Division in the Tea Party

[klaatu]

I am surprised anyone is voting for them, all you have to do is listen to them and be afraid!
They have no substance, but that is the politicians of today.

Rana..seriously ... do you believe your own drivel? Keep telling yourselves this. Down here in South Florida, Marco Rubio and Allen West are extremely qualified candidates. Aside from O'Donnel..please proved some examples of why you think all Tea Party Candidates have no substance. Name some Tea Party Candidates and their messages that make you afraid....

Also... I think it's telling that you would think like this and its a bit elitist on your part. I would expect such rhetoric from Cypress and the stooges Mott, Jarod and Nigel..not you.

 

[WinterBorn]

Well, that's how "movements" work, don't you know that? If you want to attack the movement, you have to do a 'counter-movement', and attack the principles of the 'movement' itself. In your case, that would be through avocation of Marxist Socialist policies. As I suggested, you all really need to be out there talking up this ideology of yours, that's the only thing that is going to work to counter the TEA Party. The rest is just a futile and hopeless waste of time. If the TEA Party were an organized political party, like Libertarian Republicans, or whatever, you could attack the party... which is what you all are trying to do now, but it isn't working, because the TEA Party isn't an organized political party, it's a 'movement'.

Just a quick little tidbit for you, I am not a marxist or a socialist. Just because I point out issues with the tea party does not mean I am a socialist.

I understand that it is much easier if you can label everyone who disagrees with you a socialist/marxist/libtard. But it doesn't mean its accurate.

 

[apple0154]

Doesn't matter that Tea Party people are clueless... why don't you clue them in? Educate us all in the merits of Communist Socialist Marxist policies! Explain why we should abandon free market capitalism and turn our personal freedoms over to the state! You believe in this, so why not advocate it and explain it to the rest of us who just don't get it? Seems like that would be a rather simple way to combat the Tea Party, on the merit of ideologies. Why don't you do that?

OK. Let's look at health care. With unemployment running at 10% that's 10% who do not have an employer health care plan. With the world's economy stagnating people's real income is declining meaning they have less to pay for doctors and other medical necessities.

Do we wait until more and more people lose medical coverage before we do something?

Some of those tea baggers also want to cut unemployment insurance and medicare and medicaid. What, exactly, are they doing for the average citizen other than ensuring complete devastation should one fall on hard times?

Rather than fill the social cracks that some people fall through the tea baggers want to remove any and all safety nets leaving a country full of citizens scratching and clawing their way through life like a pack of animals.

Do you know what that does to a country? Take a look at countries without adequate social programs. People have to survive and will do what's necessary, regardless of what is legal.

Yes, the tea party and their supporters are clueless. Subject people to the standards of living suitable for animals and they will act like animals.

Take a few dollars and go to a country that has poor social programs. Mexico. Many in the Caribbean. Mingle among the general population. See how long you maintain your possessions.

When people are hungry and/or ill and/or see their family members suffering they will do whatever they have to do.

The tea baggers and their supporters need to open their back gate and get out of their yard and see reality. They better realize that in a dog-eat-dog world they are food, also.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

"Smaller government." Those words are meaningless without specifics.

Obviously not true, or the Tea Party support would not be what it is.

"Take back our country." Arrogant, presumptuous and again without specifics.

Seems very specific to me. Democrat Marxist-Socialists control the country, and the Tea Party plans to take it back. No arrogance, no presumption, just a specific fact.

You guys are just sore that the Tea Party isn't giving you specific things you can run around and lie about, distort and overblow, like you have traditionally done in the past. I hate that for ya, but like I said, you should just assume that the Tea Party is opposed to Marxist Socialism, and you should be telling America why Marxist Socialism is the best way to go, as opposed to Conservative Capitalism. This stuff you're floating isn't working for you. People aren't going to stop supporting smaller limited government because you posted some blog about how the Tea Party is 'divided' or because you trump up a bunch of bullshit about religious intolerance or whatnot. You'd better get on message, and start promoting your Marxist Socialist agenda, because THAT is what is being contested here, nothing else. All the other stuff, is bluster and diversion, distraction and obfuscation. Now, if your Marxist Socialist policies were actually working, you could point to the success and run on that, but since they are failing, as most conservative capitalists predicted they would, you have a little problem on your hands. This is why you are adamantly trying to cajole the Tea Party into 'defining specifics' so you can lie and distort those, and maybe win some power back. Hate to tell ya this, but it ain't gonna happen.



