Honestly, now that Obama is the nominee........

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

. . . Please see Dennis Kucinich's articles of impeachment if you want to read about the illegal activities and outright lies that went into duping people into going along with the Iraqi war.

I have read them and there is nothing illegal in them that I saw. That is why I said please cite the law that W broke. I mean you asserted the war was "illegal" Was it immoral, unjust, ill advised, poorly executed, or some other non legal term - I think it was. But, I find no support for it being "illegal." I mean even Obama said that he thought he had been wrong about the war in Iraq when he saw the statute of SH toppled. Sadly. W and co. botched those dreams.

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

I can't say 100% if I would vote for Hillary but when ruminating over what I wrote in the posting just before this I probably would have and like I supplied the stats for earlier significantly more of her supporters would vote for McCain than Obama's would have if she were the nominee and that I would never do.

The only reason I asked that is because you seem not to want to hear anything bad about Obama or his campaign because you think it will get McCain elected, which you said would leave:

his rightwingnut vice president in charge to appoint Supreme court justices and maybe start a few more illegal wars while setting back women's and gay rights issues decades and lining the pocketbooks of the very rich while the middle class becomes poorer and the environment continues to be ruined

I am at a loss to see why you would not choose Hillary over that scenario. I get that you may question (is that a better term? ) her for her vote to give W the authority to go to war in Iraq. But, clearly she is, despite her faults and that, in your opinion, glaring fault, not in any way supportive of the McCain scenario you cited. Moreover, you fault her supporters for questioning whether they would vote for Obama when you clearly felt the same way about HC at one time

As for those stats, I think they are outdated. I think now that the dust has settled, lost Hillary supports will either not vote or will vote for Obama, the latter scenario being the vast majority IMO. I support this by noting Hillary is campaigning for Obama and those 18,000,000 or so people will be swayed by that. Is there a more recent poll conducted in, say, the last two weeks?

[DavidMn]

Anybody catch the piece on CNN last night about how Michelle Obama is going to undertake a makeover of sorts in that there are now apparently going to be some personal image consultants added to the campaign.

[strandinthewind]

^^^^

I can assure you both campaigns as well as the losers in the primaries all had image consultants.

As for Michelle Obama, IMO she can be a huge asset for him as she is well spoken (even with the foolish "proud" comment that was taken out of context) and pretty. Moreover, the press seems to love her already as they have labeled her the new Jackie O. I think by comparison, Cindy McCain comes off as a snobby white rich lady. I think that is somewhat unfair for Cindy McCain. However, she seemingly has little interest in dispelling that image projection.

[estranged4life]

the less and less Chance I will vote for the Gasoline Oil Party this coming November...That is of course if the world doesnt explode by then,

Brian "F**k the G.O.P. and their Gasoline Oil Party ideologies...Vote for Shatner/Satan in 2008" j.

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I have read them and there is nothing illegal in them that I saw. That is why I said please cite the law that W broke. I mean you asserted the war was "illegal" Was it immoral, unjust, ill advised, poorly executed, or some other non legal term - I think it was. But, I find no support for it being "illegal." I mean even Obama said that he thought he had been wrong about the war in Iraq when he saw the statute of SH toppled. Sadly. W and co. botched those dreams.


The only reason I asked that is because you seem not to want to hear anything bad about Obama or his campaign because you think it will get McCain elected, which you said would leave:



I am at a loss to see why you would not choose Hillary over that scenario. I get that you may question (is that a better term? ) her for her vote to give W the authority to go to war in Iraq. But, clearly she is, despite her faults and that, in your opinion, glaring fault, not in any way supportive of the McCain scenario you cited. Moreover, you fault her supporters for questioning whether they would vote for Obama when you clearly felt the same way about HC at one time

As for those stats, I think they are outdated. I think now that the dust has settled, lost Hillary supports will either not vote or will vote for Obama, the latter scenario being the vast majority IMO. I support this by noting Hillary is campaigning for Obama and those 18,000,000 or so people will be swayed by that. Is there a more recent poll conducted in, say, the last two weeks?

Ok I'm not gonna argue the law with a lawyer that is a losing proposition It does seem to me that if you add up all the misdeeds of Bush ,Cheney et. al. that they should not only be impeached but tried in The Hague..IMO they are guilty of war crimes even if legally they did nothing wrong.And yes now given the scenario I imagine if McCain were elected I believe I would vote for Hillary if she were the nomineee and I will enthusiastically vote the ticket if she somehow ends up the V.P.The main problem I had with Hillary supporters is not them refusing to vote for Obama but voting for McCain instead.I repeat a very Medean choice.Just today it was reported that Obama has pulled ahead of McCain in the all important states of Ohio.Florida and Pennsylvania so alot the Hillary people must be starting to move his way .

