True.

No "Red Dawn".  No "Kristalnacht".  Just glacially slow incrementalism.

One by one, feel-good laws will be passed (which are effectively unrepealable) that will make ownership virtually impossible.  

Confiscation won't be necessary.

Excessive taxes are not literally "restrictions" but will be major obstacles.  

More and more misdemeanor punishments will include "forfeiture of 2nd Amendment rights" a-la domestic-violence perps.

Foster homes, adoptions, pediatric care, health/life/home insurance, will require public restrictions and "notification" of household "hazards".

More and more Nickle&Dime gun laws in more and more states that are accepted by us like in NY, CA, etc. because, well, there's always Ohio to move to.

And of course the PC-indoctrination in schools.

Slowly, from every angle imaginable.  Resistance is futile.  They won't need to "pry it from your hand".  It's just a war of attrition.

Post from Golgo-13 -

Once again, let me ask, who [u]are[/u] these people you keep complaining about who are demanding that you live according to their dictates?

Don't tell me that you are one of those small, almost infinitesimal number of folks who feel uncomfortable at hearing a public prayer over a PA system at a high school football game?

Or get litigiously upset over a 'nativity scene' on public property during the Christmas season?

Or vociferously support a woman's right to choose partial birth abortion during the third and final trimester of pregnancy?

Or noisily support 'gay marriage'?

These are about the only things left that the Christian Right feels strongly about anymore!

So as our nation slouches toward Gomorah, you should feel quite at ease at how far your positions have progressed over the past five or six decades.

You are most definitely on the 'winning' side in this struggle.  All you need do is to hang on just a few more years and everything you could possibly have hoped for will be reality!

You see, while it's only been 50 to 60 years in real time, it seems to those of us who were alive that long ago, as if an entire era has passed this country by.

Gone are the days...well, nevermind, you would simply not believe it if I told you what used to pass for the commonplace in this country.

Well, now that will be [u]your[/u] problem, some day, for when those pesky Christians are no longer in a position to run your life for you, do not for an instant think that you will be able to do it for yourself.

The folks that the Christian Right is opposing at this very moment will be more than happy to run your life for you in the future! They'll be more than happy, because they will actually [b]insist[/b] on running your life!

You see, they've been practicing to do just that for a long time!

Eric The(So,No,TheyWillNotLeaveYouAlone,ForReal!)Hun[>]:)]

I presume you're not refering to me.  I did not denigrate the FF's, rather I denigrate those who attribute them a status that approaches a form of worship of its own.

Never has it been better stated.

Well once perhaps.

"Men will either be governed by God, or they will be ruled by tyrants."

-- William Penn, founder of the present state of Pennsylvania

Post from Golgo-13 -

[b]Well now, stop right there Golgo-13![/b] It will simply not permitted for you to denigrate [u]anyone's[/u] right to attribute god-like status, or to worship, anyone they damn well choose!

Wow, you forgot your own side of the argument for a minute there!

Thankfully, I was here to remind you of your vow of leaving the others alone to their own gods and altars, etc.

Eric The(Whew!ThatWasClose!)Hun[>]:)]

You don't listen very well, do you Eric?  I'm not interested in having EITHER group as the despots-of-the-day.  Also, if you insist on labeling me as a "liberal" because I refuse the label "conservative", then this dialogue is over.  As much as you might like to paint this as a dichotomy for purposes of your own rhetoric, it is not that simple.

I am perfectly consistent within everything I've said to denigrate FF-worshippers.  I never said that anybody should be legally compelled to worship them or not.  Sorry to pi$$ on your parade, Eric, but you spoke too soon on that one.

Yes, you. You denigrate teh FF's assessment that "Christian" principles are FOUNDATIONAL to the freedoms we cherish. Again, see Bill bennet's book for their statements to that effect.

While denigrate may have been not the best word, you do seem to pick and choose from the FF's "freedom menu" ONLY that which suits you, enjoying firearms freedoms, but rejecting the moral requisites (specifically, acknowedging the necessity of personal resposibility ot the Almighty Creator) that are foundational to oru freedoms.


You apparently are neglecting to acknowledge  the strong likelihood that the ONLY reason we presently have firearms freedom in this country today is because of the "Christian" principles that the FF espoused, and have largely been followed, except for the last 30 years.

