George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message


HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section:
National
Dec. 16, 2005, 1:30PM

Bush secretly OK'd eavesdropping

Oh, puh-leez (as you mght say)......

Bush's poll numbers are rebounding, the economy is humming, the Iraqis have,
for the third time in a year, demonstrated a greater passion for
representative government [in the face of death threats] than many Americans
do.......

.....and the best the NYT can come up with is a year-old story about NSA
wiretapping, which they -- oops! -- forgot to mention was approved by the
Senate committee, and -- oops! -- forgot to point out just happened to
coincide with the author's book publication. Yet somehow the myth carries
forward that the Old Grey Lady still has some credibility! Sad,..... so
sad.

George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 21:59:36 -0500, "John Gaquin" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message


HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section:
National
Dec. 16, 2005, 1:30PM

Bush secretly OK'd eavesdropping

Oh, puh-leez (as you mght say)......

Bush's poll numbers are rebounding, the economy is humming, the Iraqis have,
for the third time in a year, demonstrated a greater passion for
representative government [in the face of death threats] than many Americans
do.......

....and the best the NYT can come up with is a year-old story about NSA
wiretapping, which they -- oops! -- forgot to mention was approved by the
Senate committee, and -- oops! -- forgot to point out just happened to
coincide with the author's book publication. Yet somehow the myth carries
forward that the Old Grey Lady still has some credibility! Sad,..... so
sad.


,,,and happened to be published on the day the Senate was scheduled to vote on stopping the debate
on the Patriot Act, thus giving the Dems something they could read on the floor. (Those that could
read, that is.)
--
John Herring

Hope your Christmas is Spectacular!
....and your New Year even Better!

George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 21:59:36 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:


Bush secretly OK'd eavesdropping

Oh, puh-leez (as you mght say)......

Bush's poll numbers are rebounding, the economy is humming, the Iraqis
have, for the third time in a year, demonstrated a greater passion for
representative government [in the face of death threats] than many
Americans do.......

And, in case you didn't notice, *if* this story pans out true, this
President committed an impeachable offense.

George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 06:45:38 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:


And, in case you didn't notice, *if* this story pans out true, this
President committed an impeachable offense.


It really doesn't matter. The GOP-controlled House isn't going to take up
impeachment hearings against Bush no matter what. And even if the Dems
capture the House next fall, they're not going to do it either. The best
we can hope for is Bush being bottled up somewhat for the remainder of his
sentence.

Oh, I'm not naive enough to think that he will be impeached, but I am
saying that if this story pans out to be true, it is an impeachable
offense, and publicly noted. As for a GOP controlled House, if this were
to reach critical mass, enough Republicans could bail on this President,
if for no other reason than to cover their own tails. Impeachment
proceedings need to at least look bipartisan. Personally, I believe that
if Hyde had sought more bipartisan support, instead of ramrodding the
Democrats, Clinton might have been convicted.

George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 07:29:13 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

The way you are separating your comments from mine, two dashes and a
space, is the standard signature delimiter. My newsreader reads your
comments as a signature and cuts them.



Bailing on Bush is all I hope for, though by bailing I simply mean not
supporting him in lockstep as most Repubs in the House have been doing
for the past five years.

What is interesting to me is how the Repubs are reinventing systems,
procedures and rules in Congress to push their agendas, while boobus
Americanus sits home and snores.

I'm more than disappointed. Spying on Americans has been an ongoing fight
between various administrations wanting to take the easy way, and civil
liberties. I don't like it, but I can't say Bush is the first, but an
American President defending torture? I didn't think I'd ever see the day.


Welkome to Republican Amerika.

Fortunately, not all Republicans. This regime shall also pass into
history, the sooner the better.

George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 08:00:28 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 07:29:13 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

The way you are separating your comments from mine, two dashes and a
space, is the standard signature delimiter. My newsreader reads your
comments as a signature and cuts them.



Bailing on Bush is all I hope for, though by bailing I simply mean not
supporting him in lockstep as most Repubs in the House have been doing
for the past five years.

What is interesting to me is how the Repubs are reinventing systems,
procedures and rules in Congress to push their agendas, while boobus
Americanus sits home and snores.