[strandinthewind]

Believe me, there is nothing I would like better than to see W and Co. go to jail for the fraud they perpetrated on the American people. I just do not see any legal ground for it, much less a back bone in Congress to investigate it properly. So, I am biding my time for the last eight or so months of W's awful Presidency. And, I truly hope Obama wins for the reasons you stated.

The legal problems are, as I stated, the UN unamimously voted for years (mostly during Clinton's watch and at Clinton's beckoning) that SH had the WMD based mostly on the same evidence W used to go to war. Then, the UN agreed to give SH one last chance or face military consequences (I forget the exact wording) -- Then, Congress gave W the authority to go to war. I think W misued that authority, but it seemingly cannot be proven or Congress is unwilling to prove it. I think the R's are unwilling to prove it because they whole heartedly supported W. I think the D's are unwilling to prove it because to do so negates their own actions both during the Clinton administration (when they were the ones doing the killing in Iraq) and in mostly supporting W. So, I think it will never happen. Maybe one day someone will spill the beans.

My word, we are agreeing

CUMBYA . . . CUMBYA

[David]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Believe me, there is nothing I would like better than to see W and Co. go to jail for the fraud they perpetrated on the American people.

Have you decided whether or not to work on Egmont yet?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by David

Have you decided whether or not to work on Egmont yet?

Yes, I plan to. I may be around a piano this weekend (a restore Steinway B from the 30's) -- if so, I will tinker at it.

[ajmccarrell]

Am I the only Republican Mac fan? LOL! I cannot even consider voting for Obama because of all of the gaffes he makes, though most of the mainstream media does not cover them, since they are fawning over the guy.

Example 1: "I want to raise capital gains taxes." When we are teetering on the edge of full-blown recession, doing this would push us into a depression! I cannot fathom the ignorance behind this statement.

Example 2: "We cannot drill our way out of this." I guess the first thing Obama would repeal would be supply and demand, or do the last several thousand years of economic theory cease simply because Obama would be president? Since we'd be paying $20.00 per gallon if he is elected, so I guess maybe we should be developing cars that run on hope! He also states that drilling won't take effect on prices for five years, however R & D on other fuels have gone much faster? We've been developing alternatives for years with nearly no progress. Why doesn't the five year deadline apply to that?! This is SOOO shortsighted it is utterly unbelievable.

Example 3: "I work across the isle". He has NO record of doing so and is consistently the most liberal member of the senate on what little he has done. The only three guys who have actually worked across the isle to accomplish ANYTHING in the last 10 years are McCain, Kennedy and Lieberman. I don't buy it!

Example 4: "My faith is close to my heart" In his book "The Audacity of Hope", he actually admits he joined his church to make his political career easier so that he could get a base to be a community organizer. He portrays himself as agnostic through the rest of the book.

Example 5: "Don't be fooled by middle classness, stay poor". This one speaks for itself.

Example 6: "I've been to 57 states". REAAAALLY???? This guy wants to be president but doesn't know how many states we have. If Bush had made this comment, we'd never hear the end of it. But I guess he wasn't full of "Hope & Change".

Example 7: "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle" Illinois is right on the border of Kentucky?! Arkansas is not.

Example 8: "The perpetrators of the 93 attack were brought to justice and incapacitated." REALLY??!!!?! Perhaps he missed the four other terror attacks by this same group on American targets since that one. This one is truly stunning~!

Example 9: "Here’s something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I’m not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don’t know exactly what’s going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I’ll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport.” I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he’s voted on at least one defense authorization bill that addressed the “costs, schedules, and technical issues” dealing with the nation’s most contaminated nuclear waste site.

Example 10: And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us”–cluelessly arguing that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets can’t do us harm– and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.” Uhh Staggering stupidity!

Example 11: He wants to socialize healthcare but has no real way to pay for it. Think of it this way, one half of our federal budget is devoted to social security, which is about 16% of our population. Our social security obligation is crushing us and we won't have it when we retire. He wants to cover 100% of our population! Think of what that would really mean? Do we really want health care by the people who brought us Iraq, Walter Reed, employment security, Social Security, our national debt, and the endless stream of governmental greatest hits?

Even considering the guy is impossible.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

. . . Example 1: "I want to raise capital gains taxes." When we are teetering on the edge of full-blown recession, doing this would push us into a depression! I cannot fathom the ignorance behind this statement . . . .

