U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-09-2009, 08:30 PM
LML LML started this thread
 
Location: Wisconsin
7,110 posts, read 8,439,367 times
Reputation: 5171

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Again, you use claims of the most radical sides to claim an arrogant position to the issue. I do not hold the position of those extremes to which you so ignorantly attempt to generalize myself and others to.

I disagree with Obama's policies, I do think they overstep their bounds and attempt to demand adherence to personal crusades of his and others to which are contrary to the entire purpose of our nations founding. We have a responsibility to protect our freedoms first, not your or his individual perception of a Utopian society.

If your position were the primary focus, it would have been clarified in the founders words, established in writing in our legal documents and constitutional amendments. They are not, and the only way you can claim as such is to manipulate words, redefine them and ignore historical documents and declarations. I have had these discussions with people like you a million times over and after we have pushed aside the empty claims of your position and finally reached the core facts of our founders words, you simply disregard them claiming them "old", "lacking foresight", or in some cases too underdeveloped to realize our elevated society.

Its garbage, and more propaganda from those who spend too much time pandering to their own claims of elevated intellect than it does dealing with the practical and factual truth.

There is a responsibility to freedom, it means protecting it above all else. That means we can not force people to our causes, they must decide to help themselves. We can not dip into their pockets using emotional claims of "the common good" and bind them to our cause. There exists no right to require such of another and if you persist, I promise you fuel a fire I know you will run away from.

You believe yourself to be above those who disagree with you. You believe your cause to be noble, and just , but do you TRULY believe in such a cause to make the sacrifice that others have had when holding to a cause?

Let me clue you in on how serious of a issue you are wading into when you throw around claims of how peoples rights are second to your causes. You play with a fire that produces a heat that I doubt you will be able to stand. You see, myself and MANY others in this nation believe our right to live free, to make choices of our own without hardship placed by the government and its corrupt self interested parts is inalienable, that your twisting of words, manipulation of your purpose does not bind us and we will fight you with words and with body if need be. We will die for our believes and we will shed blood to defend our rights. Are you willing to take us to task? Are you willing to put your life on the line to stand for the cause you so arrogantly claim yourself correct in? You had better, because when you come to place those shackles on us, we will fight you and there will be no quarter when it comes.

#1. Some of this sounds suspiciously like a threat.
#2. Your words ring very hollow because they were not spoken when money was being taken from our pockets to fund created wars. They were not spoken when money was taken from our pocket to bail out billionaires from their own folly. They were not spoken when our constitution was being used as a mere list of suggestions by the prior administration. They were not spoken when the prior administration began using the tragedy of 9/11 to spy on U.S. citizens and take away our constitutional rights. No, you were very silent then about your patriotic love of freedom. It was only when citizens want something for their tax dollars that will benefit them...not wars, not bail outs of corrupt billionaires, not more spying on them but health care and jobs that you feel YOUR freedom endangered. Your words indeed ring hollow.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-09-2009, 09:24 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
9,792 posts, read 10,590,836 times
Reputation: 9711
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
Now when you hate the US and are convinced it is on the side of evil, who exactly is good? What other nation has advanced freedom around the world like the US? Why do you live here and burden the nation, rather than living in one of your paradises? Answer- because so far the US has coddled and provided food and shelter for non-productive dead weight, while other nations have not. You would starve anywhere else.

Again- I fail to see how in the world we taxpayers benefit from the dead weight of those of you who do not work and pay taxes? You provide no revenue to the country and just consume the resources and labor of others. That is just a financial burden on the nation and limits progress. Gain some self respect- work hard, get a job, pay your taxes, and stop begging. An adult without physical or mental derangements should be able to stand on his own two feet and be a positive factor to society- not a burden. Dead weight is dead weight and citizens should only be supporting thier own children, not adults who act like children.
Isn't it time to put this particular talking point to bed? I mean, ten million (and counting) formerly working Americans are now unemployed. Many of them conservatives. Where do you get off imagining that all liberals are welfare queens? Do you, in fact, know how difficult it is to qualify for welfare? Do you know how difficult it is for a person of color who wants to work to get employed? How many people of color are employed where you work? Trust me, it isn't because they don't want to work there it is because your Human Resources Dept. always finds a convenient excuse for not pulling the trigger on a hiring decision.

Civilized nations always create some kind of welfare state but in most cases it isn't neccessary. In the U.S. it is neccessary and you'll soon see why. When all that unemployment money runs out and people actually start starving.. ... white people. Conservatives. People like you. Idiots. You won't get angry at the real culprits. No, you'll just get even angrier at the Hispanics (who work by the way, that's why soon you won't be able to) or the African Americans who number less than 33 million and acount for a piddling fraction of the total welfare roll.