I'm more than disappointed. Spying on Americans has been an ongoing fight
between various administrations wanting to take the easy way, and civil
liberties. I don't like it, but I can't say Bush is the first, but an
American President defending torture? I didn't think I'd ever see the day.


Does it bother you that Democrats were involved from the get-go? Do you think those Democrats are
just conservatives in disguise, or could they have had a rationale for their decision? Perhaps there
is more to the story than meets the eye?

BTW, here is a great Christmas gift for some of your buddies.

http://gop.com/store/Detail.aspx?id=15
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 09:13:36 -0500, JohnH wrote:


Does it bother you that Democrats were involved from the get-go? Do you
think those Democrats are just conservatives in disguise, or could they
have had a rationale for their decision? Perhaps there is more to the
story than meets the eye?

Bull****, John, Congress wasn't involved, Democrats or Republicans, and
unless you are aware of what exactly was said during that briefing, they
may not have even known. If Congress was involved, it would be a
different story. They have the Constitutional authority to make law. Of
course, any law would be up for judicial review, but that didn't happen
either, did it?

George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:28:16 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 09:13:36 -0500, JohnH wrote:


Does it bother you that Democrats were involved from the get-go? Do you
think those Democrats are just conservatives in disguise, or could they
have had a rationale for their decision? Perhaps there is more to the
story than meets the eye?

Bull****, John, Congress wasn't involved, Democrats or Republicans, and
unless you are aware of what exactly was said during that briefing, they
may not have even known. If Congress was involved, it would be a
different story. They have the Constitutional authority to make law. Of
course, any law would be up for judicial review, but that didn't happen
either, did it?

I posted, yesterday, the paragraph from the NY Times story showing they *were* involved, at least
the Senate Intelligence Committee. I believe I even highlighted the 'both parties' phrase from the
paragraph. Did you miss that?

And, unless you were there, you don't know any more than I do.
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

"thunder" wrote in message

And, in case you didn't notice, *if* this story pans out true, this
President committed an impeachable offense.

If what you posit is true -- and I'll stipulate for the moment -- then he
will have to be impeached side by side with at least a majority of the
Senate Intelligence Committee seated at that time, as they approved the
surveillance activity as essential security measures. Personally, I don't
think this event would meet the High Crimes test.

George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

"thunder" wrote in message

...but an
American President defending torture? I didn't think I'd ever see the
day.

Pres Bush was not defending torture, as the press so gleefully loves to
portray. What he was defending was the use of distastefully coercive
interrogation techniques. Surely someone as smart as you can see the
distinction. [If you deny seeing the distinction, I would have to ask who
operates your computer for you.] Torture has been banned by US law for some
time. What the McCain bill does is take political correctness to the
highest level yet achieved.

God knows, we wouldn't want to make our captured enemies feel uncomfortable
now, would we? No demeaning words or actions now, it just wouldn't be
right!

George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:23:18 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message

And, in case you didn't notice, *if* this story pans out true, this
President committed an impeachable offense.

If what you posit is true -- and I'll stipulate for the moment -- then he
will have to be impeached side by side with at least a majority of the
Senate Intelligence Committee seated at that time, as they approved the
surveillance activity as essential security measures. Personally, I don't
think this event would meet the High Crimes test.

I have read where the some in Congress had been briefed, but nowhere that
approval was given. As for the High Crimes test, in 1972, when Nixon
claimed he had the power to wiretap, the Supreme Court unanimously
rejected that notion. Since that time, Congress, the body that makes the
law, has clarified the situation with the 1978 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act. Wiretapping Americans, without a warrant, puts the
President clearly at odds with the will of Congress. As impeachment
proceedings are political, the point is probably moot, but a
Constitutional crisis does meet the High Crimes and Misdemeanors test.

George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:29:19 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message

...but an
American President defending torture? I didn't think I'd ever see the
day.

Pres Bush was not defending torture, as the press so gleefully loves to
portray. What he was defending was the use of distastefully coercive
interrogation techniques. Surely someone as smart as you can see the
distinction. [If you deny seeing the distinction, I would have to ask
who operates your computer for you.] Torture has been banned by US law
for some time. What the McCain bill does is take political correctness
to the highest level yet achieved.

