PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: President in Exile YOLT on January 21, 2016, 06:28:12 PM
-
Not enough asses to kick lately.
-
Not enough asses to kick lately.
I can try to play liberal for a while.
I think the government should provide free birth control, but it should be based on financial need.
The poorest people get it for free.
The "almost" poor get it cheap.
The more you have the more it will cost.
How's that for a start?
-
Not enough asses to kick lately.
I can try to play liberal for a while.
I think the government should provide free birth control, but it should be based on financial need.
The poorest people get it for free.
The "almost" poor get it cheap.
The more you have the more it will cost.
How's that for a start?
Makes me want to kick your ass! But, you didn't blame it on Bush, so you get a pass. This time....
-
Not enough asses to kick lately.
I can try to play liberal for a while.
I think the government should provide free birth control, but it should be based on financial need.
The poorest people get it for free.
The "almost" poor get it cheap.
The more you have the more it will cost.
How's that for a start?
Makes me want to kick your ass! But, you didn't blame it on Bush, so you get a pass. This time....
Bush was just a "curious George puppet" It was Cheney Halliburton that pulled his strings.
-
Not enough asses to kick lately.
I can try to play liberal for a while.
I think the government should provide free birth control, but it should be based on financial need.
The poorest people get it for free.
The "almost" poor get it cheap.
The more you have the more it will cost.
How's that for a start?
Makes me want to kick your ass! But, you didn't blame it on Bush, so you get a pass. This time....
Bush was just a "curious George puppet" It was Cheney Halliburton that pulled his strings.
Is your name "John" or "jimmy"?
-
Not enough asses to kick lately.
I can try to play liberal for a while.
I think the government should provide free birth control, but it should be based on financial need.
The poorest people get it for free.
The "almost" poor get it cheap.
The more you have the more it will cost.
How's that for a start?
Makes me want to kick your ass! But, you didn't blame it on Bush, so you get a pass. This time....
Bush was just a "curious George puppet" It was Cheney Halliburton that pulled his strings.
Good, good.. you're getting into the role.
-
Not enough asses to kick lately.
I can try to play liberal for a while.
I think the government should provide free birth control, but it should be based on financial need.
The poorest people get it for free.
The "almost" poor get it cheap.
The more you have the more it will cost.
How's that for a start?
You're not really good at this, John. Rewatch a tape of last Sunday's dem debate, and try again. There's no means testing in their platform of free shit for everybody.
-
I think the Progressives on POA are afraid to come here. They can't complain to the mods about our conservative/libertarian views. Wah, Wah, Wah. Morons.
-
Steingar fears nothing.
-
Steingar fears nothing.
Steingar is a trooper. :thumbsup:
-
A far-lefter who fears nothing! I salute you, and appreciate your presence here, even when we disagree. Perhaps especially when we disagree. EVERY SINGLE ONE of my far-left friends refuses to engage in a thoughtful discussion. Your willingness to do so is enormously refreshing and valuable.
-
You're not really good at this, John. Rewatch a tape of last Sunday's dem debate, and try again. There's no means testing in their platform of free shit for everybody.
I just need a little practice. I thought that Libs would claim that I was discriminating against the poor and minorities if I gave the same benefit to everyone like they do when tax breaks are given to everyone.
So how about we give free BC to everyone, but we make a special100% tax for the rich (.gt. $35k/year) that partake of this benefit. Now you get free BC for all, but you tax the rich! Win-Win.
At least Asecherest has come over now so he can help teach me to be a better lib.
Oh, and I think SS payments should begin at 59. To pay for this, we would eliminate the ceiling so that all income would be subject to SS like Medicare is. And we could increase the rate for the "really rich" (.gt. $75k/year).
-
Just heard a Hillary commercial on the radio, she wants a millionaire surtax. :o
-
Just heard a Hillary commercial on the radio, she wants a millionaire surtax. :o
And in true glaringly colossal economic ignorance, I'm sure her "millionaire surtax" would kick in at $250,000 of adjusted gross income.
-
....And in true glaringly colossal economic ignorance, I'm sure her "millionaire surtax" would kick in at $250,000 of adjusted gross income.
...and will no doubt exclude her and her cronies...
-
Just heard a Hillary commercial on the radio, she wants a millionaire surtax. :o
And in true glaringly colossal economic ignorance, I'm sure her "millionaire surtax" would kick in at $250,000 of adjusted gross income.
