for two years is an expert on what has gone down here for years. Deleted accounts? How many do you have?
____________________________________________________________________
Anyone notice that the liberals say there are all for free speech as ling as what is said is in keeping with their political ideology?
No.
Where was someone's free speech rights violated?
Where was someone's free speech rights violated?
last time I was with my ex at a P Bruins game.
And others might see him on the highest the most remarkably highest of all horses, a disgusting hypocrite.
A politician that is a hypocrite? You don't say! "Disgusting hypocrite"....wow. Usually, when 2 people disagree, there is some tension for sure. But for there to be such a high level of animosity and hatred coming from your end, it's reasonable to assume it must be about something other than his politics, because a mere disagreement of policy would never typically create such venom.
Why do you say I take it personally? I think it sucks for the United States to have an arrogant scold constantly lecturing the country instead of leading us. I think it sucks for the United States. Not to mention the rest of the world.
Lecturing instead of leading....purely subjective, but how is his style of speech different from past Presidents? (aside from a subjective "he's arrogant" explanation).
It is you who seem to take personal offense when I or anyone states our disdain for Obama. It's almost like you feel we are insulting you rather than him.
There are definitely a few times here and there where I do take it personally (I don't expect this type of honesty and humility from you). When people state whey they oppose his policies, I am never offended. Fujirich is a great example. All of his posts criticize Obama, but they are not mean, angry, personal, hateful attacks. They are simply posts about policy.
Then there are nasty, unfair, hate-filled accusations from the more extreme right-wingers, and yes, this gets to me on a personal level. Regardless of anyone's passion for an issue, nasty hate-filled accusations are never ok. It's never ok for moral reasons, nor is it ok for intellectual reasons. It serves no educational or informational purpose, other than to serve one's own anger. Furthermore, since politics are subjective in nature and impossible to predict outcomes, it is beyond ludicrous to hate someone without knowing if their plan is going to help or hurt.
I've felt this way ever since Bush first left office in 2008. W is a good man who did what he believed was right for the country. He made a choice that was not popular with many Americans, but he went forward with it anyway because he believed it was the right thing to do. History has not yet determined whether he helped or hurt, yet he was bashed by the left everyday and celebrated when he left office. Shameful. Bush didn't deserve that kind of treatment from Americans, and neither does Obama. They are both good people doing what they think is right.
State why you object until you're blue in the face for all I care. But I choose to speak out against undesireable behavior that comes from both the left and right. And if you remember, I am consistent about this....I spoke out against those who bashed George Zimmerman - they didn't know what happened that night, nor did the evidence suggest he did anything wrong, so why bash him? Same principle.
Well most of what you say here is fair. I would strongly suggest that you not take attacks on a public figure (even if venenmous and nasty) personally. That said, I have a strong dislike for President Obama. I use strong language such as disgusting hypocrite to describe him. Never once have I used racist language, have I attacked his wife or his daughters, have I derided the way he looks or any other personal traits about him. Therefore I reject this suggestion that I have some sort of irrational over the top hatred. I think he has been an awful president both irresponsible, divisive, nasty and a failure. That is what I see. It is not because of his race or anything else like that. You either take me at my word that there are reasonable people that feel differently than you or you don't but there is really no point in your constantly attacking my motives rather than my ideas or beliefs. Attack my ideas. Don't attack my motives. And if you do that and do it respectfully I will be equally respectfuly to you in return. Otherwise there is no point in speaking anymore.
And remember an attack on the president's statements, policies, views etc. is NOT an attack on him personally and certainly not an attack on you. Attacking his character as I have done IS an attack on him personally but it is totally reasonable to do so. After all Martin Luther King said a man should be judged not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character. As we attempt to judge him by what we see as the content of his character it becomes very boring to constantly be told, no, you are actually judging him by the color of his skin.
And remember an attack on the president's statements, policies, views etc. is NOT an attack on him personally and certainly not an attack on you.
Where does "Obama sycophant" fit in? How about "leftist," "Marxist," "those suffering from cognitive dissonance," "sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome," where do those fit in on the personal scale?
Let me guess on that answer..."Just because I refer to ______________ as _______________ and you happen to be one of those people, that doesn't mean I'm referring to you personally."
Did I get that right? I've always had a hard time squaring those circles.
