Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pangloss

Obama's Pastor -- is Obama a secret radical, or is this just guilt by association?

Recommended Posts

Well, isn't

 

That's racism, no matter how you flip it. Not liking someone for his skin color and/or/meaning race, is racism.

 

 

and that would be 'being logical' -- I don't mean to say that voting for obama is logical, I mean to say that voting for the best candidate is. So whoever votes for what he considers to be the best candidate is a matter of logical choice.

 

Disliking someone for his color, regardless of streaks of logical thinking in between, is still racism.

 

*Thoughts*, however, are a person's own business. So are feelings. If someone dislikes blacks because they're blacks, that's their right, as long as that person doesn't do anything to hurt anyone. But that person is still racist.

 

A quiet one, maybe. And his liberties allow for it, sure. But the point is that making a decision about someone due to their *RACE* is RACIST.

 

That's the point of the definition.

 

Saying Obama shouldn't be voted because he's black is racist. Saying Obama shouldn't be voted because he supports this-and-that causes/laws/issues is not racist, even if those issues are related to black people.

 

Despite politics, and political correctness and whatever else, this is a really big distinction.

 

REALLY. Big.

 

~moo

 

It depends on your definition of racism. Many anti-racism groups (NAACP, YWCA, e.g.) have long used the definition that racism is prejudice AND the power to do something about that. And, that's the definition I use; that means, for example, that even though Minister Farrakhan might be a flaming bigot, he is not a racist because he has no power to harm White people. I recognize that many, many people dislike this definition and will not use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It depends on your definition of racism. Many anti-racism groups (NAACP, YWCA, e.g.) have long used the definition that racism is prejudice AND the power to do something about that. And, that's the definition I use; that means, for example, that even though Minister Farrakhan might be a flaming bigot, he is not a racist because he has no power to harm White people. I recognize that many, many people dislike this definition and will not use it.

 

That definition seems pretty arbitrary, tvp. I see no reason "power" have should anything whatsoever to do with a definition of racism. You can be the lowliest son of a bitch with no money, no friends, no nothing... and still be a racist if continue to judge people solely on the color of their skin and not the content of their character.

 

Mooey is quite right, and she gave excellent supporting examples. Either way though, we should either start a new thread to hash this out or stop altogether (I'm fine with both), but this thread is not about definining the various bigotted "isms" we encounter in the world.

 

It's about one man's bid for presidency and how stupid comments caught on tape from the leader of his church impact that bid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That definition seems pretty arbitrary, tvp. I see no reason "power" have should anything whatsoever to do with a definition of racism. You can be the lowliest son of a bitch with no money, no friends, no nothing... and still be a racist if continue to judge people solely on the color of their skin and not the content of their character.

 

Mooey is quite right, and she gave excellent supporting examples. Either way though, we should either start a new thread to hash this out or stop altogether (I'm fine with both), but this thread is not about definining the various bigotted "isms" we encounter in the world.

 

It's about one man's bid for presidency and how stupid comments caught on tape from the leader of his church impact that bid.

 

I suspect we should simply stop. It has to do with that divide Senator Obama talked about the other day and is not likely to get settled in a few posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suspect we should simply stop. It has to do with that divide Senator Obama talked about the other day and is not likely to get settled in a few posts.

 

I'm willing to give it a try though, if you're ever interested. The only way we get through such issues is to discuss them like mature adults. Sweeping such profound and chronic concerns under the rug only allows them them to perpetuate indefinitely.

 

Cheers, mate. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, your last comment shows me just where your mind truly is on this issue, but for those who choose to be part of a mature society, I share these links to address your first point.

 

 

 

 

Is it perhaps his middle name which scares you, or have you just been lied to with an email smear campaign and simply chosen to believe it blindly and regurgitate it to others?

 

He is Muslim by origin. Keep in mind the place where he was raised; Indonesia.

Their teachings make us inferior to them, hence why I do not support a Muslim running the United States.

 

About the videos, what difference do they make? You think that a person who pledge allegiance to the flag can't do anything against it? And about the e-mails, I never got anything about Obama or anything related to the U.S. elections. I don't believe in such e-mails anyways. I am entitled to my own opinion.

 

Now, give us the meat and potatoes on why that is. You said yourself "it's an analysis you must think about", so surely you've thought about it and can discuss it right?

 

History for the first part. Racism is still present in the United States. End of the civil war did not end racism, a very big difference.