Yeah, what crap.
-
A far-lefter who fears nothing! I salute you, and appreciate your presence here, even when we disagree. Perhaps especially when we disagree. EVERY SINGLE ONE of my far-left friends refuses to engage in a thoughtful discussion. Your willingness to do so is enormously refreshing and valuable.
Don't choose the dumb ones as friends. ;D
-
Don't choose the dumb ones as friends. ;D
Thats one way to narrow the field down to a very small number of potential liberal friends.... 8)
-
Don't choose the dumb ones as friends. ;D
Thats one way to narrow the field down to a very small number of potential liberal friends.... 8)
Touché. You pluck the smart liberals from across your aisle, and I will pluck the literate conservatives from across mine. Then we'll make reservations for four and talk politics over dinner and beer. ;) ;D
-
A far-lefter who fears nothing! I salute you, and appreciate your presence here, even when we disagree. Perhaps especially when we disagree. EVERY SINGLE ONE of my far-left friends refuses to engage in a thoughtful discussion. Your willingness to do so is enormously refreshing and valuable.
Don't choose the dumb ones as friends. ;D
That's the weird thing. They are not dumb at all. My farthest left friend is very intelligent but goes into lash-out mode if any analysis is approached. Others simply glaze over and refuse to converse intelligently. My supposition is that they know liberalism is indefensible. I've never seen or heard a good defense of it.
-
Don't choose the dumb ones as friends. ;D
Thats one way to narrow the field down to a very small number of potential liberal friends.... 8)
Touché. You pluck the smart liberals from across your aisle, and I will pluck the literate conservatives from across mine. Then we'll make reservations for four and talk politics over dinner and beer. ;) ;D
Ok, that's funny right there. :)
-
Don't choose the dumb ones as friends. ;D
Thats one way to narrow the field down to a very small number of potential liberal friends.... 8)
Touché. You pluck the smart liberals from across your aisle, and I will pluck the literate conservatives from across mine. Then we'll make reservations for four and talk politics over dinner and beer. ;) ;D
Ok, that's funny right there. :)
On POA, that would be grounds for shutting the entire board down! 8)
-
On POA, that would be grounds for shutting the entire board down! 8)
don't know abou that, SZ material can still be found in Hangar Talk
-
On POA, that would be grounds for shutting the entire board down! 8)
don't know abou that, SZ material can still be found in Hangar Talk
That's because members of the MC are participating. Once they get the feeling they are being seriously challenged, they may will probably delete the thread.
-
On POA, that would be grounds for shutting the entire board down! 8)
don't know abou that, SZ material can still be found in Hangar Talk
That's because members of the MC are participating. Once they get the feeling they are being seriously challenged, they may will probably delete the thread.
You just have to be a part of the clique.
-
That's the weird thing. They are not dumb at all. My farthest left friend is very intelligent but goes into lash-out mode if any analysis is approached. Others simply glaze over and refuse to converse intelligently. My supposition is that they know liberalism is indefensible. I've never seen or heard a good defense of it.
You should come over to my neck of the woods. Here they will gladly shout you down with all manner of facts and figures. You will likely not get a word in edge wise. Being a person in the minority that is more right leaning than left, is tough here and not for the weak hearted.
-
A far-lefter who fears nothing! I salute you, and appreciate your presence here, even when we disagree. Perhaps especially when we disagree. EVERY SINGLE ONE of my far-left friends refuses to engage in a thoughtful discussion. Your willingness to do so is enormously refreshing and valuable.
Don't choose the dumb ones as friends. ;D
That's the weird thing. They are not dumb at all. My farthest left friend is very intelligent but goes into lash-out mode if any analysis is approached. Others simply glaze over and refuse to converse intelligently. My supposition is that they know liberalism is indefensible. I've never seen or heard a good defense of it.
It's for the children?
-
Don't choose the dumb ones as friends. ;D
That's the weird thing. They are not dumb at all. My farthest left friend is very intelligent but goes into lash-out mode if any analysis is approached. Others simply glaze over and refuse to converse intelligently. My supposition is that they know liberalism is indefensible. I've never seen or heard a good defense of it.