Since when do Americans get upset at being asked to pay taxes?? Individual wingnuts sure. But as a class?? Tea parties? Blogs? Sheist, what are you all thinking? Because a black man suggests some creative fixes for an economy he did not destroy you all are fit to be tied and want to break apart the union. Remember the last time that happened? Lincoln was in the White House and it appeared the fight was over slavery. It wasn't. It was over money. The south made money off the backs of black people and it was morally reprehensible to a significant majority of white people in the north. The south said, "well, this is how we need to do things and we aren't going to let you all slow our roll so we'll just split the country thank you. Lincoln couldn't have that as his legacy so 250,000 or so men died for Lincoln's ego. I'm sorry, Lincoln is remembered as a hero. In any case, I doubt Obama has any less sense of ego than Lincoln and he doesn't deserve to have America come apart on his watch. He doesn't deserve to have his every decision questioned, derided or flat out disobeyed. Some of the things that have been taking place in the American political theatre have never taken place before and it's all because Obama is a black man.

Just get real and think about what you are so angry about. Is any of it new? Did you want to secede during Carter? Clinton? Democrats both. White men though. I'm done on this particular argument after this but I want you to know who you are really angry at: the corporations. They are screwing you over (no lube) and you're mad as hell (I don't blame you) but you are too Republican to say anything bad about free enterprise or Capitalism. So sorry for you on that.

H
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2009, 08:23 AM
 
Location: Syracuse, NY
162 posts, read 250,878 times
Reputation: 285
I find it funny that both sides in this debate are always saying "wake up!" and "educate yourself." What are people supposed to "wake up" to, or educated themselves about? Your opinion? Just because you think or believe something doesnt make it a fact. Give me some real things to read or research and maybe I will do it, but I hardly think that reading your post, which is based on small fragments of reality, is going to make me "wake up" or educate myself, especially when it is as hopelessly misguided and ridiculous as yours, Normander and hawkeye2009.

I also find it funny that people who are always saying, essentially, "AMERICA, F*%$ YEAH!" (thank you very much Tre Parker and Matt Stone), like hawkeye2009, are also the ones that are for strict interpretation of the Constitution and adherence to traditional American policies. This is ironic, because when our nation was founded and in its nascent years, actually for more than the first 100 years, the leaders of our country wanted nothing to do with outside wars, conflicts and contraversies. They knew that it would just wind up getting us intangled and embroiled in situations we had no claim to and nothing substantial to gain from. Fast-forward to 2009...

And since when is it the US's job to bring "freedom" to the rest of the world. (this goes back to that opinion thing, our form of "freedom" being the true and divine freedom that everyone has ever wanted, ever, apparently) The last time I checked, our government was appointed to head this one nation state, not the entire world. Going by the conservative definition of who is entitled to services, i.e. those that pay taxes and have a job, why do we owe anything to anyone else outside of this country? I dont think people in Iraq and Afghanistan pay our taxes, but maybe I missed something again. When there is a legitimate threat to this nation and our freedom and our security, then I think we better well should do something, but why should I go fight and die for someone else's freedom in a place I've never heard of? I will fight and die for America and Americans, even you, but not just for Somalia or Iran or North Korea or George W Bush or Barack Obama or Exxon Mobil or Walmart or whatever.

And if you think this means I think America is evil and all that b.s. you'll probably throw at me for this, then you are so stupid there is no point in even arguing with you. I LOVE AMERICA, I always have and I always will. I think it is the greatest nation on Earth. But I dont think that I am a citizen of the United States of the World as it stands right now, though I think we are all world citizens. I want what is best for this country, and I dont see how our job as Americans is to bring "freedom" by force to the rest of the world.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2009, 08:41 AM
 
Location: Syracuse, NY
162 posts, read 250,878 times
Reputation: 285
And by the way, the Spanish American War (you forgot that one), World War I, Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf War I and II werent about "freedom" or liberty. They were about territory and control of resources.
-Spanish American War, we wanted control of the Western Hemisphere.
-World War I, Germany was making shipping and trade difficult, and our buddies France and Britain wanted their land on the Continent back (Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Slovic states were actually legitimate governments that represented their citizens pretty well)
-Korea, we didnt want to lose ground to Communism, even though later analysis would show that the war was really begun by people under a communist banner to overthrow the corrupt government there, more so than actually starting a communist utopia and aligning with the Soviet Union. The people of Asia never really liked the idea of becoming Soviet satellite states, China being the prime example
-Vietnam, same thing
-Gulf War I, all about oil, no disputing that
-Gulf War II, same thing to some degree, but also about creating a stable US ally in the Middle East to oppose Iran and create a strong US presence in the region without having to rely on the oppressive theistic monarchy of Saudi Arabia. Also, W settling his personal score was a big plus to those in charge
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2009, 11:57 AM
 