About the 'harsh sex' comment; women think with their heart, not their brain. I do not mean to generalize, but it is well-known. Very few women think with their brain; Clinton certainly is not one of those.

 

Ignoring all the other prejudices and claims in this thread, I'll just make a point for the sake of science (since this is a science forums, though a politics thread):

 

I am not really that much 'into' American elections; whoever comes won't make a lot of difference anyways, but McCain is preferable.

 

For the links you gave, what difference does it make? If he denied evolution for example, does it mean it is not present? And does it mean that the United States will quit all of its scientific and technological advances? I don't think so. The person is free to say whatever he wants. Not everything that is said, is true. A person, especially in such position, can say whatever they can in order to get a certain group of supporters. Now, I am not saying that this is surely the case, but it could be. Bottom line, it does not affect the line of the United States. It is a minor issue, not a major one.

 

Religion and science complete each other, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pangloss made a point a long time ago that the best way to deal with an extremist is to give them all the rope they want. I thought that was a good observation and have since seen it work rather well. That's why I dangled rope in Phsyia's face by asking for the meat and potatoes of his/her statments about "dark" presidents.

It appears that this approach is beginning to work, but his comments still disgust me. :rolleyes:

 

 

This post will be the first on a new page. Physia posted immediately prior to this on the last page. He really should learn the saying, "Better to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." :doh:

 

 

 

Religion and science complete each other, IMO.

Unless, of course, that religion is Islam, eh? You are so internally inconsistent it's laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McCain has had a number of policy mis-steps lately. Actually kind of a staggering number of them. It's almost as if he decided it was time to start taking policy positions, but hadn't quite gotten around to talking to an advisor about it. Yesterday Joseph Lieberman had to step up to McCain while he was still at the microphone and correct him after he claimed that Iran (shiites!) was helping Al Qaeda (sunnis!), which of course is their blood enemy!

 

It's more than a little embarassing, and if so much attention wasn't being focused on the Democratic "civil war" at the moment I think it would be getting a lot more attention.

 

Don't be so sure. They are two faces of the same coin. If you think outside of the box for a moment, they are both fighting those who they call 'infidels' or 'koffar' or 'people of the book.' Shiites don't necessary need to support Al Qaeda with money or weapons to be supporting them. They are supporting them by sparking an increase in radicalism, and by being a home for exported terrorism. Iran supports Hamas, for example, who are Sunnis.

 

Unless, of course, that religion is Islam, eh? You are so internally inconsistent it's laughable.

 

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't have any problems with Islam, if I need to clear myself.

 

Now back to my original comment and why I said it; being a scientist does not mean you can't be a believer, and being a priest does not mean you don't believe in evolution. Nobody's perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
About the 'harsh sex' comment; women think with their heart, not their brain. I do not mean to generalize, but it is well-known. Very few women think with their brain; Clinton certainly is not one of those.

 

Well-known by who ?

 

You know you're on a science forum here, not a religious one ? You should be able to present facts, studies. serious stuff. In short; more than just prejudices and "common sense".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't be so sure. They are two faces of the same coin. If you think outside of the box for a moment, they are both fighting those who they call 'infidels' or 'koffar' or 'people of the book.' Shiites don't necessary need to support Al Qaeda with money or weapons to be supporting them. They are supporting them by sparking an increase in radicalism, and by being a home for exported terrorism. Iran supports Hamas, for example, who are Sunnis.

 

 

 

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't have any problems with Islam, if I need to clear myself.

 

Now back to my original comment and why I said it; being a scientist does not mean you can't be a believer, and being a priest does not mean you don't believe in evolution. Nobody's perfect.

 

Good god, will you STOP mixing subjects together already. This thread is about Obama's association to the Pastor and whether or not it affects his campaign. it's not about the Jews, it's not about Islam, it's not about black, white, female or males, and it's NOT about science vs. religion.

 

Stick to the subject and stop confusing and generalizing EVERYTHING together.

 

~moo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He is Muslim by origin. Keep in mind the place where he was raised; Indonesia.

Their teachings make us inferior to them' date=' hence why I do not support a Muslim running the United States.[/quote']

 

Ok, so that's a charge on who he was, but that has nothing to do with who he is. I can appreciate your suspicion of an actual Muslim candidate, but you're labeling him dishonestly. He doesn't practice Islam, he's a christian. And I suspect his "dark" skin and pseudo Muslim aura would do more to help us than hurt us with international relations.