Actually, a raise in the capital gains tax would not significantly affect the vast majority of the consumer spending power in the US, which is what will help the economy. But, it is rhetoric because acoording to most, not that much tax rev. would be raised. Moreover, the R's borrowing to pay for a war we did not have to fight and a war the R's told us Iraqi oil would pay for, is the reason we are in this mess. Why should we trust them again?

The point to me is moot as I am for the Fair Tax.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Example 2: "We cannot drill our way out of this." I guess the first thing Obama would repeal would be supply and demand, or do the last several thousand years of economic theory cease simply because Obama would be president? Since we'd be paying $20.00 per gallon if he is elected, so I guess maybe we should be developing cars that run on hope! He also states that drilling won't take effect on prices for five years, however R & D on other fuels have gone much faster? We've been developing alternatives for years with nearly no progress. Why doesn't the five year deadline apply to that?! This is SOOO shortsighted it is utterly unbelievable . . . .

Actually, we could drain all of the expected oil in Alaska and it would be like pissing on an inferno. There simply is a comparatively negligible amount of oil in terms of US comsumption, assuuming the extracted oil stays here and is not sold to a higher bidder ten or so years from now -- this is a huge assumption.

Estimates of oil reserves in ANWR --

In May of 2008 the Energy Information Administration (under the current Bush Admin. mind you) released the following report:

"The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively."

This means that if drilling in the ANWR was to start in 2008 that the first barrel of oil would arrive in 2018 and that the oil arriving has a 50 percent chance of being 2.6 billion barrels. The United States currently uses 8 billion barrels per year.

The report also states:

"Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case."

For the average case, drilling in ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, out of a current $130, in 2025. This amounts to about a 0.5% change. The total production from ANWAR would be, in 2024, approximately 1% of the United States needs.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicer...tureclicked=2&

But, I am all for it because I say the sooner we drain all the oil, the sooner we start being forced to develop things like wind and solar power - necessity is the mother of invention

As for developing alternatives -- I suggest the oil companies stifle any true research. I mean they have billions a year in rev. as incentive. I think it is interesting that there are countries that have no dependence on oil. Yet, the USA cannot seem to get there

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Example 3: "I work across the isle". He has NO record of doing so and is consistently the most liberal member of the senate on what little he has done. The only three guys who have actually worked across the isle to accomplish ANYTHING in the last 10 years are McCain, Kennedy and Lieberman. I don't buy it!

Well, on social issues, why work with the R's. They have tried to put gay people (and straight people for that matter) in jail for having unmarital sex and even married people in jail for things like sodomy (which includes fellatio ) -- see Bowers v. Hardwick (though the Georgia law upheld in Bowers forbade oral sex and anal sex whether engaged in by people of the same sex or different sexes, the actual arrest was for homosexual fellatio)

They want to put Christianity as the official religion of the US and the devil cares about the ungrateful non Christians who happen to live in Christian America. I will never understand why it is not enough to worship at the church of your choice. Why does the govt. have to sponsor your choice as if only the govt. can somehow validate your religion. I mean even Christ said give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's

They want to tax the middle and lower classes to the point of starvation, while the millionaire saves another $50,000 in tax. I get the govt. waste argument, but how is that fair or, for that matter, Christ like?

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Example 8: "The perpetrators of the 93 attack were brought to justice and incapacitated." REALLY??!!!?! Perhaps he missed the four other terror attacks by this same group on American targets since that one. This one is truly stunning~!

You are incorrect. The actual people who did it were caught and prosecuted. You are correct in that not al of Al Q (a relatively new organization then) were not put in jail. But, unless they had an active roll in the actual bombing, US law prohibits them from being guilty by association.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Example 10: And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us”–cluelessly arguing that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets can’t do us harm– and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.” Uhh Staggering stupidity!

You are incorrect again. You take his words out of context. He clearly was saying that Iran was a comparatively smaller threat than Russia in the 80's and Reagan talked to Russia and brought about peace, etc. Here is the speech http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew5qP2oPdtQ

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

. . . Do we really want health care by the people who brought us Iraq, Walter Reed, employment security, Social Security, our national debt, and the endless stream of governmental greatest hits?

Well, the R's are responsible for all of that. Remember, although the economy was in comparatively slight trouble when W took office, W's insane borrowing and spending erased the trillions in surplus and plunged us trillions in bebt. So, why should we vote them back in for eight more years of that? And, McCain is not that different than W on this point and he mostly supported W's insane borrow and spend, which is FAR worse than the illusory tax and spend the D's get accused of.

