Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
He broke the law. He should be deported.
Author Message
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,500
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #41
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
Second error squared -those who don't support the sheriff generally Fall on the side of LESS STRICT ENFORCEMENT of existing immigration laws. (Not less strict laws) That's why we have sanctuary cities. But here they are for MORE strict enforcement for Sheriff Joe.

The parallel was Lad's suggestion that he would be OK with the pardon IF Joe had served some time. So we want stricter enforcement for him than the millions of illegals?

If we are for law and order, then be for it consistently. If not, not.

I frankly don't care if Joe is pardoned or not. EVery person pardoned is presumed guilty, and many have served no time. Big to do about THIS one. SMall shrug for most others.
(This post was last modified: 08-31-2017 01:44 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
08-31-2017 01:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #42
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
(08-31-2017 01:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Second error squared -those who don't support the sheriff generally Fall on the side of LESS STRICT ENFORCEMENT of existing immigration laws. (Not less strict laws) That's why we have sanctuary cities. But here they are for MORE strict enforcement for Sheriff Joe.

The parallel was Lad's suggestion that he would be OK with the pardon IF Joe had served some time. So we want stricter enforcement for him than the millions of illegals?

If we are for law and order, then be for it consistently. If not, not.

I frankly don't care if Joe is pardoned or not. EVery person pardoned is presumed guilty, and many have served no time. Big to do about THIS one. SMall shrug for most others.

If by more strict enforcement you just mean routine enforcement, then I agree with your statement, with the added comment that the pardon did draw ire from some routine Republicans, so it wasn't strictly partisan.

And I wasn't saying I would be OK if Joe had served some time and then had his sentence commuted. I was saying that would have been a better decision on the part of the POTUS. I personally think he should not have been pardoned and should have gone through the regular judicial system and appealed the ruling. I don't think this was a gross miscarriage of justice, or a ruling that was ripping the country apart and needed to be righted. I think the pardoning caused more harm than good.

I mean, how many posts were created when the initial ruling was handed down?
(This post was last modified: 08-31-2017 02:26 PM by RiceLad15.)
08-31-2017 02:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #43
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
(08-31-2017 02:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-31-2017 01:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Second error squared -those who don't support the sheriff generally Fall on the side of LESS STRICT ENFORCEMENT of existing immigration laws. (Not less strict laws) That's why we have sanctuary cities. But here they are for MORE strict enforcement for Sheriff Joe.

The parallel was Lad's suggestion that he would be OK with the pardon IF Joe had served some time. So we want stricter enforcement for him than the millions of illegals?

If we are for law and order, then be for it consistently. If not, not.

I frankly don't care if Joe is pardoned or not. EVery person pardoned is presumed guilty, and many have served no time. Big to do about THIS one. SMall shrug for most others.

If by more strict enforcement you just mean routine enforcement, then I agree with your statement, with the added comment that the pardon did draw ire from some routine Republicans, so it wasn't strictly partisan.

And I wasn't saying I would be OK if Joe had served some time and then had his sentence commuted. I was saying that would have been a better decision on the part of the POTUS. I personally think he should not have been pardoned and should have gone through the regular judicial system and appealed the ruling. I don't think this was a gross miscarriage of justice, or a ruling that was ripping the country apart and needed to be righted. I think the pardoning caused more harm than good.

I mean, how many posts were created when the initial ruling was handed down?

I am sure the pardon created a lot of consternation on your side of the fence, as evidenced by the creation and the creator of this thread in particular.

In that sense, I am positive to those whom are closer to your viewpoint it is "more harm than good".

My read that morning in HuffPo and Vox was off the charts teeth gnashing. My read in the right leaning blogs was hardly even worth a mention.

