A question for Repubs....

[Duff McCartney]

I notice that you guys are so high and mighty on George Bush...that he's a great president. That you call democrats .."demoncrats" (how childish) But riddle me this....if Bush is such a better president than Kerry ever will be.....why is this election so close? You would think that if he was that much better this would be a landslide. But it's not.

I'm not endorsing either guy...cause politics is not a part of my life, but if he really is so much better...he'd be crushing his opponent on everything from the debates to the pre-election polls.

[Marcus Bryant]

Did Lincoln win a majority? Did Clinton?

[scott]

Did Lincoln win a majority? Did Clinton?

Is Bush also running against a third (or even 4th in the case of Lincoln) party Candidate?

[Marcus Bryant]

Doesn't matter. Count Nader if you like. The point is that they didn't need a majority of actual voters voting for them to be considered as great presidents.

Secondly, I wouldn't rank Bush43 as a great president or a poor president. Definitely a better choice at this point than Kerry, no doubt.

[Duff McCartney]

Doesn't matter. Count Nader if you like. The point is that they didn't need a majority of actual voters voting for them to be considered as great presidents.

Secondly, I wouldn't rank Bush43 as a great president or a poor president. Definitely a better choice at this point than Kerry, no doubt.

So you're saying Clinton was a great President? Ooh don't let Yonivore hear you.

BTW if he is definitely a better choice at this point...then why isn't he winning all the debates, all the pre-election polls. Like I said, if he was as you say "defintely the better choice" then this election wouldn't be so close.

[Marcus Bryant]

Why didn't prior "great presidents" garner a majority of the popular vote? I disagree with the premise of your assertion.

I only said that Clinton was regarded as a "great president" not that I thought he was one. Come to think of it, what made Clinton "great" was his willingness to sell out his political base.

If you have a disagreement with Yonivore, please address it to him.

[scott]

Doesn't matter. Count Nader if you like. The point is that they didn't need a majority of actual voters voting for them to be considered as great presidents.

It matters if you want your analogy to mean anything.

[Marcus Bryant]

Actually it matters for yours.

[Duff McCartney]

Definitely a better choice at this point than Kerry, no doubt.

Like I said Marcus...if he's "definitely a better choice" then why is this election so close?

[Marcus Bryant]

Like I said, one does not need to win an epic majority of the electorate, or even a majority at all, in order to be considered to be a "great president."

Both Kennedy and Truman won their offices with less than 50% of the popular vote. In Kennedy's case his winning margin as a % of the popular vote was 0.2%. According to your argument neither man could ever be considered to be a "great president."

Secondly, again, in my opinion Bush43 is not a great president. However, I do think he is preferable to Kerry. The reasons why I do not think he is a "great president" have scant to do with his level of support in the electorate.

If you want someone to defend the claim that Bush is a "great president", again, ask Yonivore.

[Duff McCartney]

Like I said..I'm not asking you to defend that...I know you're not saying Bush is a great president.

But you say he's "definitely a better choice" if it's such a clear cut decision...the election wouldn't be so close.

[Marcus Bryant]

Again see Truman, Kennedy, Clinton, etc..

[scott]

Actually it matters for yours.

If only I made one...

Lincoln, Clinton and Kennedy each won their close elections in their first term. Lincoln followed that up with a decisive re-election in 1864. LBJ rode Kennedy's ticket to one of the most lopsided elections in Presidential History, and Clinton soundly defeated Dole in 96 for re-election. Truman's election is a decent analogy as he was the incubant, but he also faced a third party candidate who actually carried 4 states and 39 electoral votes.

Alas, Duff's question was not why Bush doesn't appear to have 50.01% of the popular vote, it was why Bush is not decisively ahead of his only viable candidate, Kerry. With the exception of Kennedy, none of the other elections were that close (Truman was relatively close, but he still beat Dewey by 4.5 points, Lincoln's closest competitor was 10.5 points back, and Clinton beat Bush 1 by 5.5 points).

All the Presidents (or their VP's in the case of an assassination - and by mentioning them in this thread, it is presumed you are nominating them as Great) you mentioned managed to soundly defeat their opponent when up for re-election, presumably after voters were able to get a feel for that President's ability to do the job.

Duff's question is a valid one, if Bush is a great, or even good, President, then he should be able to beat a guy like John Kerry by more than a point in his bid for re-election.