That's it in a nutshell. Progressive/liberalism is based PURELY ON EMOTION. It is a mental disorder. It can not be defended. Many Progressive concepts sound altruistic, but when you go beyond the surface, and dig a little you realize they are very damaging to all, including the ones they want to "help".
-
To you folks, what is "liberalism"?? "Liberalism" is not defensible you say, but defensible from what?
-
I suppose "liberalism" is defined differently depending on viewpoint. That's part of its problem.
Liberal: Liberalism is compassionate, promotes equality, helps the poor, spreads resources where they are most needed.
Conservative: Liberalism ignores human nature, promotes control by elites in government, creates more poor, and dumps resources into programs that bloat and create more dependency.
-
I suppose "liberalism" is defined differently depending on viewpoint. That's part of its problem.
Liberal: Liberalism is compassionate, promotes equality, helps the poor, spreads resources where they are most needed.
Conservative: Liberalism ignores human nature, promotes control by elites in government, creates more poor, and dumps resources into programs that bloat and create more dependency.
That's why I think more accurate descriptors of the American political wings would be Progressive on the left and Regressive on the right. The left wants to use government to fix the human condition and progress to a new imagined ideal place. The right wants to get rid of government and go back to an old imagined ideal place.
-
The right wants to get rid of government and go back to an old imagined ideal place.
wow - oh so wrong. pathetically wrong.
-
That's why I think more accurate descriptors of the American political wings would be Progressive on the left and Regressive on the right. The left wants to use government to fix the human condition and progress to a new imagined ideal place. The right wants to get rid of government and go back to an old imagined ideal place.
Bullshit..... The old if-its-not-one-extreme-it-must-the-the-polar-opposite-extreme-argument. There is an enormous amount of space between the bloated federal largess we have evolved into as a country and anarchy. The last 50-100 years have been a steady and aggressive concentration of power into the federal government for the womb to tomb protection and care of the masses. Individualism and personal responsibility be damned. Clawing that back even a little causes the big government crowd to made stupid accusations such as starving children and pushing little old ladies over the cliff.
-
That's why I think more accurate descriptors of the American political wings would be Progressive on the left and Regressive on the right. The left wants to use government to fix the human condition and progress to a new imagined ideal place. The right wants to get rid of government and go back to an old imagined ideal place.
Yep. That would be the liberal definition. But it is oh-so-wrong.
Liberal is naivety.
Conservative is reality.
You are a bigger help if you teaching a man to fish rather than giving him a fish.
-
I suppose "liberalism" is defined differently depending on viewpoint. That's part of its problem.
Liberal: Liberalism is compassionate, promotes equality, helps the poor, spreads resources where they are most needed.
Conservative: Liberalism ignores human nature, promotes control by elites in government, creates more poor, and dumps resources into programs that bloat and create more dependency.
This doesn't seem to follow with your earlier supposition that liberalism is indefensible. If we can't come to a common definition, why do you suppose the political persuasion has no defense? This is not to say that deciding on a definition is easy, but settling on a description that fits the hyperbole of the pejorative use of the term doesn't seem like a great start to the discussion. I, too, might consider the conservative position to be indefensible if I really believed they were all right-wing anarchist redneck uncharitable evangelical gun nuts.
There has been plenty of high-profile defense of liberalism and liberal policy. You need look no further than the position of commander in chief, from Theodore Roosevelt and up through the present.
-
The right wants to get rid of government and go back to an old imagined ideal place.
Ahhh, no. The Right wants LIMITED GOVERNMENT, and less wasteful spending. The Right wants the Constitution to matter, and for the Federal Government to be less powerful than the states.
-
This doesn't seem to follow with your earlier supposition that liberalism is indefensible. If we can't come to a common definition, why do you suppose the political persuasion has no defense? This is not to say that deciding on a definition is easy, but settling on a description that fits the hyperbole of the pejorative use of the term doesn't seem like a great start to the discussion. I, too, might consider the conservative position to be indefensible if I really believed they were all right-wing anarchist redneck uncharitable evangelical gun nuts.
There has been plenty of high-profile defense of liberalism and liberal policy. You need look no further than the position of commander in chief, from Theodore Roosevelt and up through the present.
I have been thinking about your observation.
Definition is indeed a problem.