13,055 posts, read 11,985,172 times
Reputation: 2612
Quote:
Originally Posted by LML View Post

#1. Some of this sounds suspiciously like a threat.
No, its a promise based on our founders "foresight" concerning politicians seeking office based on pandering to self interested parties.

From the Federalist No. 10

Quote:
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
He is speaking of pure democracies of course, but the key is why they are bad in relation to the systems you purpose. For the same reason people misuse calls of "providing" (when it is actually promote) for the general welfare of the people to reduce individual rights, tax excessively, and remove freedom of choice. Your premise of governments responsibility is "incompatible with personal security or the rights of property" because it hides behind the fallacy of "good of the people" in order to push its self interest agenda.

The system you suggest is highly oppressive and will result in a backlash. Our country was not founded on this, it is not compatible and it will meet a violent end eventually due to it. Not because of me individually, but because the people will get fed up and they WILL fight back when there are no other civil approaches available. That is a promise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LML View Post
#2. Your words ring very hollow because they were not spoken when money was being taken from our pockets to fund created wars. They were not spoken when money was taken from our pocket to bail out billionaires from their own folly. They were not spoken when our constitution was being used as a mere list of suggestions by the prior administration. They were not spoken when the prior administration began using the tragedy of 9/11 to spy on U.S. citizens and take away our constitutional rights. No, you were very silent then about your patriotic love of freedom. It was only when citizens want something for their tax dollars that will benefit them...not wars, not bail outs of corrupt billionaires, not more spying on them but health care and jobs that you feel YOUR freedom endangered. Your words indeed ring hollow.
How ignorant of a post. We received tax cuts under Bush, yet you make more assumptions on my position concerning Bush and his bailouts. Like most liberals who lack objectivity and swirl in the realm of generalizations, you assumed I supported his bail outs, I did not and was strongly against them. You could have asked, but you like to assume as such, again you are merely showing the arrogance of the liberal position. I disagreed with many things Bush did, but I also had the objectivity to recognize the good things, just as I have done through every president in my lifetime regardless of their political affiliation. If they produced honest results, I gave credit where credit was due.

I have yet to find a liberal that could do the same with their indicated sworn enemies and make no mistake, the foul underhanded tactics, slander, libel, and childish antics of the far left in the recent past has made them not simply those of disagreement, yet enemies who have frothed at the mouth and spoke with extreme condemnation to any who did not bow to their view. They have hid behind the rules of civility to weave their devious plans and people will no longer stand for it. They abuse rules to push their agenda, but eventually rules will not protect them as civility will be lost and they will have to put more than word trickery and legal antics before them to continue their path.


Also, the defense of this country is "PROVIDED" as is defined by our constitution. There is no possible way to properly apply individual defense of this nation. We can not simply leave each person to their own choice on how they will pay and defend themselves. It would be beyond stupid to even consider such as an argument. You can disagree with Bush concerning Iraq, but he operated within the bounds of his defined duties to apply as such. Even his form of Bail out which I highly disagreed with was less socialistic than that of Obama's, though you would know this if you read the damn bill rather than using headlines and talking point sites to inform yourself.

Health care can be individually obtained through responsible approach. People CAN afford it if they choose to, yet you know that and that is why trickery is used in the display of the statistics and the form of arguments made. Also, I don't remember Bush demanding you go to "his war" and then fining you if you did not. We can not say the same for Obama and his plans now can we?

It is also apparent you have not even read the Patriot Act either and lack any real understanding of the claims made concerning it. Also, I noticed you didn't add the current administrations amendments to that very act either or mention any of the "in the works" projects they are gearing up for as well.

No, you do not know, because you are ignorant of the details of each topic and are merely playing the part of a puppet in a programmed system of "elites" who can only talk about how educated they are rather than applying it.