You overlook this administration's history of handing people over to
countries that do torture. That would be an accessory before the fact.
You also overlook the infamous Bybee memo that was the formal legal
opinion that guided this administration. It defined torture so narrowly
that only activities resulting in "death, organ failure or the permanent
impairment of a significant body function" qualify. By most Americans'
standards that is far more than "distastefully coercive interrogation
techniques."

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/d...e80102ltr.html

George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:18:16 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:23:18 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message

And, in case you didn't notice, *if* this story pans out true, this
President committed an impeachable offense.

If what you posit is true -- and I'll stipulate for the moment -- then he
will have to be impeached side by side with at least a majority of the
Senate Intelligence Committee seated at that time, as they approved the
surveillance activity as essential security measures. Personally, I don't
think this event would meet the High Crimes test.

I have read where the some in Congress had been briefed, but nowhere that
approval was given. As for the High Crimes test, in 1972, when Nixon
claimed he had the power to wiretap, the Supreme Court unanimously
rejected that notion. Since that time, Congress, the body that makes the
law, has clarified the situation with the 1978 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act. Wiretapping Americans, without a warrant, puts the
President clearly at odds with the will of Congress. As impeachment
proceedings are political, the point is probably moot, but a
Constitutional crisis does meet the High Crimes and Misdemeanors test.

If the Congressmen had disapproved, don't you think you'd have heard their disapprovals ringing in
the hallowed halls of the Senate a long time ago?

I *am* glad to see that you will at least admit that some in Congress were involved.
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:50:55 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:29:19 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message

...but an
American President defending torture? I didn't think I'd ever see the
day.

Pres Bush was not defending torture, as the press so gleefully loves to
portray. What he was defending was the use of distastefully coercive
interrogation techniques. Surely someone as smart as you can see the
distinction. [If you deny seeing the distinction, I would have to ask
who operates your computer for you.] Torture has been banned by US law
for some time. What the McCain bill does is take political correctness
to the highest level yet achieved.

You overlook this administration's history of handing people over to
countries that do torture.

Are you suggesting that we should keep any foreign suspects we capture and put them in a
bed-and-breakfast for the rest of their lives?

If we can't return them to their country of birth, where should we send them?

What countries do *not* use coercive interrogation techniques?


That would be an accessory before the fact.
You also overlook the infamous Bybee memo that was the formal legal
opinion that guided this administration. It defined torture so narrowly
that only activities resulting in "death, organ failure or the permanent
impairment of a significant body function" qualify. By most Americans'
standards that is far more than "distastefully coercive interrogation
techniques."

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/d...e80102ltr.html

--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:29:19 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message

...but an
American President defending torture? I didn't think I'd ever see the
day.

Pres Bush was not defending torture, as the press so gleefully loves to
portray. What he was defending was the use of distastefully coercive
interrogation techniques. Surely someone as smart as you can see the
distinction. [If you deny seeing the distinction, I would have to ask
who operates your computer for you.] Torture has been banned by US law
for some time. What the McCain bill does is take political correctness
to the highest level yet achieved.

You overlook this administration's history of handing people over to
countries that do torture. That would be an accessory before the fact.

If these "people" are citizens of the country they are being returned to
then what is the problem. These "people" are just being repatriated.

You also overlook the infamous Bybee memo that was the formal legal
opinion that guided this administration. It defined torture so narrowly
that only activities resulting in "death, organ failure or the permanent
impairment of a significant body function" qualify.

What is your definition of touture? Does raising your voice at someone
constitute torture?

By most Americans'
standards that is far more than "distastefully coercive interrogation
techniques."

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/d...e80102ltr.html

George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

"thunder" wrote in message

.... As for the High Crimes test, in 1972, when Nixon
claimed he had the power to wiretap, the Supreme Court unanimously
rejected that notion.

Richard Nixon was conducting wiretap operations solely for the strengthening
of his political position. Surely you see the difference.

....Wiretapping Americans, without a warrant, puts the
President clearly at odds with the will of Congress.

Presidents are almost always at odds with the will of Congress. The
important question is whether the Prsident's actions are at odds with the
words of existing statutes.

As impeachment
proceedings are political, the point is probably moot, but a
Constitutional crisis does meet the High Crimes and Misdemeanors test.