Is it coincidence that in the last 30 years the country has become more morally obtuse, AND that firearms freedoms have dwindled?

Persoanlly, i beleive there is a connection. What scares me are firearms freedom advocates who, far as I can tell, are UNWILLING to consider that very possibility. (See my sig line, below)

Post from Golgo-13 -

No 'dichotomy', eh? Well, if there's a third way you will need to educate us all on it, for it simply hasn't been successfully presented here on this Earth.

So tell us of this 'Third Way.'

Eric The(Dichotomous)Hun[>]:)]

No, Eric, you're the one with the dichotomous point of view.  You inform me.  Here, I'll give you a start...

All conservatives believe...


All liberals believe...

Post from Golgo-13 -

Nor did I say anything about 'legal compulsion' now did I? You said that you 'denigrated' those whom you said were trying to 'worship' the FF, etc. I simply used your own argument and language back on you!

Pretty bitter tasting, eh?

Eric The(BoyThisIsGettingOldFast)Hun[>]:)]

Polish up those reading skills, old sock.  Nowhere did I say anything other than I did not wish to be steered by your religious beliefs.  Never said we had to all get along.  Never said we had to respect anybody's beliefs.  Nope, didn't say it.  As far as I'm concerned, all may feel free to hold each other's beliefs in scorn.  You really ought to drop this aspect of the dialogue, as you are off base on it.

Let me illustrate why it isn't that simple for you with a single real-life example, my dad.  He is a lifelong Democrat and has gone into politics.  He is serving his second term as the Sheriff of his county and, by all accounts, will be able to keep the office as long as he wants to keep running.  People at this board tend to use liberal and Democrat interchangeably, so he'll do.

All liberals are pro-choice.
Nope, dad is very pro-life.

All liberals are anti-gun.
Dad is very pro-gun.  In fact, look up the Penn Arms suit against the ATF that was heard by the Supremes, and there you will see him as one of the one of the principals on the pro-gun side.

All liberals are anti-Christian.
Dad is a devout Byzantine Catholic and a Knight of Columbus.  If you suggested such a thing to him, he'd either laugh in your face or punch you in it. (Save the bits about Catholics not being "real" Christians for another thread.)

Dad is also against welfare maggots and other things that are familiar gripes for conservatives.  So Dad must actually be a conservative, right?  No.
He supports his party and is active in politics state-wide.  He considers FDR and JFK to have been great presidents.  He despised Nixon and thinks Reagan was mainly an amiable dufus.  I won't speak too much for his beliefs here, since I don't want to possibly misrepresent any of them.
In his county, Democrats make up 48% of the registered voters.  In order to win, he needs all their votes plus some from the Republicans.  In two elections, he didn't just win, he crushed his Republican opponent.  So it seems there are plenty of people from both parties who don't see it as simply as "you must be either conservative or liberal."

Quoted:
[i]Let me illustrate why it isn't that simple for you with a single real-life example, my dad.  He is a lifelong Democrat and has gone into politics.  He is serving his second term as the Sheriff of his county and, by all accounts, will be able to keep the office as long as he wants to keep running.  People at this board tend to use liberal and Democrat interchangeably, so he'll do.

All liberals are pro-choice.
Nope, dad is very pro-life.

All liberals are anti-gun.
Dad is very pro-gun.  In fact, look up the Penn Arms suit against the ATF that was heard by the Supremes, and there you will see him as one of the one of the principals on the pro-gun side.

All liberals are anti-Christian.
Dad is a devout Byzantine Catholic and a Knight of Columbus.  If you suggested such a thing to him, he'd either laugh in your face or punch you in it. (Save the bits about Catholics not being "real" Christians for another thread.)

Dad is also against welfare maggots and other things that are familiar gripes for conservatives.  So Dad must actually be a conservative, right?  No.
He supports his party and is active in politics state-wide.  He considers FDR and JFK to have been great presidents.  He despised Nixon and thinks Reagan was mainly an amiable dufus.  [b]I won't speak too much for his beliefs here, since I don't want to possibly misrepresent any of them.[/b][/i]


LOL [:D]

I don't think anyone is arguing against that line of thought. I agree with the fact that labels aare insufficient for todays political landscape.

here's what I am arguing....



what say ye???

I disagree.