Seriously, I know Obama is no joy ride, but I suggest eight more years of R rule will ruin us more than we are ruined now -- and, all in the name of their fabrication of Jesus.

[BombaySapphire3]

After that last posting double kumbya strandie!

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

all in the name of their fabrication of Jesus.

Why does the following song lyric from an SYL song seem appropiate when Jesus is mentioned with those in the GOP (Gas Oil Party):

"Give us a reason for coming of war
Fighting for Jesus through prices of oil
See how your demons are forming a wall
Burning and beating and raping them all"

[vermicious knid]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Am I the only Republican Mac fan?

I have been wondering how many of the people who said they would vote for McCain are Republicans, and how many are disenchanted Democrats.

Consider me disenchanted. I live in reliably Republican Texas, so my vote has never made a difference. A vote for a Democratic president here is a symbolic "I like you" vote. And since Obama blowing his nose has never sent me into waves of ecstasy, I won't give him that vote.

[ajmccarrell]

Actually I am for the fair tax as well, however, capital gains taxes DO affect consumer spending as capital gains are what attracts investors to invest in companies and employ people. Because interest rates are too low, the only incentive any investors have to invest in the US at all would be capital gains. Thus raising the tax on this, without simultaneously raising interest rates will plunge us into a depression.

As far as oil goes, ANWR would only be the tip of the iceberg. We would have to drill pretty much everywhere, which I am all for. It would put people to work and lower gas prices.


Sorry, but you can't blame the Republicans for blue laws exclusively. Can you even name a Republican that wants to imprison anyone for their sexual practices? I sure can't. Besides, most of these laws were passed long before either party became what it is today. This is a ridiculous argument. No one has EVER proposed making Christianity the state religion. This is an outright lie!

Most Republicans are for the fair tax, which doesn't tax the lower or middle class at all. You are lying again here.

US Law does prohibit guilt by association, which is why we've been trying so damn hard to keep Guantanamo open. So, your point only proves my point that it keeps us all safer to not give terrorists constitutional protections.

The insane borrowing, which I agree is insane, happened long before W ever took office. He just simply didn't help. The borrowing started under Hamilton, so you can hardly blame Bush for our national debt when it has been accumulating for 200 years. You must be one of those dems who believes Bush is responsible for slavery too. He should have stopped borrowing, cut spending and paid our debt down. Also, you have confused the national debt with the deficit in your statement. They are NOT the same thing.

The only guy who has promised to cut spending is McCain. Obama plans on spending more than Bush ever dreamed of.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

. . . Actually I am for the fair tax as well, however, capital gains taxes DO affect consumer spending as capital gains are what attracts investors to invest in companies and employ people. Because interest rates are too low, the only incentive any investors have to invest in the US at all would be capital gains. Thus raising the tax on this, without simultaneously raising interest rates will plunge us into a depression.

The amount he wants to raise capital gains tax is relatively negligible. Moreover, the masses spending money is the main factor that drives earnings. If you take away spending power from 3/4 of the people, companies cannot work. I agree that capital gains has an effect, but we are not talking about capital for start ups here. We are talking about gain in the stock market, which has little to do with raising capital for a new plant, etc. It is income for the speculator for the most part. Note - I am all for speculation. However, if I had several million dollars already and I saved $50,000 in cap gains taxes, I likely would not put that $50,000 back into the actual economy in the same way as the mil worker who paid $100 less in taxes would.

Note - I do not think he should raise the capital gains tax. If we have to have an income tax, I think the Bush tax cuts were fairly well thought out, even if I would have not given the rich ($500,000 + a year) so much in them. The Bush tax cuts provided a jump start for the economy. However, W's crazy spending (with McCain's blessing) quickly extinguished any flame by those cuts.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

As far as oil goes, ANWR would only be the tip of the iceberg. We would have to drill pretty much everywhere, which I am all for. It would put people to work and lower gas prices.

True, it would put people to work, which is a good thing. However, the price of gas will not be affected until ten years from now and it assumes too many variables, like the cost of exploration and drilling will remain stagnant, the expected oil is actually there, and the cost in oil to get the oil will not drive up the price even more. So, the argument is not really that accurate. Again, I am all for drilling and extracting al of the oil from the earth right now because I think that is the only way to stop polluting the earth in the long run. Sad, but very true IMO.

Also, I have seen no reports that the US in total has any relatively significant deposits of oil. Yes, she has some, but, I think the aggregate is less than 5% untapped. That is really nothing on a global scale.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Sorry, but you can't blame the Republicans for blue laws exclusively. Can you even name a Republican that wants to imprison anyone for their sexual practices? I sure can't. Besides, most of these laws were passed long before either party became what it is today. This is a ridiculous argument. No one has EVER proposed making Christianity the state religion. This is an outright lie!