[Marcus Bryant]

Clinton won "decisively" yet failed to garner a majority in his second campaign. Truman was president for a significant period of time before his 1948 campaign. Woodrow Wilson is another who failed to hit a majority in his second campaign.

Yeah, LBJ won in 1964, partly on sympathy and partly on successfully demonizing his candidate who admittedly opted to take some rather strident positions. Not exactly the best historical example. If you feel that is appropriate then I give you Calvin Coolidge's win in 1924. It was rather decisive. Historians regard him as a great president. No doubt. Lest we forget Tricky Dick, who in 1972 surpassed Lincoln's 1864 winning margin and was a tenth of a percent off of FDR's 1936 winning popular vote precentage.

And of course we do not yet know what the results of this election will be. Seems like among the other things the original post provided was a bit of premature speculation.

Expecting contemporaries to accurately recognize greatness is a fool's errand or perhaps Coolidge and Nixon were great presidents after all.

[whottt]

Duff, I don't know that Bush is the greatest president ever but he's better than his competition.

On the greatness debate...

If Bush does get elected it will be the first time in history a President who lost the popular vote, to become President, was re-elected.

So I'd say that just getting re-elected sets him apart from any other re-elected President...since he will have had less support to begin with than any of them. Historically these Electoral College Presidents have been unpopular, despised, and accused of being corrupt, from the instant they were elected, even though at least 1 of them did an excellent job as President.

I mean you have to look at it like this...if Bush does get re-elected by winning the popular vote..he'll be more popular now than he was in his first term. That means he won over voters as President...any President who does that is a successful President. Going from not being the choice of the majority, to being the choice of the majority, is a unique and amazing achievement among Presidents.

As for greatness....that's for history to decide.

When Regan left office he was popular...but we didn't learn how great he was as President, until he was well out of office. It was only then that even Democrats had to admit he succeeded in his ultimate goal...to beat the Soviet Union. Bill Clinton was slated to go down as arguably the greatest ever in the eyes of many Americans...until Sept 11th, 2001...which was born during his administration.


Bush will be similar to Regan..really he's got nowhere to go but up...if we end up bring lasting peace to the Middle-East...Bush and Blair are going to be remembered as great leaders for making a corageous move than went totally against popular wold opinion.

I'd say the chances are good that what Bush is doing in the middle-east is going to be more effective than what Europe has been doing over there for the last 100 years...trying to get despots to make peace. And we have already tried that approach for quite a while now ourselves. The power in the middle east is in the hands of people who do not want peace and are incapable of producing it.

Remember...the middle-east shithole we have now is the creation of Europe. 100%. Why anyone thinks we should keep following their lead...when it hasn't worked for a 100 years and when Europe couldn't even make peace with itself without us....I don't know. I just don't know where people get these ideas from. But negotiating with corrupt despots was never going to produce peace. It just wasn't...it would have worked by now by now if it was going to work.

This approach might not work either...but there's a pretty good track record of legitimate Democracies, with popularly elected governments, not governments that came to power in a coup by gunpoint, bringing stability and peace to regions of the World...see Europe.

[Hook Dem]

Go back to The Club Duff and discuss music.....something you know something about! :lol

[Marcus Bryant]

As for greatness....that's for history to decide.


Indeed. Some "great presidents" failed to register their "greatness" with the electorate whereas some presidents that history has judged to be failures attained significant popular vote wins. Also, I feel, "greatness" is ultimately decided on the basis of the vision of the eye of the beholder.

History will be the judge. Right now the Bush administration has been defined by Bush's response to the 9/11 attacks. Bush's decision to invade Iraq is what I feel really defines this election. It was a controversial decision, a bold decision. If the outcome of his aggressive anti-Islamofascist terrorism policy is generally successful, I think that history will be forced to acknowledge that. It might be what some future historians deem to have been an example of strong presidential leadership. (This is precisely why I feel that going by election results is not really the best measure of greatness, for it certainly eliminates the possibility of a president making an unpopular, yet correct and important decision). As we've seen in the past "great presidents" were not necessarily dominant re-election candidates in American history. I don't think that Bush will be regarded as a great president, primarily for his fiscal policies and the fact that most historians and other pontificators on American presidential leadership tend to have a liberal-left point of view (if you think the government should be active in dealing with X social problem then you probably aren't going to have good things to say about a GOP conservative president).