Many who are posting now have morphed my original descriptions of conservative and liberal into a shopping list of ultra-specific issues that do not help identify "conservative" or "liberal", hence the disagreements that have ensued.

As I stated in the first post,

[b]At it's heart conservatism has the "mind your own business/get off my back/self-reliance" philosophy of individualism while liberalism is all about socialuniformity/collectivism/groupthink". [/b]

No single issues here!  

I find these "labels" of conservative and liberal very efficient and useful in demarcating and discussing political ideology.  And again, this is a discussion of IDEAS, not POLITICAL PARTIES.  

How this ever degenerated into Republican vs. Democrate I'll never know.

McCallan -

A VERY brief review of my posts will show that I do indeed beleive labels are IDEAL for ideologies. Heck, I use 'em as if i were getting paid by the # of "labels" applied.  [:D]

I don't however, beleive they always work for individuals, as individuals tend to be, well....individualistic.

Yes, indeed.

That's why I was a bit suprised by your previous statement and why I jumped back into the discussion. No offense intended.

Well, Eric and The Macallan appear to arguing that very point.

As for a connection between dwindling morals and loss of firearms freedom, yes I am willing to stipulate that there may well be a connection.  Where you and I, possibly, differ is on the idea of Christian ideals and how they should influence government.  As long as our politicos have a functioning sense of right and wrong, I don't care whether it is based in Buddhism, Christianity, FF-worship, or even secular humanism.  What do I consider right and wrong? Right means not willfully harming another who has done you no harm.  It isn't hard to look at various regimes throughout history and say "you know, we should probably avoid doing that" when you see that they were genocidal, slave holders, or other manifestly harmful-to-others things.  I guess the main place that you and I are on opposite sides is that (correct me if I'm wrong) you believe that it is not possible to be a good/moral person w/o being Christian.  I think one can.  Oh, and yes, the religious beliefs of the FF's influenced their politics, but as I've mentioned in discussion with you before, that doesn't obligate me to share those religious beliefs.  I mainly want the gummint to leave me, and you, alone.  Then you can believe what you want and I can believe what I want.  t's when one side gets even a quasi-official status that things get testy.

Post from Golgo-13 -

I really think it extremely unwise for you to use your father as an example in this particular argument, for reasons that will soon become all too clear! If you think that I have 'gone over the line' on anything I say, let me know by e-mail and I will dump this post!

First, it may be unwise to be a 'lifelong' anything in these times. The Democrat Party was the chief obstacle to the Civil Rights laws that brought freedom to a great many people.

Indeed, it has changed so much over the last 50 to 60 years that I can hardly fathom anyone staying in it for reasons other than the fact that it [u]presently[/u] represents the party that they wished it to be 50 to 60 years ago!

But I'm a 'lifelong' Republican, so I have no room to complain. The Republican Party is now the party that I had wished it had been back in the 50s and 60s!

Then what's he doing in a party that sees nothing wrong with partial birth abortions? A party that refused to override Clinton's veto of the Partial Birth Abortion ban on 3 separate occasions?

But how is your father 'pro-life'? Does he do anything within the Demo party to change that party's platform?

Then did he bolt the Demo party over the Brady Bill? the assault rifle ban? over the selection of Al Gore as [b]his[/b] party's standard-bearer in the 2000 Election?

In other words, why is your father still in the Democrat party? If the party's leadership feels [b]no pressure whatsoever[/b] from local elected officials, such as your father, they will have no reason to [b]slow down[/b] (just imagine them [b]stopping[/b]!) their neverending quest for the complete eradication of personal, private weapons in this country!

Then he'd better talk to a priest and ask him if it is all right to continue supporting a political party that seeks to enthrone homosexualty, and to obliterate as many of the unborn children as it can get it's forceps on!

You know that county-wide officials are asked to contribute money to the DNC, they are asked to be at political fund-raisers for the DNC, and they are signatories of letters sent out to their constituents asking for campaign contributions for the DNC.

So what does your father do to prevent this all from happening?

- continued -

Temper, temper, now![:D]

You are correct, Sir! Your father is certainly no conservative by any stretch of the imagination!

Good, you need to hand [u]your[/u] AR-15 and any high-cap mags to him directly.

He'll have to come get mine, himself! But you don't need to worry, he's working devoutly for the time when all AR-15s are banned once and for all! And any other 'serious', 'dangerous' weapons!