1. I never blamed the R's on Blue Laws or their inception. The Southern D's (arguably now the cornerstone of the R party) had a heavy hand in those laws.

2. Currently, you are very misinformed here. First, the case of Bowers v. Hardwick. Please read it. In that case, which was in the 80's, the Republican state and Federal governments argued that the prosecution of two men for engaging in consenual fellatio was a valid state interest that the government should not prevent. The governments also argued that the Georgia law's prohibition of consenual extra marital sex and or ANY (marital or otherwise) consenual sodomy (which the statute described as fellatio as well as anal sex) should not be over ruled. In other words, people should be put in jail for having consenual sexual acts. Fast forward to 2003, when the Bush Administration and the Texas government (both R's) argued vehemently that the state of Texas has the right to prosecute and put in jail gay people for having consenual sex. I am pretty sure no D regime has argued at all much less so vehemently for putting people (gay and straight) in jail for consenual sex.

As for Christianity being the official religion, you are incorrect there as well. Let's start with the Pledge of Allegiance. Bellamy's original 1892 Pledge read, "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. America." Inj the 50's and allegedly to stop godless Communism from spreading in the US, which had a God -- the Knight of Columbus began a huge campaign to get "under God" put into the POA. The KC felt the pledge was incomplete without any reference to a deity.

This is just one example. Another is the far right and the R's in the Fed. and State govt.'s wanting to put the Ten Commandments in the court houses and referring to it as "the law." Another example is the prayer breakfasts that the Bush Administration has made common in the Federal Govt workplace. While they are not mandatory, not to go based on your religion will exclude you from an important venue where work is discussed. Then, gay marriage. Why does any religion's view of homosexuality come into the govt.'s def. of marriage. Even if youy believe that gay marriage is a hidious thing, that is not the point. The point is that the govt.'s are giving financial and other benefits to one group of people and excluding another based solely on religion -- can you think of a compelling reasons to shun gay marriage other than religion

All of that is the far right, the R's, and the crazy Christians wanting to put Christianity as the lead religion of the US. Have they said it outright. No, they have not. But their actions shriek it.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Most Republicans are for the fair tax, which doesn't tax the lower or middle class at all. You are lying again here.

Um, please show me where I said who other than myself was for the Fair Tax

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

US Law does prohibit guilt by association, which is why we've been trying so damn hard to keep Guantanamo open. So, your point only proves my point that it keeps us all safer to not give terrorists constitutional protections.

Good - white people bombed Oklahoma City and were responsible for many other terrorist acts in the Clinton and other Administrations. Are you white? If so, please report to Gitmo. Simialrly, all Arabs are not terrorists. Moreover, all Arabs are not in Al-Q. Finally, if the govt. can prove by the rule of law or on the field of combat that someone is a terrorist, I am all for locking them away, etc. But, the US cannot just lock people up and keep them there forever. Hitler did that.

Also, just how exactly do you know who is in Gitmo and what the acts that put them there were? I admit that I think the majority of the people there deserve to be locked up because they were in Al-Q. But, to suggest that locking them away forever without any supervision suggests ignorance of the Geneva Convention, US Law, and just about every other law of every other civilized nation. Maybe you just believe in W and that he would not lie to you. If that is the case, this argument we are having needs to go no further because you cannot see facts, which are all that interest me.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

The insane borrowing, which I agree is insane, happened long before W ever took office. He just simply didn't help. The borrowing started under Hamilton, so you can hardly blame Bush for our national debt when it has been accumulating for 200 years. You must be one of those dems who believes Bush is responsible for slavery too. He should have stopped borrowing, cut spending and paid our debt down. Also, you have confused the national debt with the deficit in your statement. They are NOT the same thing.

Yes, the US had borrowed for a long time. However, when W took office we had a surplus -- now we have deficit W also said he would cut spending, blah blah balh - He never did, and he never did in any significant manner even before 9/11. So, to think McCain, who supported W and argued for W all the way down the line, will be any better is not really a logical conclusion.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

The only guy who has promised to cut spending is McCain. Obama plans on spending more than Bush ever dreamed of.

Well, McCain certainly voted for W's spending. Also -- please provide exact figures of how much more than W and McCain Obama means to spend. I suggest you can't.

You might do better to investigate a little before posting. Certainly you don't have to. But, it would make you and your arguments appear more intelligent