I think you need a bit more specificity than your interpretation of "...a
Constitutional crisis..." in order to bring an impeachment proceeding
forward. Also note that the word 'misdemeanor' is written in the US
Constitution with a lower case m. The reference of the time was not to any
class of offence, as might be interpreted today, but to unseemly, generally
bad behavior that might serve to put the USA in a position of ridicule or
humiliation. Twas the misdemeanor that got so many implacably on the trail
of Pres Clinton. The almost ceaseless lying and arrogance was the hook they
hung their coat on.

George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:55:27 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


If these "people" are citizens of the country they are being returned to
then what is the problem. These "people" are just being repatriated.

That isn't the case, and you should know it by now. Do a search on
"extraordinary renditions", and then tell me these people were being
repatriated.

What is your definition of touture? Does raising your voice at someone
constitute torture?

Do they give lessons in denial when one becomes a Republican? I think
most Americans have a general concept of what constitutes torture.
Perhaps, you don't have a problem with it being done in your name, but it
shames me. Oh, and if you had read the following link, you would know
what this administration considered torture.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/d...e80102ltr.html

George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:43:57 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:55:27 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


If these "people" are citizens of the country they are being returned to
then what is the problem. These "people" are just being repatriated.

That isn't the case, and you should know it by now. Do a search on
"extraordinary renditions", and then tell me these people were being
repatriated.

What is your definition of touture? Does raising your voice at someone
constitute torture?

Do they give lessons in denial when one becomes a Republican? I think
most Americans have a general concept of what constitutes torture.
Perhaps, you don't have a problem with it being done in your name, but it
shames me. Oh, and if you had read the following link, you would know
what this administration considered torture.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/d...e80102ltr.html

I did. I found many articles. I looked at several. All the ones I read referred to the same
individual, Maher Arar, who says he was tortured in Syria.

Are there other cases which ring with some truth, or are there just umpteen stories about this one
guy?
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:55:27 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


If these "people" are citizens of the country they are being returned to
then what is the problem. These "people" are just being repatriated.

That isn't the case, and you should know it by now. Do a search on
"extraordinary renditions", and then tell me these people were being
repatriated.

Whatever anyone wants to call it, it is repatriation.

What is your definition of touture? Does raising your voice at someone
constitute torture?

Do they give lessons in denial when one becomes a Republican? I think
most Americans have a general concept of what constitutes torture.
Perhaps, you don't have a problem with it being done in your name, but it
shames me. Oh, and if you had read the following link, you would know
what this administration considered torture.

I am asking for your definition of torture? I don't want someone else's
definition I want your definition.

Is putting someone in handcuffs torture? Is locking them in a cell torture?
Just what is torture?

George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:55:27 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


If these "people" are citizens of the country they are being returned to
then what is the problem. These "people" are just being repatriated.

That isn't the case, and you should know it by now. Do a search on
"extraordinary renditions", and then tell me these people were being
repatriated.

Whatever anyone wants to call it, it is repatriation.

What is your definition of touture? Does raising your voice at someone
constitute torture?

Do they give lessons in denial when one becomes a Republican? I think
most Americans have a general concept of what constitutes torture.
Perhaps, you don't have a problem with it being done in your name, but it
shames me. Oh, and if you had read the following link, you would know
what this administration considered torture.

I am asking for your definition of torture? I don't want someone else's
definition I want your definition.

Is putting someone in handcuffs torture? Is locking them in a cell
torture? Just what is torture?



Reading this thread.

Eisboch

George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 18:13:35 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:55:27 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


If these "people" are citizens of the country they are being returned to
then what is the problem. These "people" are just being repatriated.

That isn't the case, and you should know it by now. Do a search on
"extraordinary renditions", and then tell me these people were being
repatriated.

Whatever anyone wants to call it, it is repatriation.

What is your definition of touture? Does raising your voice at someone
constitute torture?

Do they give lessons in denial when one becomes a Republican? I think
most Americans have a general concept of what constitutes torture.
Perhaps, you don't have a problem with it being done in your name, but it
shames me. Oh, and if you had read the following link, you would know
what this administration considered torture.

I am asking for your definition of torture? I don't want someone else's
definition I want your definition.

Is putting someone in handcuffs torture? Is locking them in a cell
torture? Just what is torture?