In the last quarter century there have been two incumbent presidents standing for re-election who were widely regarded as failures: Carter and Bush41. Both men had roughly 60% of the electorate vote for something other than a continuation of their administrations. If you are going to assert that presidential greatness or failure is determined by one's performance in a re-election campaign then I think both Carter and Bush41 provide a good recent standard for presidential failure. Even the most favorable poll results for Kerry today do not indicate that Bush43 will have such a poor performance. Based on that standard, Bush43 is certainly not a failure. If he does get between 48 to 51% of the popular vote as the polling I've seen suggests, then I think that would be more indicative of the electorate viewing him as a good president than a poor one.

Of course, that is if you want to judge the quality of a president simply on their popular vote performance in a re-election campaign. And that, again, is rife with the problems that I have pointed out in this post and above in the thread.

History will be judge of the quality of George W. Bush's leadership, not the vote tallies from this election.

[Duff McCartney]

Duff, I don't know that Bush is the greatest president ever but he's better than his competition.

I'm not talking about him being the greatest president ever...but as you say..."he's better than his competition".....if he is then why is the election so close?

[Hook Dem]

I'm not talking about him being the greatest president ever...but as you say..."he's better than his competition".....if he is then why is the election so close?
Duff...you must have asked "why is the election so close" a hundred times and it is begging for an answer. Here it comes.....because there are a lot of dumb f****** people out there! :lol

[Brodels]

I'm not talking about him being the greatest president ever...but as you say..."he's better than his competition".....if he is then why is the election so close?

Measuring the greatness of a president has little to do with what kind of support he gets at the polls. People vote on a candidate's willingness to address concerns that are important to them. But a candidate's willingness to take on these concerns tells us little about his ability to steer the nation in the right direction.

In reality, a third party candidate could be "better than his competition." It's hard to imagine that Nader or Badnarik would steer the country astray any worse than, say, Kerry or Bush, but they won't get many votes.

A candidate's popularity and ability to do a great job really should be considered separately. You're assuming that popularity translates into greatness, and that's a huge mistake to make.

[Mark in Austin]

Go back to The Club Duff and discuss music.....something you know something about!

Asshole. It's an honest question and an interesting discussion. Belittling somebody is no way to convince them of your point of view. It seems more like an attempt to convince people who already agree with you that your dick is proportionate in size to your ego.

There are posters who, right or wrong, think before they type; and there are posters who are knee-jerk bandwagon twits. Look at your contributions to this discussion, compare them to Scott, MB, or Whott and tell me which one you are.

[JoeChalupa]

Duff...you must have asked "why is the election so close" a hundred times and it is begging for an answer. Here it comes.....because there are a lot of dumb f****** people out there! :lol

Is that really why you think Bush is ahead on some polls because they are dumb enough to vote for him?

I tend to agree but you reall shouldn't be so hard on the Bush supporters.

[whottt]

but you reall shouldn't be so hard on the Bush

Dammit, I know there's a joke in there somewhere.

[Hook Dem]

Asshole. It's an honest question and an interesting discussion. Belittling somebody is no way to convince them of your point of view. It seems more like an attempt to convince people who already agree with you that your dick is proportionate in size to your ego.

There are posters who, right or wrong, think before they type; and there are posters who are knee-jerk bandwagon twits. Look at your contributions to this discussion, compare them to Scott, MB, or Whott and tell me which one you are.
Ummm...asshole? :lol

[Hook Dem]

Is that really why you think Bush is ahead on some polls because they are dumb enough to vote for him?

I tend to agree but you reall shouldn't be so hard on the Bush supporters.
Shoot me for being honest Joe. I just call it like it is. :lol

[Hook Dem]

Asshole. It's an honest question and an interesting discussion. Belittling somebody is no way to convince them of your point of view. It seems more like an attempt to convince people who already agree with you that your dick is proportionate in size to your ego.