Vis a vis my viewpoint, I think you might be mistaken. I am neither a proponent nor an opponent of the pardon. Nor do I see it as "two wrongs making a right". I view it as reasonable --- a highly political end point to a highly political start point. But that is just my sarcastic and disrespectful view I guess....
(This post was last modified: 08-31-2017 02:36 PM by tanqtonic.)
08-31-2017 02:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #44
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
(08-31-2017 02:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-31-2017 02:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-31-2017 01:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Second error squared -those who don't support the sheriff generally Fall on the side of LESS STRICT ENFORCEMENT of existing immigration laws. (Not less strict laws) That's why we have sanctuary cities. But here they are for MORE strict enforcement for Sheriff Joe.

The parallel was Lad's suggestion that he would be OK with the pardon IF Joe had served some time. So we want stricter enforcement for him than the millions of illegals?

If we are for law and order, then be for it consistently. If not, not.

I frankly don't care if Joe is pardoned or not. EVery person pardoned is presumed guilty, and many have served no time. Big to do about THIS one. SMall shrug for most others.

If by more strict enforcement you just mean routine enforcement, then I agree with your statement, with the added comment that the pardon did draw ire from some routine Republicans, so it wasn't strictly partisan.

And I wasn't saying I would be OK if Joe had served some time and then had his sentence commuted. I was saying that would have been a better decision on the part of the POTUS. I personally think he should not have been pardoned and should have gone through the regular judicial system and appealed the ruling. I don't think this was a gross miscarriage of justice, or a ruling that was ripping the country apart and needed to be righted. I think the pardoning caused more harm than good.

I mean, how many posts were created when the initial ruling was handed down?

I am sure the pardon created a lot of consternation on your side of the fence, as evidenced by the creation and the creator of this thread in particular.

In that sense, I am positive to those whom are closer to your viewpoint it is "more harm than good".

My read that morning in HuffPo and Vox was off the charts teeth gnashing. My read in the right leaning blogs was hardly even worth a mention.

Vis a vis my viewpoint, I think you might be mistaken. I am neither a proponent nor an opponent of the pardon. Nor do I see it as "two wrongs making a right". I view it as reasonable --- a highly political end point to a highly political start point. But that is just my sarcastic and disrespectful view I guess....

Tomato, tomato (gosh I wish that read better on the internet).

So a wrong action (starting this politically) ends appropriately by another wrong action (ending this politically). So one wrong + one wrong = one right.
08-31-2017 02:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #45
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
(08-31-2017 02:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-31-2017 02:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-31-2017 02:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-31-2017 01:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Second error squared -those who don't support the sheriff generally Fall on the side of LESS STRICT ENFORCEMENT of existing immigration laws. (Not less strict laws) That's why we have sanctuary cities. But here they are for MORE strict enforcement for Sheriff Joe.

The parallel was Lad's suggestion that he would be OK with the pardon IF Joe had served some time. So we want stricter enforcement for him than the millions of illegals?

If we are for law and order, then be for it consistently. If not, not.

I frankly don't care if Joe is pardoned or not. EVery person pardoned is presumed guilty, and many have served no time. Big to do about THIS one. SMall shrug for most others.

If by more strict enforcement you just mean routine enforcement, then I agree with your statement, with the added comment that the pardon did draw ire from some routine Republicans, so it wasn't strictly partisan.

And I wasn't saying I would be OK if Joe had served some time and then had his sentence commuted. I was saying that would have been a better decision on the part of the POTUS. I personally think he should not have been pardoned and should have gone through the regular judicial system and appealed the ruling. I don't think this was a gross miscarriage of justice, or a ruling that was ripping the country apart and needed to be righted. I think the pardoning caused more harm than good.

I mean, how many posts were created when the initial ruling was handed down?

I am sure the pardon created a lot of consternation on your side of the fence, as evidenced by the creation and the creator of this thread in particular.

In that sense, I am positive to those whom are closer to your viewpoint it is "more harm than good".

My read that morning in HuffPo and Vox was off the charts teeth gnashing. My read in the right leaning blogs was hardly even worth a mention.

Vis a vis my viewpoint, I think you might be mistaken. I am neither a proponent nor an opponent of the pardon. Nor do I see it as "two wrongs making a right". I view it as reasonable --- a highly political end point to a highly political start point. But that is just my sarcastic and disrespectful view I guess....