Labels are themselves a problem. It is too easy to stop thinking after one has formed a "position" based on sound bites and categorization. In point of fact, labels and the tendency to stop thinking after applying them are probably the primary reason today's electorate makes the choices they do, while behind the scenes the people they put in office betray them and let them down, astronomically and devastatingly.
I think we need a balance between liberal and conservative. Since we are stuck with labels, it would be awesome to create or develop a new electorate sector that would blossom and grow and dominate. This sector would be those people who see the need to look at the big picture, realistically assess what works and what doesn't, ruthlessly reject that which doesn't, and work together to create a government that supports human flourishing.
Someone else posted that humans don't want utopia, they want to be challenged and be rewarded for their struggles. We need to decontruct the ideas of "fair" and "spreading wealth" to see that they are underpinned by principles that don't work when applied in an unbalanced way. For example, in some areas of the country, population is low, so jobs are low, and so are rents and food prices, etc. If a federal minimum wage appears in such places, it will upset the local balance, and not necessarily in a good way.
-
Labels are themselves a problem. It is too easy to stop thinking after one has formed a "position" based on sound bites and categorization. In point of fact, labels and the tendency to stop thinking after applying them are probably the primary reason today's electorate makes the choices they do, while behind the scenes the people they put in office betray them and let them down, astronomically and devastatingly.
This is precisely the reason I haven't chosen a label for my Avatar on this forum.
-
Ahhh, no. The Right wants LIMITED GOVERNMENT, and less wasteful spending. The Right wants the Constitution to matter, and for the Federal Government to be less powerful than the states.
Last time the GOP owned both the Legislative and Executive we saw the largest increase in government and government spending in US history. We also saw new government agencies who's job it was to intrude into the lives pf practically every American. Thems the facts.
-
Last time the GOP owned both the Legislative and Executive we saw the largest increase in government and government spending in US history. We also saw new government agencies who's job it was to intrude into the lives pf practically every American. Thems the facts.
No doubt you are correct. And when the
democrats took control of Congress and then the presidency, they made the republicans look like pikers in spending money and loss of privacy.
That's why we need new blood, and a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on congress and the Supremes. Political power needs to be limited, and the politically powerful will not do that to themselves. The People need to step in, one way or the other.
-
Then she needs to tax herself. Bill and Hillary have made hundreds of millions since the White House. All from lobbying fees from big corporations, and Wall Street. Ironic huh?
-
That's it in a nutshell. Progressive/liberalism is based PURELY ON EMOTION. It is a mental disorder. It can not be defended. Many Progressive concepts sound altruistic, but when you go beyond the surface, and dig a little you realize they are very damaging to all, including the ones they want to "help".
And you sir, sound like a religious zealot to me. ;D
-
And you sir, sound like a religious zealot to me. ;D
Thanks Jay!!! No I am not very religious, but thanks anyway.
-
Last time the GOP owned both the Legislative and Executive we saw the largest increase in government and government spending in US history. We also saw new government agencies who's job it was to intrude into the lives pf practically every American. Thems the facts.
Your response is typical far left progressive speak. Whenever the topic allows, you guys always project onto the Republicans, your biggest faults, and pretend, spin, lie, and turn up your nose in defense of the ignorance.
-
Ahh FC, and right on time too. Of course, I've also been called a parasite for my chosen profession, which I entered due to its altruistic character. Big surprise I'm the only lib around.
-
Ahh FC, and right on time too. Of course, I've also been called a parasite for my chosen profession, which I entered due to its altruistic character. Big surprise I'm the only lib around.
Not the only one you crazy parasite! ;D
-
Since the #neverTrump brigade has adopted so many of the standard Liberal approaches to their jihad I would suggest we don't need any Liberals at least while Trump is in the news.
My daily ration of 'WTF' when evaluating mischaracterizations, mental gymnastics, and misreads of the public mood is met here faster than on Facebook where I have friends and relatives who are die-hard Bernsters.
'Gimp
-
I think we need a balance between liberal and conservative. Since we are stuck with labels, it would be awesome to create or develop a new electorate sector that would blossom and grow and dominate. This sector would be those people who see the need to look at the big picture, realistically assess what works and what doesn't, ruthlessly reject that which doesn't, and work together to create a government that supports human flourishing.