While the administration that you have submitted to may not be transparent, you clearly are. You are not fooling anyone.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2009, 12:11 PM
 
13,055 posts, read 11,985,172 times
Reputation: 2612
Quote:
Originally Posted by CUPlanner View Post
I find it funny that both sides in this debate are always saying "wake up!" and "educate yourself." What are people supposed to "wake up" to, or educated themselves about? Your opinion? Just because you think or believe something doesnt make it a fact. Give me some real things to read or research and maybe I will do it, but I hardly think that reading your post, which is based on small fragments of reality, is going to make me "wake up" or educate myself, especially when it is as hopelessly misguided and ridiculous as yours, Normander and hawkeye2009.

I also find it funny that people who are always saying, essentially, "AMERICA, F*%$ YEAH!" (thank you very much Tre Parker and Matt Stone), like hawkeye2009, are also the ones that are for strict interpretation of the Constitution and adherence to traditional American policies. This is ironic, because when our nation was founded and in its nascent years, actually for more than the first 100 years, the leaders of our country wanted nothing to do with outside wars, conflicts and contraversies. They knew that it would just wind up getting us intangled and embroiled in situations we had no claim to and nothing substantial to gain from. Fast-forward to 2009...

And since when is it the US's job to bring "freedom" to the rest of the world. (this goes back to that opinion thing, our form of "freedom" being the true and divine freedom that everyone has ever wanted, ever, apparently) The last time I checked, our government was appointed to head this one nation state, not the entire world. Going by the conservative definition of who is entitled to services, i.e. those that pay taxes and have a job, why do we owe anything to anyone else outside of this country? I dont think people in Iraq and Afghanistan pay our taxes, but maybe I missed something again. When there is a legitimate threat to this nation and our freedom and our security, then I think we better well should do something, but why should I go fight and die for someone else's freedom in a place I've never heard of? I will fight and die for America and Americans, even you, but not just for Somalia or Iran or North Korea or George W Bush or Barack Obama or Exxon Mobil or Walmart or whatever.

And if you think this means I think America is evil and all that b.s. you'll probably throw at me for this, then you are so stupid there is no point in even arguing with you. I LOVE AMERICA, I always have and I always will. I think it is the greatest nation on Earth. But I dont think that I am a citizen of the United States of the World as it stands right now, though I think we are all world citizens. I want what is best for this country, and I dont see how our job as Americans is to bring "freedom" by force to the rest of the world.

You want facts? How about visiting the Library Of congress, picking up a history book that references the original papers and not circle references to past authors? How about actually reading about our history outside of some liberal professors revisionist interpretation?

This issue isn't simply A so B argument. We are long past that as the liberal educational system has slowly corrupted the facts of history over time. I have had the displeasure of running into this garbage. I have had to argue my case to an academical council just to show the professor was using revisionist material. I have dealt with it personally.

Look online concerning the founders words and there are so many fabrications and fallacious positions on them it would make your head spin. We live in a generation of ignorance that was brought about by the ease of information provided by the internet.

I joke about the Salem Witch trials and how easy it is to manipulate the ignorant today, but the fact is, the internet is just one large village of ignorance that is used with far more power than those historical occurrences. Look how many people believe the 9/11 conspiracy when there are countless quantified sources of evidence that show each claim completely wrong. Look how many people believe all of the garbage about Palin even after having their "evidence" shown to be forgery, out of context, and nothing more than libel.

How about similar content with Obama? We do not have to be partisan, they do it to him too. The thing is, you don't have to use the "opinion" of others to come to your information. Heck, I don't want you to take my word for it, I want you to go out and read up yourself. I want you to educate yourself on each topic more than just a headline, more than simply an opinionated blog. I want you to have everything you make a decision on to be objectively established and quantified before you do so. You want fact? Educate yourself for if you can not find truth on your own with the resources available, then you deserve to be ignorant and the consequences that come with such.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2009, 12:15 PM
 
13,055 posts, read 11,985,172 times
Reputation: 2612
Quote:
Originally Posted by CUPlanner View Post
And by the way, the Spanish American War (you forgot that one), World War I, Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf War I and II werent about "freedom" or liberty. They were about territory and control of resources.
-Spanish American War, we wanted control of the Western Hemisphere.
-World War I, Germany was making shipping and trade difficult, and our buddies France and Britain wanted their land on the Continent back (Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Slovic states were actually legitimate governments that represented their citizens pretty well)
-Korea, we didnt want to lose ground to Communism, even though later analysis would show that the war was really begun by people under a communist banner to overthrow the corrupt government there, more so than actually starting a communist utopia and aligning with the Soviet Union. The people of Asia never really liked the idea of becoming Soviet satellite states, China being the prime example
-Vietnam, same thing
-Gulf War I, all about oil, no disputing that
-Gulf War II, same thing to some degree, but also about creating a stable US ally in the Middle East to oppose Iran and create a strong US presence in the region without having to rely on the oppressive theistic monarchy of Saudi Arabia. Also, W settling his personal score was a big plus to those in charge
???