Tomato, tomato (gosh I wish that read better on the internet).

So a wrong action (starting this politically) ends appropriately by another wrong action (ending this politically). So one wrong + one wrong = one right.

You can try it this way "to-may-to, to-mah-to" --- gets the verbal-based point across better when typed in that phonetic manner. I guess it's sad when I can express myself on this way so quickly and easily in a digital millieu, I guess that is my knuckle dragger phonetic side making peace with the higher cortex.

Perhaps you are correct to an extent -- a reasonable neutral net outcome (no movement) comes out a political start point and a political end point. Don't know if the "reasonable neutral outcome" should be classified as a "positive" or a "right", and I don't think I will risk another "petty fight" over parsing this phrase. 03-wink
(This post was last modified: 08-31-2017 03:13 PM by tanqtonic.)
08-31-2017 02:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MerseyOwl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,184
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation: 37
I Root For: The Blue & Gray
Location: Land of Dull Skies
Post: #46
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
[attachment=9004]
(08-31-2017 10:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-31-2017 10:35 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  
(08-30-2017 02:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Instead of continuing down the politically charged road, I am advocating for a solution that would have potentially avoided the eye-for-an-eye action that Trump took. It would have avoided causing more division. We're now debating this issue because someone chose to go down a purely political path to fix, what you and others saw, was a gross miscarriage of justice. However, since that case was not cut and dry, a more nuanced approach would have appeased pretty much all sides and avoided this quagmire.

I'm not sure what a "more nuanced approach" would look like?

And "appeased (sic) pretty much all sides" seems to me a fairly remote possibility?

What I suggested - commute his sentence after he had started doing some time or let him continue the appeals process and let the court find that he was not guilty of criminal contempt.

On a side note, why did you put (sic) after appeased? That is the correct spelling of the past tense of appease. Even if it wasn't the correct spelling, way to look like a d*ck. 03-thumbsup

I’m sorry if I have offended you with what is apparently the incorrect use of (sic) or is it [sic]? You see I don’t spend a great deal of time crafting my responses and quite honestly that is the first time I’ve tried to use (sic) / [sic].

I was going to write, “And ‘appeasing pretty much all sides’ seems to me a fairly remote possibility?” But as you have a penchant for parsing I thought I better quote you word for word so I chose “appeased” and therefore thought the (sic) or is it [sic] appropriate. I didn’t want to get into an argument over “It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.”

As for your side note, maybe you can give me a lesson on grammar and I can give you one on manners?

I offered your comments to a colleague and his response was (no (sic) / [sic] required), “What a putz.”
09-01-2017 06:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #47
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
(09-01-2017 06:16 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  
(08-31-2017 10:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-31-2017 10:35 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  
(08-30-2017 02:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Instead of continuing down the politically charged road, I am advocating for a solution that would have potentially avoided the eye-for-an-eye action that Trump took. It would have avoided causing more division. We're now debating this issue because someone chose to go down a purely political path to fix, what you and others saw, was a gross miscarriage of justice. However, since that case was not cut and dry, a more nuanced approach would have appeased pretty much all sides and avoided this quagmire.

I'm not sure what a "more nuanced approach" would look like?

And "appeased (sic) pretty much all sides" seems to me a fairly remote possibility?

What I suggested - commute his sentence after he had started doing some time or let him continue the appeals process and let the court find that he was not guilty of criminal contempt.

On a side note, why did you put (sic) after appeased? That is the correct spelling of the past tense of appease. Even if it wasn't the correct spelling, way to look like a d*ck. 03-thumbsup

I’m sorry if I have offended you with what is apparently the incorrect use of (sic) or is it [sic]? You see I don’t spend a great deal of time crafting my responses and quite honestly that is the first time I’ve tried to use (sic) / [sic].

I was going to write, “And ‘appeasing pretty much all sides’ seems to me a fairly remote possibility?” But as you have a penchant for parsing I thought I better quote you word for word so I chose “appeased” and therefore thought the (sic) or is it [sic] appropriate. I didn’t want to get into an argument over “It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.”