We're here in America and in great numbers. Not really Conservative and not really Liberal. Sometimes called moderates, or swing voters, we recognize the conservatives are right about a great many things and we also recognize that the liberals are right about a great many things. It just depends on the subject. We don't have a party, or group of people we can rally with.
I'm curious, your posts here almost always fall solidly into the conservative mold. Since you say we need a balance, which liberal ideas, policies, or programs would you accept? What part of the left would balance the right? The large majority of posters here would say the left is wrong about everything and there is no need for "balance". They might say eliminate the left and we would have balance.
What say you?
-
Make the Constitution matter and get the Federal government out of meddling in everything that the states, and local governments should be doing. That's it.
-
I'm curious, your posts here almost always fall solidly into the conservative mold. Since you say we need a balance, which liberal ideas, policies, or programs would you accept? What part of the left would balance the right? The large majority of posters here would say the left is wrong about everything and there is no need for "balance". They might say illuminate the left and we would have balance.
What say you?
At the moment, I sit here horrified at the conduct of the left in violently shutting down Trump's rally. Forgive me if I have to come back to your question. I'm having trouble finding something about the left to admire right now.
I ask myself, why didn't he run as a Democrat? If he did, would the right be violently protesting? We had a quiet transfer of power to Obama. It's one of the most beautiful things about American politics. We allow the people to decide, and if they decide against your candidate, you live with it.
But the right has been muffled and manipulated by the mainstream media for a long time, and the right is mad. This latest attempt by the left to Shut Down the Discussion shows the left's ugly, dripping fangs.
Conservative principles work. The left's principles are showing tonight.
Will try to answer your question when I can find something about the left that we need.
-
The left's principles are showing tonight.
Also known as their True Colors.
-
Since the #neverTrump brigade has adopted so many of the standard Liberal approaches to their jihad I would suggest we don't need any Liberals at least while Trump is in the news.
My daily ration of 'WTF' when evaluating mischaracterizations, mental gymnastics, and misreads of the public mood is met here faster than on Facebook where I have friends and relatives who are die-hard Bernsters.
'Gimp
Since the Trumkins adopted a Democrat as their standard bearer...one trick pony indeed.
-
Bernie said he was starting a revolution. Looks like his supports were making good on that promise in Chicago. One would think they would focus more on Hillary :-\
-
Conservative principles work. The left's principles are showing tonight.
Will try to answer your question when I can find something about the left that we need.
That's unfortunately what I thought. No real desire for balance, just desire for the left to not be the left.
BTW, that mob attacking Trump's people are not following the left's principles at all. They are just an angry mob with violent opportunists in it, that's all. They have no real ideology except maybe steal from the rich and give to the poor and of course they see themselves as the poor. If you think that mob rule and shutting up people by use of force is the left's principles, you don't really know anything about the left.
-
That's unfortunately what I thought. No real desire for balance, just desire for the left to not be the left.
BTW, that mob attacking Trump's people are not following the left's principles at all. They are just an angry mob with violent opportunists in it, that's all. They have no real ideology except maybe steal from the rich and give to the poor and of course they see themselves as the poor. If you think that mob rule and shutting up people by use of force is the left's principles, you don't really know anything about the left.
I think the same way as Becky. There is no compromise with the left as they are so FAR LEFT now any compromise would add to Obama's Fundamental Transformation. Also, making the Constitution matter is now a far right thing. Unreal. Also, all the left's solutions are very costly, big Federal government programs that we can't afford. Always.
-
Bernie said he was starting a revolution. Looks like his supports were making good on that promise in Chicago. One would think they would focus more on Hillary :-\
Same shit, different decade.
They're all filth.
-
That's unfortunately what I thought. No real desire for balance, just desire for the left to not be the left.
BTW, that mob attacking Trump's people are not following the left's principles at all. They are just an angry mob with violent opportunists in it, that's all. They have no real ideology except maybe steal from the rich and give to the poor and of course they see themselves as the poor. If you think that mob rule and shutting up people by use of force is the left's principles, you don't really know anything about the left.
Then what are the principles of the left? You sound like Jaybird defending black lies matter or Islam in light of meteoric rise of radical Islam.
As for the principles of the left, if stifling debate, shutting down conservative, pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family voices, or anything not consistent with their world view is not one of their "principles," then you need to get your ass onto every campus and teach these democratic socialists what the left's principles really are. Because they don't get it.