There are posters who, right or wrong, think before they type; and there are posters who are knee-jerk bandwagon twits. Look at your contributions to this discussion, compare them to Scott, MB, or Whott and tell me which one you are.
Mark...I think it is interesting that you chose to call me out. When Duff posts something like this, I find it kinda one sided. "I notice that you guys are so high and mighty on George Bush...that he's a great president. That you call democrats .."demoncrats" (how childish)" Now , with all the mudslinging that goes on in here, how come you didn't call him down on that one? We are referred to Repugs and Bush is referred to as "shrub". Did you say anything about that????? thats a big NO ! . Seems to me that you are a little one sided in your criticism. Could it be because you support Kerry? I don't know but I do know that you are very selective when you finally decide to criticize. Thats my two cents. Whats yours?

[Mark in Austin]

defending your actions or behavior by saying "but X does it too!" is pretty weak.

"I notice that you guys are so high and mighty on George Bush...that he's a great president. That you call democrats .."demoncrats" (how childish)" Now , with all the mudslinging that goes on in here, how come you didn't call him down on that one?

What is there to call him out on? He called people who resort to name calling childish. As I recall, that is one of the things usually dealt with in elementary school. In this thread, you were the one acting like a twit when others were actually trying to have a discussion.


Seems to me that you are a little one sided in your criticism. Could it be because you support Kerry? I don't know but I do know that you are very selective when you finally decide to criticize.

What side are you referring to? I called you out for acting like a jerk, not acting like a conservative. Believe me, I've called out Duff for this reason before as well. This has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with having a civilized discussion.

Don't you think it's a sad commentary that you immediately thought I was attacking you because of your politics, not your behavior?

[Hook Dem]

defending your actions or behavior by saying "but X does it too!" is pretty weak.


What is there to call him out on? He called people who resort to name calling childish. As I recall, that is one of the things usually dealt with in elementary school. In this thread, you were the one acting like a twit when others were actually trying to have a discussion.



What side are you referring to? I called you out for acting like a jerk, not acting like a conservative. Believe me, I've called out Duff for this reason before as well. This has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with having a civilized discussion.

Don't you think it's a sad commentary that you immediately thought I was attacking you because of your politics, not your behavior?
'He called people who resort to name calling childish.' ........no..he called Republicans childish....no mention of Democrats! BIG DIFFERENCE! .......... "This has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with having a civilized discussion." ..........Wanna buy some ocean front property in Arizona? :lol ........"Don't you think it's a sad commentary that you immediately thought I was attacking you because of your politics, not your behavior?" ...........What I think is this....you somehow see yourself as an intellect and see me as a "twit". That being the case, I will say this.....You obviously don't like me and I surely don't give a flip what you think. Tell you what...don't comment on anything I say and I will afford you the same courtesy. We will just agree to just not like one another. :flipoff

[Mark in Austin]

"This has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with having a civilized discussion." ..........Wanna buy some ocean front property in Arizona? :lol

Thank God you're here to tell me what my motivations are :rolleyes


........"Don't you think it's a sad commentary that you immediately thought I was attacking you because of your politics, not your behavior?" ...........[B]What I think is this....you somehow see yourself as an intellect and see me as a "twit".


I didn't say you were a twit. I said you were acting like one. There's a difference.


We will just agree to just not like one another

like you? not like you? I don't know you.

[Hook Dem]

Thank God you're here to tell me what my motivations are :rolleyes




I didn't say you were a twit. I said you were acting like one. There's a difference.



like you? not like you? I don't know you.
Starting right now, I'll honor my committment to not comment on your comments.

[Yonivore]

I notice that you guys are so high and mighty on George Bush...that he's a great president. That you call democrats .."demoncrats" (how childish) But riddle me this....if Bush is such a better president than Kerry ever will be.....why is this election so close? You would think that if he was that much better this would be a landslide. But it's not.

I'm not endorsing either guy...cause politics is not a part of my life, but if he really is so much better...he'd be crushing his opponent on everything from the debates to the pre-election polls.
A couple of observations...

A President's legacy (great or not) is rarely recognized during his tenure;

I don't believe it is a close race;

History will be a much better judge of the Bush presidency than anyone living through it can be. There a lot of things not known now that will be known in years hence; and,

Demoncrats is my term of choice for persons of the Democratic Party that have chosen the "scorched earth" policy of politics...which, by the way, is a huge reason President Bush has such a negative image. The Demoncrats have worked their asses off, this election, to demonize the man, obscure the good news coming from the war on terror, and to "sensationalize" the bad. There are Democrats, (i.e. Joe Lieberman) and there are Demoncrats, (i.e. Hitlary Clinton). Call it "childish" or "sophomoric," if you like, I don't intend to change.