 

If I were you I'd be more concerned about his propensity for unsubstantiated belief systems - 20+ years dedicated - but I've noticed you have that in common. For us secularists, it's like watching the pro-chicken little's versus the pro-gingerbread men.

 

About the 'harsh sex' comment; women think with their heart, not their brain. I do not mean to generalize, but it is well-known. Very few women think with their brain; Clinton certainly is not one of those.

 

Tell me about it. My blonde wife just got fired from the m&m factory for throwing away all the w's. :doh:

 

After this post of yours, I'm convinced it's not only women...

 

But it's nice to see you try to put together some arguments rather than the spam banners we were getting earlier. Your generalizations are more than mere overgeneralizations, they're misguided prejudices that I doubt you've audited in any honest critical method.

 

A propensity to oversimplify suggests a mind that cannot process complex ideas. Surely you can do better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Woman president... "dark skin" (...okay..) president... is America ready? I don't know. We do know what happens when we have a religious zealot anti-science President, though.

 

~moo

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/14/obama-religion-should-play-role-in-climate-change/

 

http://notverybright.wordpress.com/2007/10/21/obama-and-religion/

 

 

“It’s not ‘faith’ if you are absolutely certain,” Obama said, noting that he didn’t believe his lack of “faith” would hurt him a national election. “Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels.”

 

Thanks for the link regarding injections - I didn't know that about McCain. I don't know any politician that would tell the parent they are wrong on that issue in a town hall, but he overstated the case, no doubt. I would score Obama slightly ahead of McCain on the science-friendly issue, while scoring McCain slightly ahead on religion in the public square issue. McCain needs to pander some to the religious right, while Obama has the unique issue of the African American religious left.

 

The reverend Wright issue is still bothering me, but I am hoping Obama can talk to that crowd as a President in a way no one else can. I think many whites have come to terms with racism, but many in the black community have not(it is of course easier for whites). Maybe Obama can improve this situation a little. It would be racist indeed to elect him only for that reason, but I see it only as a plus, not the main reason.

 

As for the science-religion issue, I really don't see a big difference between the two, but I could see someone supporting the democrats for this election on that issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

silly question: what was actually wrong with this pastor's comments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
think outside of the box

 

I Hate people that spout off that Crap! :-(:mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
silly question: what was actually wrong with this pastor's comments?

 

That's definitely a matter of interpretation, Dak. I think a) they scared white people, and b) he suggested that 9/11 was an inside job which rattled a lot of hornet's nests on an already overly-emotional issue. I find it rather silly myself, but IMO, my two points are the primary areas of concern. Those then evolved into "What if Obama believes that too!" and now we find ourselves still discussing this ridiculous distraction from the issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
silly question: what was actually wrong with this pastor's comments?

 

yep, silly indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's definitely a matter of interpretation, Dak. I think a) they scared white people, and b) he suggested that 9/11 was an inside job which rattled a lot of hornet's nests on an already overly-emotional issue. I find it rather silly myself, but IMO, my two points are the primary areas of concern. Those then evolved into "What if Obama believes that too!" and now we find ourselves still discussing this ridiculous distraction from the issues.

 

Well there's that little claim about the government inventing aids to kill black people.

 

Honestly, there is a huge double standard here. Namely because Obama is a democrat.

 

Personally, I find it interesting and simultaneously hilarious how suddenly religion and unsubstantiated belief is perfectly ok when associated with Obama. That's not consistent with the religious bashing I've been seeing on this board aimed at republicans, even Dr Paul, a man who's integrity makes every candidate currently in the race look like a convicted felon. He still got bashed for "not believing in evolution".

 

If a single republican had this kind of relationship with a reverend that proposed black people were trying to kill white people with some disease - just that, NOTHING else - this board would be lit up with charges of racism, hate, stupidity, "delusional" religious beliefs, and etc.

 

But Barack, no, no, it's just fine if he believes in fairty tales, I guess because he also believes in evolution. A few lines marginalizing Wright, and voila! - no problem. Yes, partisanship is a great filter for the eyes so they don't see the hypocrisy of their owner.

 

Interesting critical thinking going on there; some real stand up intellect being exercised. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I find it interesting and simultaneously hilarious how suddenly religion and unsubstantiated belief is perfectly ok when associated with Obama. That's not consistent with the religious bashing I've been seeing on this board aimed at republicans, even Dr Paul, a man who's integrity makes every candidate currently in the race look like a convicted felon. He still got bashed for "not believing in evolution".