Doesn't matter that Tea Party people are clueless... why don't you clue them in? Educate us all in the merits of Communist Socialist Marxist policies! Explain why we should abandon free market capitalism and turn our personal freedoms over to the state! You believe in this, so why not advocate it and explain it to the rest of us who just don't get it? Seems like that would be a rather simple way to combat the Tea Party, on the merit of ideologies. Why don't you do that?



Hmm... other than her comments about how porn and masturbation is detrimental to healthy marriages, and some past trouble repaying a student loan, is there something else I've missed? Seems to me, her actual POLITICAL message of smaller limited government, has yet to be challenged.



Problem is, you don't have two months, you have a month and a half. I'm not counting anything... I am on record as saying I don't believe the GOP will win the house or senate this go-around. I think it's a housecleaning round, we're getting rid of RINOs and putting conservative butts in a few seats. The REAL tsunami will happen in 2012, when we oust the Communist in Chief.

 

[cawacko]

OK. Let's look at health care. With unemployment running at 10% that's 10% who do not have an employer health care plan. With the world's economy stagnating people's real income is declining meaning they have less to pay for doctors and other medical necessities.

Do we wait until more and more people lose medical coverage before we do something?

Some of those tea baggers also want to cut unemployment insurance and medicare and medicaid. What, exactly, are they doing for the average citizen other than ensuring complete devastation should one fall on hard times?

Rather than fill the social cracks that some people fall through the tea baggers want to remove any and all safety nets leaving a country full of citizens scratching and clawing their way through life like a pack of animals.

Do you know what that does to a country? Take a look at countries without adequate social programs. People have to survive and will do what's necessary, regardless of what is legal.

Yes, the tea party and their supporters are clueless. Subject people to the standards of living suitable for animals and they will act like animals.

Take a few dollars and go to a country that has poor social programs. Mexico. Many in the Caribbean. Mingle among the general population. See how long you maintain your possessions.

When people are hungry and/or ill and/or see their family members suffering they will do whatever they have to do.

The tea baggers and their supporters need to open their back gate and get out of their yard and see reality. They better realize that in a dog-eat-dog world they are food, also.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Uh, no dude. You haven't seen one thing that says the tea party movement supports eliminating social security or even touching medicaid or medicare. That's the whole argument people like Mott have made that they haven't made any specific proposals.

So please save your they're pushing Grandma off the cliff rhetoric of killing the safety net.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

wow. just wow. the dems are totally in an uproar about TEA people. I've not seen this much 'shit flinging hoping something sticks' in a long time.

and who the fuck made the 'Maine state coordinator' the TEA party leader?

 

[Kamala Trump]

Just a quick little tidbit for you, I am not a marxist or a socialist. Just because I point out issues with the tea party does not mean I am a socialist.

I understand that it is much easier if you can label everyone who disagrees with you a socialist/marxist/libtard. But it doesn't mean its accurate.

Right. You're an internationalist fascist.

 

[christiefan915]

"Smaller government." Those words are meaningless without specifics.

Obviously not true, or the Tea Party support would not be what it is.

"Take back our country." Arrogant, presumptuous and again without specifics.

Seems very specific to me. Democrat Marxist-Socialists control the country, and the Tea Party plans to take it back. No arrogance, no presumption, just a specific fact.

You guys are just sore that the Tea Party isn't giving you specific things you can run around and lie about, distort and overblow, like you have traditionally done in the past.

No, I want specifics in order to decide why I should or shouldn't vote for a particular person or party. So Tea people want "smaller government". I want them a precise definition of that, and an explanation of how they plan to make it smaller. If it's cutting funding for programs, then which programs. If it's cutting taxes, then how is the infrastructure going to be maintained with less money coming in. Simple, really.

I hate that for ya, but like I said, you should just assume that the Tea Party is opposed to Marxist Socialism, and you should be telling America why Marxist Socialism is the best way to go, as opposed to Conservative Capitalism.