Reading this thread.

Eisboch


LOL!
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:55:27 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


If these "people" are citizens of the country they are being returned
to
then what is the problem. These "people" are just being repatriated.

That isn't the case, and you should know it by now. Do a search on
"extraordinary renditions", and then tell me these people were being
repatriated.

Whatever anyone wants to call it, it is repatriation.

What is your definition of touture? Does raising your voice at
someone
constitute torture?

Do they give lessons in denial when one becomes a Republican? I think
most Americans have a general concept of what constitutes torture.
Perhaps, you don't have a problem with it being done in your name, but
it
shames me. Oh, and if you had read the following link, you would know
what this administration considered torture.

I am asking for your definition of torture? I don't want someone else's
definition I want your definition.

Is putting someone in handcuffs torture? Is locking them in a cell
torture? Just what is torture?



Reading this thread.

LMAO



Eisboch

George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:59:15 -0500, JohnH wrote:


I did. I found many articles. I looked at several. All the ones I read
referred to the same individual, Maher Arar, who says he was tortured in
Syria.

Are there other cases which ring with some truth, or are there just
umpteen stories about this one guy?

Geez John, what no "Clinton did it, Clinton did it"? If you truly had
done a search on "extraordinary rendition", you would have seen that the
program was developed with the approval of the Clinton administration.
And of course, I'm sure that will "ring with some truth" to you. Bush
simply expanded the program, and didn't limit it to foreign soil.

As the program was covert, there is no way for us to know how many times
it has been used, but I have read estimates that it has been used over 100
times since 9/11. Egypt, Syria, and Jordan seem to be the leading
contenders for the torturer du jour.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6

George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 02:33:26 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:59:15 -0500, JohnH wrote:


I did. I found many articles. I looked at several. All the ones I read
referred to the same individual, Maher Arar, who says he was tortured in
Syria.

Are there other cases which ring with some truth, or are there just
umpteen stories about this one guy?

Geez John, what no "Clinton did it, Clinton did it"? If you truly had
done a search on "extraordinary rendition", you would have seen that the
program was developed with the approval of the Clinton administration.
And of course, I'm sure that will "ring with some truth" to you. Bush
simply expanded the program, and didn't limit it to foreign soil.

As the program was covert, there is no way for us to know how many times
it has been used, but I have read estimates that it has been used over 100
times since 9/11. Egypt, Syria, and Jordan seem to be the leading
contenders for the torturer du jour.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6

Frankly, thunder, I just don't have a lot of sympathy for terrorists. I think Clinton had a good
idea, now that you mention it. Even this article uses Maher Arar as its starting point.
--
John H

**** May your Christmas be Spectacular!****
*****...and your New Year even Better!*****

George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Tamaroak wrote:
But the Monika incident did?

Capt. Jeff

Hey! That was S*E*X!


Sex is scary stuff to righties.



Actually perjury and lying to a Grand Jury does. ;-)

George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

He's commited more than one impeachable offense in my book. But because
of the balance of power in the House and Senate these days it won't
happen, of course. Can you imagine these same legislators up in arms had
Clinton done anything like this? Spent untold billions, killed untold
hundreds of thousands, committed these same war crimes? One would have
heard the hue and cry on Mars.

As it is, our boys and girls will continue to die, our country will
continue to be sold to the Japanese and Chinese, our environment and
status in the world will continue down the drain and all these
brown-shirters will continue to sing his praise. Was Hitler in the army
or was he also a draft dodger/AWOL/deserter? Juast wondering how else
they compare....

Capt. Jeff

George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

But the Monika incident did?

Capt. Jeff

George W. Bush -a clear and present danger to the United States
 

"Tamaroak" wrote in message news:DIWdna90rPsimTreRVn-

But the Monika incident did?

No, the "Monica incident" may have more appropriately met the misdemeanor
test. Clinton's impeachment had naught to do with sex. That was just the
vehicle, despite what the left would love the history books to record. What
hit the High Crime button was the 17 separate instances where the President
looked Congress and the Grand Jury, (and the American people) square in the
eye and lied through his teeth. Even if you ultimately can prove that Pres
Bush lied re intelligence with knowledge aforethought, none of his
performances can match Pres Clinton's for sheer, arrogant balls.