 

If a single republican had this kind of relationship with a reverend that proposed black people were trying to kill white people with some disease - just that, NOTHING else - this board would be lit up with charges of racism, hate, stupidity, "delusional" religious beliefs, and etc.

 

But Barack, no, no, it's just fine if he believes in fairty tales, I guess because he also believes in evolution. A few lines marginalizing Wright, and voila! - no problem. Yes, partisanship is a great filter for the eyes so they don't see the hypocrisy of their owner.

 

Interesting critical thinking going on there; some real stand up intellect being exercised. :rolleyes:

 

You seem to have missed my post, #14 this thread, where I explicity addressed this, so if your post here was directed at me, you appear to be misrepresenting my actual position and arguing against that misrepresentation.

 

 

 

Again, out of all of the things the reverend said, this "outrageous" stuff is the true part. He talks also about people rising from the dead and angels warring and all kinds of other ludicrous nonsense, but it's the true part that we attack? I can't even find the words to tell you how assinine I find that.

 

 

Granted, I don't accept his comment about the engineering of AIDS as true, nor 9/11 being an inside job, but I do accept the root of those concerns as true (where black people have lacked similar care and benefits, and where we pissed off enough people in the world to generate the attacks, etc...). Either way, though, I hope that you will review what has actually been said in this thread before again choosing to rant like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Granted, I don't accept his comment about the engineering of AIDS as true, nor 9/11 being an inside job, but I do accept the root of those concerns as true (where black people have lacked similar care and benefits, and where we pissed off enough people in the world to generate the attacks, etc...).

 

I don't. When conservatives whine about creationism we don't talk about "the root of those concerns being true", we talk about lack of education and support for science in the Bush administration. But when Rev. Wright talks about AIDS being manufactured to kill black people or 9/11 being an inside job, we talk about "the root of those concerns being true"? I don't think so. Two wrongs don't make a right just because you're left. (Hey, that's clever!)

 

None of that has anything to do with Barrack Obama, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. I'm still confused. What exactly am I being accused of being hypocritical about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay. I'm still confused. What exactly am I being accused of being hypocritical about?

 

My post was aimed at all of those previously engaged in bashing religion and its followers when it came from the right. You are the "loudest" vocal opponent of religion in here, save for maybe mooeypoo, so I'm sure you're feeling targeted.

 

I'm actually happy that it's not happening here, in Obama's case, I just expect the same level of calm, calculative analysis when it comes from any direction.

 

I stand against unsubstantiated belief systems, albeit an arguably minor issue in the scheme of things. And, there doesn't seem to be a single leader capable of this position on either side. This is why I've had a hard time making it an issue. Dr. Paul at least strictly separated law from personal opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's definitely a matter of interpretation, Dak. I think a) they scared white people, and b) he suggested that 9/11 was an inside job which rattled a lot of hornet's nests on an already overly-emotional issue. I find it rather silly myself, but IMO, my two points are the primary areas of concern. Those then evolved into "What if Obama believes that too!" and now we find ourselves still discussing this ridiculous distraction from the issues.

 

ah, i see. that (and paranoia's post) puts it a bit more in context, but i kinda meant just the comments that were quoted in post #1. taking a bit of a guess at what was meant, it seems to be:

 

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

 

a whine about US drugs policy?

 

“U.S. of K.K.K.A.”

 

whine about racism in the US

 

 

Wright has also said that the US is responsible for 9/11 through its acts of "terrorism" against black people. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but I guess he's entitled to his opinion.

 

I'm with pangloss on this one tbh :D

 

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

 

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation.

 

comment on US hypocrisy.

 

Not saying that any of the above are necessarily right, but they're certainly valid criticisms imo. what's so bad about a US citizen criticizing US drugs policy, internal race-relations, and the general hypocrisy of the US regarding terrorism?

 

or have i misinterpreted the quotes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing. What's bad is suggesting that the offending party should be harmed in retribution, or that the retribution that was exacted is justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a single republican had this kind of relationship with a reverend that proposed black people were trying to kill white people with some disease - just that, NOTHING else - this board would be lit up with charges of racism, hate, stupidity, "delusional" religious beliefs, and etc

 

But Barack, no, no, it's just fine if he believes in fairty tales, I guess because he also believes in evolution.

 

Wait a minute! There is no evidence that Obama believes the political claims of Rev. Wright. Sitting in a pew listening to a sermon and being friends with the man doesn't mean acquiescence in all the ideas. Darwin and the pastor of the Down church had a close friendship that spanned 30 years. The two disagreed on just about everything, yet still had a strong friendship. Should you start doubting Darwin's integrity because of this friendship?