I, for one, don't go around telling people that "Marxist Socialism" is the way to go because for this country, it's not. Why can't you be honest and admit that "Marxist Socialism" in America is just a fiction concocted by conservatives to scare the unwitting that they're going to lose their money and their rights?

This stuff you're floating isn't working for you. People aren't going to stop supporting smaller limited government because you posted some blog about how the Tea Party is 'divided' or because you trump up a bunch of bullshit about religious intolerance or whatnot.

Again with the "smaller, limited government" but no road map of how to get there. Let's say that every Tea candidate running gets elected. They go to DC and have to work with the present incumbents. It's inevitable that compromises occur if they want any part of their agenda to go through. You and others talk about Tea Party candidates like they're a giant wave that's going to rush into Washington, sweep out the old and bring in the new. Wake-up call: some of us thought Obama and the Dems were going to do that, and boy were we surprised.

You'd better get on message, and start promoting your Marxist Socialist agenda, because THAT is what is being contested here, nothing else. All the other stuff, is bluster and diversion, distraction and obfuscation.

Get serious already. You and I and millions of others *know* there isn't a Marxist Socialist agenda in this country. You don't necessarily come across as a dumb person but you sure have some dumb ideas.

Now, if your Marxist Socialist policies were actually working, you could point to the success and run on that, but since they are failing, as most conservative capitalists predicted they would, you have a little problem on your hands.

Specifically, which "Marxist Socialist" policies are we talking about?

This is why you are adamantly trying to cajole the Tea Party into 'defining specifics' so you can lie and distort those, and maybe win some power back. Hate to tell ya this, but it ain't gonna happen.

How convenient. Promote the Tea Party as an enormous bloc of voters who are dissatisfied with the country and want change; then when you're asked for the specifics of the change, you fall back on Dem ad homs, or an explanation that the Tea Party isn't really a party and that every group has its own separate agenda. I call that having your cake and eating it, too.

Doesn't matter that Tea Party people are clueless... why don't you clue them in? Educate us all in the merits of Communist Socialist Marxist policies! Explain why we should abandon free market capitalism and turn our personal freedoms over to the state! You believe in this, so why not advocate it and explain it to the rest of us who just don't get it? Seems like that would be a rather simple way to combat the Tea Party, on the merit of ideologies. Why don't you do that?

Your claim that liberals support "Communist Socialist Marxist" policies and the rest of that rot is simply your biased opinion. Furthermore, it's an opinion that doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. Your entire argument can be boiled down to "conservatives good, liberals evil". Maybe that's the way you pick your candidates and party but it's a pretty shallow way of deciding who to vote for.

Hmm... other than her comments about how porn and masturbation is detrimental to healthy marriages, and some past trouble repaying a student loan, is there something else I've missed? Seems to me, her actual POLITICAL message of smaller limited government, has yet to be challenged.

Yes, there's something you missed. Every position O'Donnell or any candidate takes is part of the picture used to evaluate them as a whole. Agreed, people are having fun with her old masturbation video but the bigger point is will her own religious beliefs affect issues involving the entire country, or will she stick to the Constitution. Will her stance of smaller, limited government negatively affect those people who don't support her.

Problem is, you don't have two months, you have a month and a half.

Actually it was about a month and a half for McCain, too.

FOX News Poll: McCain Leads Obama 45% to 42%

Wednesday, September 10, 2008
By Dana Blanton

A substantial shift in the vote preference among independents has given John McCain a slim lead over Barack Obama after the Republican convention. Independents now break for McCain by 15 percentage points (46 percent to 31 percent) in a FOX News poll released Wednesday.

I'm not counting anything... I am on record as saying I don't believe the GOP will win the house or senate this go-around. I think it's a housecleaning round, we're getting rid of RINOs and putting conservative butts in a few seats. The REAL tsunami will happen in 2012, when we oust the Communist in Chief.

Time will tell.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No, I want specifics in order to decide why I should or shouldn't vote for a particular person or party. So Tea people want "smaller government". I want them a precise definition of that, and an explanation of how they plan to make it smaller. If it's cutting funding for programs, then which programs. If it's cutting taxes, then how is the infrastructure going to be maintained with less money coming in. Simple, really.

here is my take on it, at least mine and those TEA people I hang around with.

things we want to see for smaller government.
1) get rid of unconstitutional agencies, i.e. ATF, D of Education, EPA, DHS, HHS, among others.

cutting funding goes like this. We have such a huge deficit problem, totally unsustainable, therefore we MUST cut funding for ALL government agencies and programs by 20%. This also includes elected officials salaries, government employee salaries, benefits, etc. Pet programs that receive funding, gone. Nix them.

across the board tax cuts. 5% to start, another 5% in 6 months if we don't see a marked improvement in the economy.