Why am I not surprised?

Why am I even less surprised at this? So Pres. Reagan who humbled and defeated the Soviet Empire bascially single-handedly (let's just say [u]without[/u] the help of the DEMOS and your dad), is an amiable doofus?

That's great! That's just friggin beautiful!

Your dad's president, Jimmy Carter, was the amiable doofus, need I remind you?

So it appears - you simply need to be Democrat to win - and that simply means [b]liberal[/b]!

Eric The(DidYourFatherEverSayToYou:'YouNeedToDoSomeSeriousHomework,Son'?WellThenLetMeSayIt!)Hun[>]:)]

Eric, old fruit, how many Supreme Court cases have you been part of to support the 2nd ammendment?  None?  You kind of conveniently skipped over that part when you were attempting to show how my dad must really be anti-gun.  Now that you've had an attempt at refuting my side, let me get you started on presenting your viewpoint again:

[b]All[/b] conservatives believe...

[b]All[/b] liberals believe...

Try your best now, and remember the key word is "all."

Oh, its QUITE possible to be a good / moral person (as the term is widely used today) without even beleiving in God, never mind not being a Christian.

My proposition is that WITHOUT acknowledging (1)that right and wrong are DEFINED by God Almighty, and (2) our resposibility is to Him, society loses the singlemost powerful Force to compel a person toward moral behaviour, as it puts the authority outside himself.

When each man's individual idea of right and wrong is defined by himself, INVARIABLY he will find good cause to suspend his own version of morality for the whim that happens to control him.

And WHEN he suspends his "self-defined morality" ( a contradiction in terms) fatheads like Dianne Feinstein will say "See what the evil gunowner did? let's make a law...." and a thousands other assualts on freedom.  All because a man set the bar too low, adopting his own version of morality (which he can also freely suspend) rather than God's morality.

Golgo-13:

[b]All[/b] conservatives believe...
in a more limited power of Gov't to act against the (narrowly-interpreted) Constitutional rights of the individual;

Any self-proclaimed conservative who doesn't believe this is mislabeling themselves as "conservative".


[b]All[/b] liberals believe...
that the Gov't should act as the major force in rectifying society's problems;

Any self-proclaimed liberal who doesn't believe this is mislabeling themselves as "liberal".

Very nice, Mr. Macallan, but I reject both labels for myself.  You may call yourself anything you wish.  You may also label me as whatever you wish, as long as you do not verge on insult, but don't insist that I agree with you.

Have you looked into the Libertarian Party? [url]http://www.lp.org[/url]

Yes, I wouldn't want to insult you by calling you an "amiable dufus" or anysuch thing! [;)]


A while back you stated:

[i]"I refuse to identify myself with "conservatism" because it is too closely identified with being Christian in this country. [/i]
Identified by whom? It seems that YOU (and media/liberals) are the one mistakenly linking "conservatism" with Christianity, and therefore are perpetuating the very mistaken notion that you dislike about conservatism.  

You also state:

[i]I support fiscal conservatism and  Constitutional conservatism, but I refuse to buy into the religious aspects of the 'conservative movement.'"[/i]

So you believe in ALL real tenets of conservatism but don't want to be called a conservative because the media/liberals have convinced enough people of the big lie that conservativism=Christianity.

You're sounding more like a closet-conservative, believing in fiscal/constititional conservatism, but ashamed of mistakenly being associated as a Christian.

What say you?

Post from Golgo-13 -

I have never been a direct part of [u]any[/u] litigation involving the Second Amendment! That is simply not my area of legal expertise. So I doubt I ever become a part of any such lawsuit or appeal in the future, as well.

But, please give us the citation to the lawsuit that your father was a party to that went to the US Supreme Court involving the Second Amendment!

Was it a part of that Arizona sheriff's appeal of the 'background check' from the Brady Law?

If your father is truly pro-gun, he should either be the most highly visible proponent of changing the Democrat Party's vendetta against the Second Amendment, or he should be the most highly visible Pennsylvania public official that announced his intention to bolt the DEMO Party over its anti-gun stand!

If your father is truly pro-gun, then he should encourage his constituents to refrain from sending any campaign contributions to the DNC until and unless the Democrats forego their crusade against the Second Amendment!

If your father is truly pro-gun, then he should have openly campaigned on behalf of George W. Bush for President in the 2000 Election!