If it bothers you that much, ignore me.

[Hook Dem]

"If it bothers you that much, ignore me." .............I guess you're a "twit" also Yoni. :lol

[Yonivore]

"If it bothers you that much, ignore me." .............I guess you're a "twit" also Yoni. :lol
eww, ouch!

[scott]

I mean you have to look at it like this...if Bush does get re-elected by winning the popular vote..he'll be more popular now than he was in his first term. That means he won over voters as President...any President who does that is a successful President.



Interesting take, but I have to take issue. There are too many variables in the equation to say that an increase in votes (as a percentage of total voters) means he was a successful President and won people over. He could be the worst President ever, but if you put up someone like Michael Moore against him, he'll probably increase his votes. We can't control for his opponent, what voters actually vote, etc. If the exact same people voted for Bush over Gore again on the same agendas, then I'd agree with your premise - but if Bush manages to get 60% of the vote, who knows if it is because he has been successful or because John Kerry sucks.

[Yonivore]

Interesting take, but I have to take issue. There are too many variables in the equation to say that an increase in votes (as a percentage of total voters) means he was a successful President and won people over. He could be the worst President ever, but if you put up someone like Michael Moore against him, he'll probably increase his votes. We can't control for his opponent, what voters actually vote, etc. If the exact same people voted for Bush over Gore again on the same agendas, then I'd agree with your premise - but if Bush manages to get 60% of the vote, who knows if it is because he has been successful or because John Kerry sucks.
I take exception, as well.

The popular vote means squat. As I've stated before, hundreds of thousands of Republican and Demoncratic voters don't turn out in states that are not in play.

[scott]

I agree with you, Yoni. All the more reason to abolish the Electoral College.

[Yonivore]

I agree with you, Yoni. All the more reason to abolish the Electoral College.
And, that is where we disagree. All the more reason to keep the Electoral College.

[scott]

You've got me intrigued... I'll try to check in the forum enough to participate in a healthy discussion if you are up for it.

Can you go into detail regarding your admiration of the E.C.?

[Duff McCartney]

'He called people who resort to name calling childish.' ........no..he called Republicans childish....no mention of Democrats! BIG DIFFERENCE!

Yeah but I haven't read of anybody calling Bush a "shrub" or a republican a "repug".

[Yonivore]

You've got me intrigued... I'll try to check in the forum enough to participate in a healthy discussion if you are up for it.

Can you go into detail regarding your admiration of the E.C.?
I'm not up for it tonight, but I'll post a detailed support of the College in the next day or two.

It will revolve around the premise that the office of the presidency was never intended to be filled through direct election. The only jobs "We the People" were ever intended to hold sway over were those of our Representatives in the U.S. House. The 17th amendment, allowing for direct election of Senators (who were supposed to be the state's representatives in Congress), stupidly set in motion the whole nonsense this was supposed to be a "Democracy."

The Constitution, in it's beautiful simplicity, recognized that all direct elections should be local and, thus, under the control of local citizens and less prone to fraud and wrongdoing.

But more in the coming days.

[Duff McCartney]

Call it "childish" or "sophomoric," if you like, I don't intend to change.

It's obvious you aren't going to change..otherwise I wouldn't be calling you childish.

[Yonivore]

It's obvious you aren't going to change..otherwise I wouldn't be calling you childish.
Okay, thanks.

[Hook Dem]

Yeah but I haven't read of anybody calling Bush a "shrub" or a republican a "repug".
Well, thats a clear cut case of "selective reading". :lol

[Brodels]

It's obvious you aren't going to change..otherwise I wouldn't be calling you childish.

Why don't you actually respond to some of the points being made in the thread for a change?

For instance, tell us why you think that the popularity of a president is an accurate measure of his ability to be a good leader.

[Hook Dem]

chirp*chirp

[Duff McCartney]

For instance, tell us why you think that the popularity of a president is an accurate measure of his ability to be a good leader.

The attitude of the people reflects the leadership.

But like I said before..I'm not the one saying he is a good leader...it's Yonivore and Marcus Bryant that say he is a superior candidate than Kerry, yet his popularity doesn't reflect that.