The infrastructure maintenance can be maintained with the stimulus money sitting around that hasn't been spent yet.

I, for one, don't go around telling people that "Marxist Socialism" is the way to go because for this country, it's not. Why can't you be honest and admit that "Marxist Socialism" in America is just a fiction concocted by conservatives to scare the unwitting that they're going to lose their money and their rights?

didn't you say in another thread how the government handling and directing all salary payments instead of the people would be a wonderful thing?

Again with the "smaller, limited government" but no road map of how to get there. Let's say that every Tea candidate running gets elected. They go to DC and have to work with the present incumbents. It's inevitable that compromises occur if they want any part of their agenda to go through. You and others talk about Tea Party candidates like they're a giant wave that's going to rush into Washington, sweep out the old and bring in the new. Wake-up call: some of us thought Obama and the Dems were going to do that, and boy were we surprised.

funny thing about having huge political support for things like smaller government. If the present incumbents don't get on board right away, we hit gridlock. no bills pass, no money gets apportioned or budgeted. Most of us have zero issue with the government being shut down for failure to pursue an American Agenda.

 

[Phantasmal]

here is my take on it, at least mine and those TEA people I hang around with.

things we want to see for smaller government.
1) get rid of unconstitutional agencies, i.e. ATF, D of Education, EPA, DHS, HHS, among others.

cutting funding goes like this. We have such a huge deficit problem, totally unsustainable, therefore we MUST cut funding for ALL government agencies and programs by 20%. This also includes elected officials salaries, government employee salaries, benefits, etc. Pet programs that receive funding, gone. Nix them.

across the board tax cuts. 5% to start, another 5% in 6 months if we don't see a marked improvement in the economy.

The infrastructure maintenance can be maintained with the stimulus money sitting around that hasn't been spent yet.



didn't you say in another thread how the government handling and directing all salary payments instead of the people would be a wonderful thing?



funny thing about having huge political support for things like smaller government. If the present incumbents don't get on board right away, we hit gridlock. no bills pass, no money gets apportioned or budgeted. Most of us have zero issue with the government being shut down for failure to pursue an American Agenda.

Okay, you would abolish the D of Education and turn it over to the states, what if the states were to enact laws, such a segregation or the teaching of ID instead of evolution, what would be done then? What about states that are so poor they can not afford to educate their citizens? Do you believe this is good for the state of our union?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Just a quick little tidbit for you, I am not a marxist or a socialist. Just because I point out issues with the tea party does not mean I am a socialist.

I understand that it is much easier if you can label everyone who disagrees with you a socialist/marxist/libtard. But it doesn't mean its accurate.

WB, I hate to tell you this, but you are a Marxist Socialist. You believe in Marxist Socialist policies and ideology, and support them politically. I understand you want to run away from the label, Marxist Socialists really don't have much to hang their hat on through history. It's a failed ideology which has resulted in more human suffering than anything else, but it keeps getting trotted out by those who think it can work, if given enough time. Now granted, Marxist Socialists are clever enough to realize there is a negative stigma associated with their ideology, so through the years, they have repackaged it as other things... like "Progressives." Sounds a lot better... like you are for progress! But no matter what word you come up with to describe it, you are still a Marxist Socialist, and the ideas are still Marxist Socialist ideas. Now is when some pinhead buddy of yours chimes in to tell us that all Marxist Socialist ideas aren't bad, and we just don't understand them.