I see you received a liberal education. Forget what I said earlier, you choose to be in your position.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2009, 12:20 PM
LML LML started this thread
 
Location: Wisconsin
7,110 posts, read 8,439,367 times
Reputation: 5171
Nomander, I will make this quick and then cease replying to your rambling discourse.

#1. I did not make assumptions as to your beliefs. I spoke only to your SILENCE and pointed out you did not speak when Bush did things contrary to individual freedom or the constitution. I do note that you rise to his defense later in your post though.

#2. On the other hand you make all manner of assumptions about me and about what I have or have not read, understood, or believe. I simply don't care enough about your opinons to correct you.

#3. If you only knew to whom you were speaking when you suggest that I have not read and do not understand history you would know just how silly it is to make assumptions about those you don't know.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2009, 12:31 PM
 
3,854 posts, read 3,905,509 times
Reputation: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Let me correct you. Color is irrelevant. The fact that someone is black, red, white or teal has nothing to do with their ability to make good decisions. A person of color is no different than a person with red hair, freckles or a turned up nose. They are physical qualities that have nothing to do with judgment or intellectual capacity. A person of color being elected is about as eventful as watching the toilet flush. It was bound to happen, though I am saddened that it happened under racist support based on PC social idiocy rather than simply picking a person who was best qualified for the job.

Though that is the issue with "pure democracy" and note I do not hate democratic aspects, I despise pure democracy aspects as our founders did if you happened to pick up a book once in a while and read our history. I despise the idiocy of social mobs, the "American idol populace" so easily manipulated and directed. I could easily make another account, slowly feed off the idiots here and have them speaking up and down as I chose simply by encouraging their weaknesses of social acceptance and politically correct emotional ideology. I used to do it all the time in the liberal universities I attended.

So simple mined they were so easily pushed into a direction by grabbing their naive sheepish tendencies and edging them as I decided. Once I had them thinking I was one of them, I could essentially prescribe death to their opposition and they were foaming at the mouth like good little idiot puppets they were.

Please excuse me if I do not associate myself with absolute stupidity. you see, while other people in school were reading all the rave books assigned by the programing professors listed with propaganda material, I was fact checking them, cross referencing their claims. I learned, that up is down and down is up in the leftist world. They are so consumed with their perfect arrogance of absolute divinity, that they have no clue that they are being fed big piles of excrement. People are stupid, easily manipulated and misinformed. This is nothing new and it happens on all sides, but the left has it down to a science. I have never seen such a complete level of subservience to stupidity as I have in the far left. They are worth dirt, a plague to intellectual progress. They are the epitome of unquestioned servitude. May they fall on to their swords, and may it pain them greatly before they fade to black.
Amazingly strong anti-social "quality" to your post.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2009, 12:42 PM
 
Location: Syracuse, NY
162 posts, read 250,878 times
Reputation: 285
Quote:
The thing is, you don't have to use the "opinion" of others to come to your information. Heck, I don't want you to take my word for it, I want you to go out and read up yourself. I want you to educate yourself on each topic more than just a headline, more than simply an opinionated blog. I want you to have everything you make a decision on to be objectively established and quantified before you do so. You want fact? Educate yourself for if you can not find truth on your own with the resources available, then you deserve to be ignorant and the consequences that come with such.
Again, reinforcing what I said. Put into the context of this comment and your previous dozen, you seem to make the assumption that by "educating myself" I'll somehow come to see that your point of view is correct and that everything I have read, and I have read plenty in books, not just on webpages, which can be made to say whatever they like at a moments notice, will be proven wrong. You admitted yourself that there is lots of crap on the internet, so just because you like to believe that one pile of crap is more correct than another doesnt make it correct. Your view on what is right and wrong is not the be all and end all. That was the point I was trying to make and you didnt prove it wrong you just agrued that if I read what you deem to be correct, I will somehow be enlightened.

Quote:
???

I see you received a liberal education. Forget what I said earlier, you choose to be in your position.
I have received a liberal education because I dont believe those wars were about freedom?! Give me a break. Pull your head out of your own ass and out of Uncle Sam's and then we can talk. And if you have some good points then and some legitimate information to counter the number of things I have read, not just from liberals but from established historians and economists, then maybe I will consider your point of view.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top