I didn't conveniently skip over any facts, you simply failed to illustrate your father's whole-hearted support of the Second Amendment, while at the same time providing plenty of evidence that his support might be less than whole-hearted.

Fill us in with the details. They are crucial!

BTW, [b]all conservatives[/b] believe that people are the foundation for all answers to government's problems, while [b]all liberals[/b] believe that the government is the foundation for all answers to the people's problems.

Easy enough?

Eric The(OldFruit?)Hun[>]:)]

Post from Golgo-13 replying to The_McCallen -

Yes, indeed, it would be unseemly for someone to verge on insulting someone else!

Yet you call me 'old fruit'?

BwaHaHaHaHa! I got some very bad news for you Golgo-13 - you are a [b]liberal[/b]! In word, in thought, in deed!

God forbid that someone should be so brazen as to insult YOU, all the while you are insulting others willy-nilly. Reagan an 'amiable doofus'?

Only a dyed-in-the-wool liberal would say such a cockamamie thing as that!

You, Sir, are the amiable doofus, although your dad's president, Jimmy Carter, deserves the title equally well.

Eric The(OldFruit?YoungPrick!)Hun[>]:)]

Eric,

Golgo-13 CAN'T be a liberal.  He said so himself:

[i]From Golgo-13: "I support fiscal conservatism and Constitutional conservatism, but I refuse to buy into the religious aspects of the 'conservative movement.'"[/i]

So he CAN'T be a liberal...

Unless he's...

WARNING: Name-Calling ahead...



A lying hypocrite! [shock]

AAGHH!!
NOW I did it!

Well, that [u]could[/u] explain:

"I support fiscal conservatism and Constitutional conservatism" and "Reagan was an amiable doofus" in the same post!

Beware anyone who tries to maintain that they are a 'conservative' (of [u]any[/u] kind) and yet takes a potshot at President Reagan!

Eric The(TheyJustDon'tRememberHistory!)Hun[>]:)]

I think Golgo may be someone who is at the core conservative, but is unwilling to take the media and elitist abuse and slander that conservatives typically receive (i.e. conservative = Christian whacko.)

No????

Conservatism/Capitalism/Freedom is the ideology that makes the most sense. We wield the facts, they wield spin and misdirection. Conservatism is growing and the liberals are floundering without leadership. Are strongholds are slowly keeping into their territory as they are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the American public.

You are right, we are at a disadvantage because of the very nature of what we believe in but we have the TRUTH on our side, and the truth is the thermonuclear weapons of politics.

mine will!!!!

I don't mean to beat this to death but if a man comes to the door dressed not in a wind-breaker with various initials but in the the Green Uniform of an active duty Army person and unarmed what can we do ?

The unthinkable becomes...well unthinkable.  At least for me.

Not if you own guns that "they" don't know about.

A._Scientist,
In lieu of scientific thought I read "hopefully." (An emotion)

As to the thermonuclearity of the TRUTH, Ex. klinton proved for many, many years that TRUTH was an alien concept to him....and he was elected twice as president and the masses loved him.

Finally I ask which truth ?  The truth that you and most of us believe in ?  Or maybe the TRUTH as told by Dan Rather every evening on the CBS news ?

("This has been the CBS Evening News with Dan Blather - we distort; you try to figure it out.")

[smoke]

first of all, "they" won't come unarmed, whoever they are. and if they are trying to violate the constitutional oath they have sworn, they deserv what they get.

second, if they can't find em they can't take em..

third, it they do find em, they'l get em bullets first.

the(thatsalotof"they"s)survivalist

Please understand I'm on "our" side here.

However just look at your choice in handles (?)the_survivalist.
I'll just bet you're going to be at the next rally for a conservative candidate, knocking doors, manning the phones, etc.,. (And no I won't be there either.)

However, for the liberal candidate "soccer-mom" will be there with a blank-eyed-stare and and a toothy smile and applauding at something wildly.

[smoke]

[url]http://www.contracts.ogc.doc.gov/fedcl/opinions/99opin/98-661T.html[/url]

The above is the case of which my Dad was a part.  Sheriff Thomas Demko.  Incidentally, the owners of Penn Arms are also Democrats and Catholics.