[Duff McCartney]

Well, thats a clear cut case of "selective reading". :lol


Selective reading? Give me a fucking break...when every damn post by Yonivore either begins or ends with "demoncrat". I'm not denying that people haven't called Bush names...but I haven't read it on this board...maybe you have...but I haven't.

[Hook Dem]

Selective reading? Give me a fucking break...when every damn post by Yonivore either begins or ends with "demoncrat". I'm not denying that people haven't called Bush names...but I haven't read it on this board...maybe you have...but I haven't.
You're one of those that needs to OPEN YOUR EYES !!! :lol

[Yonivore]

You're one of those that needs to OPEN YOUR EYES !!! :lol
Leave it alone, Hook...he's a fucking Demoncrat anyway.

[Brodels]

The attitude of the people reflects the leadership.

But like I said before..I'm not the one saying he is a good leader...it's Yonivore and Marcus Bryant that say he is a superior candidate than Kerry, yet his popularity doesn't reflect that.

That's where you're looking at this in a very simplistic manner. Popularity doesn't truly reflect the quality of a candidate.

[Hook Dem]

Leave it alone, Hook...he's a fucking Demoncrat anyway.
Thats pretty obvious! :lol

[Yonivore]

Thats pretty obvious! :lol
:lmao If you can't be sophomoric from time to time, is life really worth living?

[Marcus Bryant]

Brodels said it best. I will only add that if you look at a number of the so-called "great presidents" of the 20th century who won a second term they did not exactly win overwhelmingly and the opposition wasn't that great.

Again, I have provided examples of presidents who won a second term with a significant popular vote margin yet weren't exactly regarded as great presidents.

I would think by now it is clear that popular vote outcomes mean very little in assessing the performance of a president.

As for whether or not Bush is the preferred choice, I think he is based first and foremost on his strategy for dealing with the crazy fucking Islamofascist terrorists who want to kill us. It's a controversial policy, hence the closeness of the election. Yet that closeness means very little with regards to whether or not it's the correct policy. Think about what the average man on the street knows about diplomacy and national security strategy. Counting on them to render an accurate assessment is a bit much.

[Duff McCartney]

Leave it alone, Hook...he's a fucking Demoncrat anyway.

I'm not a democrat either...great job assuming.

[Yonivore]

I'm not a democrat either...great job assuming.
Sure you are. I say so.

[Duff McCartney]

Sure you are. I say so.

Check.

[Yonivore]

Check.
And....mate!

[Samurai Jane]

Actually, I've seen Duff proclaim himself as a Communist in here before, which I find highly amusing since I believe Communists force the state religion on you and we all know how much Duff enjoys religion.

[Hook Dem]

Actually, I've seen Duff proclaim himself as a Communist in here before, which I find highly amusing since I believe Communists force the state religion on you and we all know how much Duff enjoys religion.
Actually, 'ol Duff can't tell you why he is for someone or something, but he sure can tell you why he is against it. "It's fashionable". :lol

[Yonivore]

Actually, I don't care one whit about Duff...I'm just having some fun.

[Hook Dem]

"The explosives that shrub/rummy/cia lost were not weaponized or munitions, just (very powerful) explosives, tied down/locked up by the inspectors/sanctions for 10 years, ie, effectively safe from enemy hands.

In that state, they represented no threat to anybody, esp not the "immediate threat to USA" that shrub lied about, esp no threat as compared to the real and immediate terrorist enemies outside of Iraq. Saddam couldn't deliver Scuds to Isreal with any effect in 1991, how was he to weaponize and deliver these explosives in 2003 against the USA 1000's of KM distant?

Now that shrub let the explosives get into enemy hands as part of his bogus war that disrupted the static, effective debilitation of Iraq, the explosives are now being weaponized, and used to kill Americans and Iraqis in Iraq, and very probably exported to the entire terrorist networks.

The big boom of the cartoon in this thread is reallly 1000's of little booms in Iraq, and the big boom(s) from these lost explosives will be heard for years to come against US embassies, ships, buildings, installations, and allies.

shrub's bogus Iraq war is a recruitment and explosives/munitions-equipping campaign for terrorists inside and outside of Iraq. America and world is absolutely not safer from the bogus Iraq war." ........................Here ya go Duff! I know you visit this thread regularly so I brought this over from another thread. Can you read about "shrub" now?????? Posted by Boutons.