As for your side note, maybe you can give me a lesson on grammar and I can give you one on manners?

I offered your comments to a colleague and his response was (no (sic) / [sic] required), “What a putz.”

So (sic) is used when quoting someone who misspelled something in their original quote and you don't want to alter their quote. Since this isn't a journalism course where we need to hold each other to that standard, it appeared that you were intentionally trying to highlight a misspelling that didn't exist.

Sorry for getting a bit snippy about that, it is clear now you were using it in a different manner and not in an attempt to insult someone over their poor spelling.
09-01-2017 06:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #48
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
(08-31-2017 02:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-31-2017 02:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-31-2017 02:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-31-2017 02:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-31-2017 01:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Second error squared -those who don't support the sheriff generally Fall on the side of LESS STRICT ENFORCEMENT of existing immigration laws. (Not less strict laws) That's why we have sanctuary cities. But here they are for MORE strict enforcement for Sheriff Joe.

The parallel was Lad's suggestion that he would be OK with the pardon IF Joe had served some time. So we want stricter enforcement for him than the millions of illegals?

If we are for law and order, then be for it consistently. If not, not.

I frankly don't care if Joe is pardoned or not. EVery person pardoned is presumed guilty, and many have served no time. Big to do about THIS one. SMall shrug for most others.

If by more strict enforcement you just mean routine enforcement, then I agree with your statement, with the added comment that the pardon did draw ire from some routine Republicans, so it wasn't strictly partisan.

And I wasn't saying I would be OK if Joe had served some time and then had his sentence commuted. I was saying that would have been a better decision on the part of the POTUS. I personally think he should not have been pardoned and should have gone through the regular judicial system and appealed the ruling. I don't think this was a gross miscarriage of justice, or a ruling that was ripping the country apart and needed to be righted. I think the pardoning caused more harm than good.

I mean, how many posts were created when the initial ruling was handed down?

I am sure the pardon created a lot of consternation on your side of the fence, as evidenced by the creation and the creator of this thread in particular.

In that sense, I am positive to those whom are closer to your viewpoint it is "more harm than good".

My read that morning in HuffPo and Vox was off the charts teeth gnashing. My read in the right leaning blogs was hardly even worth a mention.

Vis a vis my viewpoint, I think you might be mistaken. I am neither a proponent nor an opponent of the pardon. Nor do I see it as "two wrongs making a right". I view it as reasonable --- a highly political end point to a highly political start point. But that is just my sarcastic and disrespectful view I guess....

Tomato, tomato (gosh I wish that read better on the internet).

So a wrong action (starting this politically) ends appropriately by another wrong action (ending this politically). So one wrong + one wrong = one right.

You can try it this way "to-may-to, to-mah-to" --- gets the verbal-based point across better when typed in that phonetic manner. I guess it's sad when I can express myself on this way so quickly and easily in a digital millieu, I guess that is my knuckle dragger phonetic side making peace with the higher cortex.

Perhaps you are correct to an extent -- a reasonable neutral net outcome (no movement) comes out a political start point and a political end point. Don't know if the "reasonable neutral outcome" should be classified as a "positive" or a "right", and I don't think I will risk another "petty fight" over parsing this phrase. 03-wink

Yeah, spelling it phoenteically works, but it just doesn't look as good.

Anyways, on a side note, I do think these back and forths, while I guess actually more petty than what we previously discussed, aren't really the bad kind of petty. They have been about each side explaining their thought process and, regardless of whether that means you are in the weeds of how you interpret an event, it's at least working towards a positive outcome (I think) by trying to explain your position. I made the comment previously because that post wasn't so much about a stance you held as it was about trying to extrapolate ideas from a single comment I had. We all do that from time to time, but it's not a good road for us to go down. Perhaps petty wasn't the right word for that situation, but agreed that this particular line of discussion has run its course.
09-01-2017 07:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #49
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
Lad, 'Petty' wasnt a bad word. My post that you made that comment on was quite short and didnt have any real meaningful text aside from the bullet point notes.