I'm neither a hypocrite nor a closet conservative.  I am an agnostic and I hold viewpoints that are associated with both sides of the aisle.  For example, I am pro-gun and also pro-choice.  You may try to define the terms of what constitutes a liberal or conservative however you want, but I am not now, nor have I ever been, in the business of conforming to your notions of what I am or must be.

Amusingly enough, Jimmy Carter, whom you despise, was a born again Christian; while Reagan, whom you nearly idolize, regularly consulted with an astrologer.  For my part, I tend not to idolize mere men, although I may agree with them on an issue or two.  If I had to choose a president as great, the last great one we had was Teddy Roosevelt.

To conclude, it is a sad commentary on you that you take my reference to Reagan as an amiable dufus as a personal slight to you.  Please, gentlemen, try to establish independent identities of your own.  You and Reagan are not one.
Now, if you want to continue this thread with me, please drop the insults (e.g. lying hypocrite...which is redundant btw) and stick to the topic at hand.  With the possible exception of questioning Eric's reading skills, I have offered none of you insult.  "Old fruit" carries no more baggage than calling you "old bean" or "old sock" or "old china".  My first wife was Australian, and her family used all those expressions interchangeably.  If use of foreign slang offends you, then mea culpa.

By definition, a conservative is: One who supports a conservative point of view.  
In your own words you "support fiscal conservatism and Constitutional conservatism".  

So, by defintion, YOU ARE A CONSERVATIVE!!!

Why do you run from this logic?  Apparently you have some form of Christophobia that repels you from associating yourself with an ideology shared by many Christians (and non-Christians as well).


Didn't you notice the "lying hypocrite" was in said in jest?  btw, "lying" is not synonymous with "hypocrite".  They have very different meanings, so it's not redundant.

The topic at hand had NOTHING to do with Christianity - You injected that tidbit in your contorted denial of your own conservatism.

Don't fear being a "conservative".  Remember, Teddy was our first "Conservationist" President which is pretty close to being conservative. [;)]

Remember, conservativism is not about specific issues, so drop the pro-gun/pro-choice rhetoric. That is irrelevent to the original topic.


In conclusion:

"I support fiscal conservatism and constitutional conservatism but I'm not a conservative".  

Does this make sense?

And to think I never knew, never even suspected !

You can't be from Buminham you've got to be from Tuskerlooser.

[smoke]

I'm a fiscal and constituional conservative, but I don't like Reagan either. He was way too obsessed with Star Wars and the whole defense spending deal. Cutting taxes without cutting spending is just irresponsible. All that's doing is putting off the repayment of the debt to a later president, thereby not taking responsibility for the social ills caused by the extra national debt incurred by his administration.

I don't think it's quite right to associate parties with agendas across the board. JFK was the great president, he's a democrat.

Do your pro-choice views extend to include partial-birth abortions ??

No flame.  Real question.

No.  When the foetus is developed enough to show nervous system activity, I consider it too well developed to be aborted.

I'm also an Agnostic and often find myself along the sideline when the religious debates become "heavy."

However, I have no problem classifing partial-birth abortions as murder.

Do you realize that the federal budget was in deficit for every year of JFK's presidency?

Garandman,

There's a statement you made that, well, just sort of jumped out at me.  

[b]"My proposition is that WITHOUT acknowledging (1)that right and wrong are DEFINED by God almighty, and (2) our resposibility is to Him, [i]society loses the singlemost powerful Force to compel a person toward moral behaviour, as it puts the authority outside himself."[/b][/i]

That would be the one.  Are you actually saying that without intervention by God that "a person" will [i]not[/i] be compelled towards acceptable or good moral behavior, as if that individual has no control over his/her own actions and thoughts?

If this is your meaning then that would equate to saying, "If you're an atheist or agnostic, you have no moral foundation", which of course would be a false statement.  Wouldn't you agree?

This is a very good thread.

CMOS

Ack.  My mistake.  The Penn Arms court case that I cited and linked went to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, not the Supreme Court.  At the time when Judge Miller decided against them, the Penn Arms people and my Dad were discussing pushing it , but as of yet, they have not, to my knowledge, moved forward on that. I should have refreshed my memory on the case before I brought it up here.  Anyway, although I made an error about his case, the error was entirely my own.  My Dad is still a pro-gun Democrat who was willing to go to bat for the issue.

Golgo(theboyamIembarassed)-13