 

Bush has been friends with some of the ministers that uttered a radical comments about 9/11 -- that it was God's punishment for moral decay and acceptance of gays, for example -- but no one thought Bush believed that.

 

What I don't see anyone doing is looking at how the situation appears from Wright's congregation: poor and discriminated against because of their ethnicity.

 

Wright: ""The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme." "

 

Walk in the other man's moccasins for a while. Most drug use is among blacks, most of the main dealers are white. The sentence for use of crack cocaine (used mainly by blacks) is muchharsher than the sentence for cocaine (used mainly by blacks). I can see how Wright reached the conclusion that the government was using the law and prisons as a means to oppress African-Americans. I don't agree that this was the intention, but I'm willing to consider that it may have been the intention of a few, and I'm certainly willing to entertain the idea that oppression was an unintended consequence. And I would not expect people who feel oppressed -- even if they are objectively wrong -- to support the people they feel are the oppressors. Of course they are going to say "God damn America". Shoot, lots of nice white college kids said the same thing in the 1960s due to the Vietnam War.

 

Wright: ""We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

 

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation. "

 

He's correct that we terror bombed in WWII. That was policy. He's also correct that we supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans. You think that might have made those people angry at us? Yes, we like to see ourselves as pure and innocent, but the fact is that our government has done some pretty nasty things overseas. Sometimes justified by preventing a greater evil, sometimes not. Of course we are not going to like when people try to kill us and we do have a right to defend ourselves. I read Wright's statement that part of that defense is going to have to actually be the good guys we like to think we are. We can't do shit to other people and expect them to just take it because we are the USA and, by definition, we are the "good" guys.

 

I think Obama's speech on race was very good. It was actually an adult talking to adults. It was nice to be treated as an adult by a politician. The views of Wright, mistaken as some of us think they are, need to be listened to. Then we need to put ourselves in those shoes to figure out how we convince Wright and those like him that things are not the way they think. Part of that is reason, but part is changing policy and the particular actions that led to Wright thinking the way he does. A blanket condemnation of Wright is not critical thinking. We are supposed to take claims separately. Yes, some of what Wright says is mistaken. But some isn't.

 

I just finished a book called The Bomber War. It takes an overall look at bomber operations in Europe. Americans talked about "precision bombing" and felt morally superior. But, in fact, they engaged in area bombing just like the British and used much of the same techniques the British did. This was due to cloud cover and the inability to use the Norden bombsight. About 70% of American raids were "blind bombing" = the area bombing. So entire cities were area bombed by the Americans. This was done because any tactic that brought the war to an end was justifiable. I, quite frankly, agree with the logic.

 

However, that gives me a problem in looking at Al Queda. Once Bin Laden declares war on the USA, then his tactics of attacking civilians in NYC and military personnel in Washington by the means available become justified by the same logic as that used to justify night area bombing of Germany. My disagreement with Bin Laden is that I don't think his declaration of war was justified. I disagree with his logic to go to war, and therefore I think it a just war to resist Al Queda. But is the tactic we call "terrorism" what is "evil"? If you insist it is, then we Americans have been just as evil, or worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucaspa, that's one huge strawman. I never suggested Obama believed his minister - ever! I said he has to answer for it - and he did already. I'm satisfied.

 

My post was not about Obama. It was about the members here who jump all over religious stupidity when it comes from the right, but suddenly become tolerant when it comes from the left. Nothing to do about Obama.

 

Wright: ""The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme." "

 

This is bull. Externalizing problems and empowering indignitiy. This is a false, horrible message that should be beat down to a pulp and then burned to ashes and buried in radioactive waste.

 

Yes there are reasons for why people believe what they believe, but that doesn't turn crap into gold.

 

I could make a valid point why our founding fathers and framers didn't abolish slavery and continued to exploit these poor people, but that doesn't make slavery a good position. It's an abomination - an institution of pure shame and immorality. There are reasons for why people did what they did, reasons why they believed it was ok, or was just - and it doesn't make it right.

 

If you're going to take issue with me, pay attention to what I post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
silly question: what was actually wrong with this pastor's comments?

 

When you have a man that is running for President, You know the person who is supposed to unite the country under a common goal, that goes to and supports a church and a man, who thinks Blacks should have their own country, and that America sucks balls, we have a problem.

 

I looooved Barack before, but this entire thing has me on edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.