 

[Phantasmal]

WB, I hate to tell you this, but you are a Marxist Socialist. You believe in Marxist Socialist policies and ideology, and support them politically. I understand you want to run away from the label, Marxist Socialists really don't have much to hang their hat on through history. It's a failed ideology which has resulted in more human suffering than anything else, but it keeps getting trotted out by those who think it can work, if given enough time. Now granted, Marxist Socialists are clever enough to realize there is a negative stigma associated with their ideology, so through the years, they have repackaged it as other things... like "Progressives." Sounds a lot better... like you are for progress! But no matter what word you come up with to describe it, you are still a Marxist Socialist, and the ideas are still Marxist Socialist ideas. Now is when some pinhead buddy of yours chimes in to tell us that all Marxist Socialist ideas aren't bad, and we just don't understand them.

let me quote you, sir:

"like a bunch of sour-grapes 7th graders, but that's the deal here."

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Okay, you would abolish the D of Education and turn it over to the states, what if the states were to enact laws, such a segregation or the teaching of ID instead of evolution, what would be done then? What about states that are so poor they can not afford to educate their citizens? Do you believe this is good for the state of our union?

If they enacted laws such as segregation, someone would hire a constitutional lawyer and sue the state for violating their constitutional rights. This has been against the law and unconstitutional in America for 45 years.

ID instead of evolution? Are you of the opinion that evolution explains origin? Because that would make you rather ignorant, since evolution doesn't have anything to do with origin of life. I'm not sure I understand why you wouldn't teach BOTH as theories people have, since they are both theories people have? Unless of course, you want to have 'selective education' where we are only allowed to teach people what others feel is appropriate. Knowledge is power, so limiting knowledge is limiting power, is that what you advocate?

Finally, there is not a state so poor it can't educate the kids. All education is handled by the state, and mostly paid for with school taxes. This has been supplemented by the federal government through the years, and this allows nitwit commies like you, to mandate what the kids can be taught, so as to limit their knowledge and keep them stupid and powerless. It's a system that has worked really well to produce generations of really stupid people.

 

[Phantasmal]

If they enacted laws such as segregation, someone would hire a constitutional lawyer and sue the state for violating their constitutional rights. This has been against the law and unconstitutional in America for 45 years.

ID instead of evolution? Are you of the opinion that evolution explains origin? Because that would make you rather ignorant, since evolution doesn't have anything to do with origin of life. I'm not sure I understand why you wouldn't teach BOTH as theories people have, since they are both theories people have? Unless of course, you want to have 'selective education' where we are only allowed to teach people what others feel is appropriate. Knowledge is power, so limiting knowledge is limiting power, is that what you advocate?

Finally, there is not a state so poor it can't educate the kids. All education is handled by the state, and mostly paid for with school taxes. This has been supplemented by the federal government through the years, and this allows nitwit commies like you, to mandate what the kids can be taught, so as to limit their knowledge and keep them stupid and powerless. It's a system that has worked really well to produce generations of really stupid people.

Yes, it is against "Federal" law

I am not ignorant about the theories, but there are many who are and this is a position that has been addressed in states such as Kansas, thank goodness reason prevailed!

ID is not science it is religion and politics and should not be taught as science, but that is another argument. I feel children should be taught about Id in the comparative religion classes or myths about the creation of the world classes.

Federal agencies are to protect citizens from state stupidity! It is a sad fact! Look at every department created, it is in reaction to some problem states can't handle or the public is being ripped off, there are exceptions, but this is sadly been the case in most instances!

Wasn't no child left behind done by your guys? It wasn't Commies like me, I have always hated that program and think it should be done away with for the benefit to us all and the education system. The Department of Education needs an overhaul, but I think it has it purpose and is a necessary evil, like most Federal agencies, we don't like them, but there would be no United without them! Think about that, it would be just 50 individual states, and some people like that idea by the way. Sarah and her man were exploring Alaska's succession at one time.

 

[WinterBorn]

WB, I hate to tell you this, but you are a Marxist Socialist. You believe in Marxist Socialist policies and ideology, and support them politically. I understand you want to run away from the label, Marxist Socialists really don't have much to hang their hat on through history. It's a failed ideology which has resulted in more human suffering than anything else, but it keeps getting trotted out by those who think it can work, if given enough time. Now granted, Marxist Socialists are clever enough to realize there is a negative stigma associated with their ideology, so through the years, they have repackaged it as other things... like "Progressives." Sounds a lot better... like you are for progress! But no matter what word you come up with to describe it, you are still a Marxist Socialist, and the ideas are still Marxist Socialist ideas. Now is when some pinhead buddy of yours chimes in to tell us that all Marxist Socialist ideas aren't bad, and we just don't understand them.