-
The new left is simply communist, through and through. There is nothing that even gently resembles the liberal movement of the sixties. The new left is all about shutting down free speech, and cutting off the free change of ideas, in favor of forced group think, complete with psychological "treatment" for those who insist there are other viewpoints.
-
That's unfortunately what I thought. No real desire for balance, just desire for the left to not be the left.
BTW, that mob attacking Trump's people are not following the left's principles at all. They are just an angry mob with violent opportunists in it, that's all. They have no real ideology except maybe steal from the rich and give to the poor and of course they see themselves as the poor. If you think that mob rule and shutting up people by use of force is the left's principles, you don't really know anything about the left.
I seek balance because it's the only realistic way to create better means for human flourishing. As men are different from women in essential ways, so the left and right differ, and always will. I tend to look hopefully toward the middle, because that is where real action can be taken ... find areas of agreement, outline how to achieve those goals, and then do it.
I've said it before: Set up an island reality show, one ruled by the left and one by the right. The left's island would be chaos and begging for food from the right's island within a short time. That's not to say there aren't redeeming qualities on the left. They're just harder to find because very quickly a person who actually thinks things through will see that leftist policies aren't sustainable or in line with human nature.
I think I do know some things about the left. What I see I do not like, and honestly and perplexedly questioned people on SZ and was not answered, but I realize I have to live with these people on the same planet. So their input is going to be important.
Make me want to be a liberal, please. Show me something there to appreciate and why I should adopt it as a world view, and why I should vote liberal. I'll read and consider.
-
The new left is simply communist, through and through. There is nothing that even gently resembles the liberal movement of the sixties. The new left is all about shutting down free speech, and cutting off the free change of ideas, in favor of forced group think, complete with psychological "treatment" for those who insist there are other viewpoints.
Hater!
-
Make me want to be a liberal, please. Show me something there to appreciate and why I should adopt it as a world view, and why I should vote liberal. I'll read and consider.
It's for the children!
-
They're just harder to find because very quickly a person who actually thinks things through will see that leftist policies aren't sustainable or in line with human nature.
Becky said it, but why do you want to be a liberal if it is against human nature?
-
I seek balance because it's the only realistic way to create better means for human flourishing. As men are different from women in essential ways, so the left and right differ, and always will. I tend to look hopefully toward the middle, because that is where real action can be taken ... find areas of agreement, outline how to achieve those goals, and then do it.
You see, when you look to the middle and hope to find common ground, you need to check your right wing dogma at the door for a moment in time if you want to find common ground. America is split pretty much down the middle and there is almost zero ability for those on either side to see the other's view. I actually blame technology and the various media for this situation.
We now have 24/7 access to our respective "clans". We can go there and hear/see things that reinforce the ideas we have adopted when ever we want. Those that create this content are usually making money off it, so they make sure the stories and commentary are inflammatory and extreme to keep you coming back for more.
I've said it before: Set up an island reality show, one ruled by the left and one by the right. The left's island would be chaos and begging for food from the right's island within a short time. That's not to say there aren't redeeming qualities on the left. They're just harder to find because very quickly a person who actually thinks things through will see that leftist policies aren't sustainable or in line with human nature.
I love that idea!!! However I think it is more appropriate for an online sim game competition than a reality show. Something where the producers can throw real life type curve balls at the contestants like war and financial melt downs. A live action reality show on islands is to restrictive in scale, so both islands would pretty much look the same. When you strip it back to the essentials, both sides pretty much come to agreement, or similar solutions. It's not until the world grows large and complex that there are real differences.
Make me want to be a liberal, please. Show me something there to appreciate and why I should adopt it as a world view, and why I should vote liberal. I'll read and consider.
I'm sorry, I can't do it. I'm not a liberal and don't really want you to vote liberal necessarily. I do wish you could at least see their point of view, acknowledge that it might be valid and ponder it, but I fear judging by your past posts that that is not possible. You have already decided what is "right" and are just looking for meaningless debate to entertain yourself with.
-
Those that create this content are usually making money off it, so they make sure the stories and commentary are inflammatory and extreme to keep you coming back for more.
Is my check in the mail for the content I have created?
-
Is my check in the mail for the content I have created?
What is this "mail" you speak of??? This is the new era, your payments are all in Bit Coin and transferred to a virtual account in a cloud somewhere...