I can understand why it might be taken in that context, and that is why I responded to you in the manner that I did. No explanations needed.

Be good.
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2017 10:03 AM by tanqtonic.)
09-01-2017 10:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,575
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #50
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
(09-01-2017 07:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-31-2017 02:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-31-2017 02:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-31-2017 02:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-31-2017 02:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

Tomato, tomato (gosh I wish that read better on the internet).

You can try it this way "to-may-to, to-mah-to" --- gets the verbal-based point across better when typed in that phonetic manner. I guess it's sad when I can express myself on this way so quickly and easily in a digital millieu, I guess that is my knuckle dragger phonetic side making peace with the higher cortex.

Yeah, spelling it phoenteically works, but it just doesn't look as good.

What I have long wondered is: who (in the Western Hemisphere at least) says "to-mah-to" anyway?
(This post was last modified: 09-03-2017 10:27 PM by georgewebb.)
09-03-2017 10:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JSA Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,895
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 16
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #51
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
(09-03-2017 10:24 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(09-01-2017 07:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-31-2017 02:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-31-2017 02:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-31-2017 02:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Tomato, tomato (gosh I wish that read better on the internet).

You can try it this way "to-may-to, to-mah-to" --- gets the verbal-based point across better when typed in that phonetic manner. I guess it's sad when I can express myself on this way so quickly and easily in a digital millieu, I guess that is my knuckle dragger phonetic side making peace with the higher cortex.

Yeah, spelling it phoenteically works, but it just doesn't look as good.

What I have long wondered is: who (in the Western Hemisphere at least) says "to-mah-to" anyway?

(This post was last modified: 09-05-2017 10:39 AM by JSA.)
09-05-2017 10:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JustAnotherAustinOwl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,441
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #52
RE: He broke the law. He should be deported.
(08-29-2017 10:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think Tanq's argument is that the charges were trumped up to suit a political agenda. Do we want to live in a country where that is acceptable behavior? Like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia? I don't.

This is another comment that makes me think you all don't really get just how bad this guy was. Speaking of Nazi Germany, he called his tent cities where he would put alleged undocumented immigrants "his concentration camp" - it's well documented that he had death rates MUCH higher than other jails. He and his department were cited repeatedly for abuses. His deputies broke the neck of a paraplegic while beating him. They often harassed, beat, and detained legal immigrants and US citizens because they were Latino and "didn't have their papers". He said he wanted Latinos to be "afraid to go to Church". His officers regularly called Latinos "wetbacks" and "Mexican *******" and "stupid Mexicans".

When the Phoenix paper was investigating him, he raided the publishers homes, arrested them in front of their families on fake charges. (MCSO had to pay a settlement to them.) Similarly, he was caught trying to frame Board of Supervisors members who were looking at cutting his budget. Again, MCSO had to pay damages. He coerced a guy into a fake "assassination attempt" as part of his reelection campaign. (http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue2/2003/06...ff-arpaio/)

And on and on.

On top of all that, he was actually horrible at his job, hundreds of child abuse and sexual assault cases went uninvestigated, to the point he even tried to cook the books to cover it up, all because the only crime that mattered was being an "illegal".

Anyway, if government abuse of power is an issue for someone, they sure as hell should have a problem with "Sheriff Joe." And if their concern about illegal immigrants is that they are "illegal," and not that they are hispanic, then again they should have a major issue with "Sheriff Joe".

The thought of the POTUS saying he was just "doing his job" and then pardoning him absolutely disgusts me.

Unfortunately, there are probably more "Sheriff Joes" out there who are now emboldened.


http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news...o-20120802

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/loca.../95041534/

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/joe-...es-6645464

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc...me/257033/

https://www.aclu.org/blog/mass-incarcera...aios-jails

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2009/05/2...-a-sham-2/
(This post was last modified: 09-05-2017 02:13 PM by JustAnotherAustinOwl.)
09-05-2017 12:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.