Dixie, please give me an example of a Marxist Socialist policy that I have backed or supported?

Now is when I want you to chime in with examples to back up your claims.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Okay, you would abolish the D of Education and turn it over to the states, what if the states were to enact laws, such a segregation or the teaching of ID instead of evolution, what would be done then? What about states that are so poor they can not afford to educate their citizens? Do you believe this is good for the state of our union?

the 14th Amendment can be used to force states to abide by equal protection and outlaw segragation.

if a state wants to teach ID over evolution, or vice versa, then that is their right/power as a state. If a parent lives in a state that teaches ID, but they believe in evolution, then use the old clinton statement of 'vote with your feet' and move.

If states are too poor to provide public education, then it is THAT STATES responsibility to adjust their fiscal budget, IF, that's what their constituency demands.

 

[Phantasmal]

the 14th Amendment can be used to force states to abide by equal protection and outlaw segragation.

if a state wants to teach ID over evolution, or vice versa, then that is their right/power as a state. If a parent lives in a state that teaches ID, but they believe in evolution, then use the old clinton statement of 'vote with your feet' and move.

If states are too poor to provide public education, then it is THAT STATES responsibility to adjust their fiscal budget, IF, that's what their constituency demands.

People need to move, great solution, I am sure they can all afford it.

Like I said, the Feds are needed to protect people from people!

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Yes, it is against "Federal" law

no, it violates the 14th Amendment. Federal law only came in to being when a racist executive branch refused to enforce the constitution. Hence the growth of government. This is something that people blind themselves to. Government is the only entity that profits from failure, so why should they enforce the constitution when they can appeal to the ignorant masses saying they need a huge bureaucracy to help enforce the constitution?

Wasn't no child left behind done by your guys? It wasn't Commies like me, I have always hated that program and think it should be done away with for the benefit to us all and the education system.

NCLB was created by Ted Kennedy.

The Department of Education needs an overhaul, but I think it has it purpose and is a necessary evil, like most Federal agencies, we don't like them, but there would be no United without them! Think about that, it would be just 50 individual states, and some people like that idea by the way. Sarah and her man were exploring Alaska's succession at one time.

all government is a necessary evil, too much government is just evil.

It's real easy to get states to abide by the US Constitution without having a red tape department that does nothing but suck up the peoples money.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

People need to move, great solution, I am sure they can all afford it.

Like I said, the Feds are needed to protect people from people!

See, this is what I can't figure out is how people like you don't understand the idea that people are freedom.

If your state enacted a law that increased property taxes by 50%, what would you do? you'd frickin move.

If you don't like the politics of your state and are unable to change them, you move. You don't push for policies that provide the federal government with power that they don't have via the constitution, because government is a necessary evil. Government is a troublesome servant and a fearful master.

 

[Phantasmal]

no, it violates the 14th Amendment. Federal law only came in to being when a racist executive branch refused to enforce the constitution. Hence the growth of government. This is something that people blind themselves to. Government is the only entity that profits from failure, so why should they enforce the constitution when they can appeal to the ignorant masses saying they need a huge bureaucracy to help enforce the constitution?


NCLB was created by Ted Kennedy.



all government is a necessary evil, too much government is just evil.

It's real easy to get states to abide by the US Constitution without having a red tape department that does nothing but suck up the peoples money.

Okay, semantics, isn't the Constitution the Supreme law of the land? Is the Constitution considered a legal document? Isn't it considered Federal Law?

How do you determine it is easy to get states to go along with the Constitution? Isn't that what the Civil War was about? So, it isn't always easy!

 

[Phantasmal]

See, this is what I can't figure out is how people like you don't understand the idea that people are freedom.

If your state enacted a law that increased property taxes by 50%, what would you do? you'd frickin move.

If you don't like the politics of your state and are unable to change them, you move. You don't push for policies that provide the federal government with power that they don't have via the constitution, because government is a necessary evil. Government is a troublesome servant and a fearful master.

No, I wouldn't move I am free to have the law changed. I stay and fight for my rights, I am not a quitter!

I have lived in Alaska for over 30 years, I don't like the politics of my state, but I like my state and the living it provides, so I guess you need another example. I choose to stay and fight for my rights under the federal law!