Aufie wrote:
YOu left out Bill Clinton, interesting. With the enormity of the extension of Nafta and Gatt, the unions lost their bargaining power. YOu want a raise? Uh oh, we'll just put our plant overseas. REgan beautifully and sk**lfully got out of the mess that the prior Obama (Jimmy Carter) got us into and started a 25 year boom. I'm an independent, meaning I think things through. You seem to be totally one sided and you make absolutely no sense.
Aufie, I sent you a reply, did you receive the comment. If not I will reply again.
And the same applies for you also. Do you even believe in a God, should the question.
I sinsearly say this with all dew respect to you, go stick your head up your ass and stay their for a long while.
As site Troll's, I have no respect, for a troll who will not parlay and will not address the facts on the post article. Your comments are Red-Rerring's and Straw-Man argument fallacies. That has been you tone and commentary, yet no facts to support your comment position, on How Obamas Style Economic Recovery Compares to Reagans Styled Economic Recovery !
And as a site-troll with with obtuseness, you commenting for the sake of commenting and add nothing to the conversation but belligerence and contempt in your comentairy and for a better lack of understanding, let's just call it compost, coming out of your mouth for a better word.
As far as being an attack dog your right up their as one of the leaders of the inter-netting (OPP) website attack-dog trolls.
Those previous site-trolls just laid down, your the only one that just doesn't know better.
But you probably like self inflected wounds, or your just to obtuse to know any better. Which is probably the case. your are really quite a boor and quite shady character as a person.
I hope and pray that your not 100% obtuse as a person through and through, God help us all if you have clones.
Your really out in left field, do you really have more conspiracy theories you are hinting at, where is your proof, cryptic obtuse person.
I've never met such an obtuse person like you before, your an enigma a real two headed coin. You still bring no facts, and bring nothing to the table but a Red-Herring and Straw-man literary commentary fallacies.
I've called you out several times, but stupidity and obtuseness is your strong suit, as I now have observed in your writings and comments.
You don't really understand politics, The Democrat and the Republican party are one and the same. They only vary on a few issues like gay rights, black discrimination and a******n.
i.e. and example is the current pending the TTP trade agreement that Obama is pushing on the Asian and pacific nations. It's NAFTA II on steroids. Can you hear the giant sucking sound down the toilet,
Look the Republicans are v****g for the TTP trade agreement and the Democrats are against the Obama TTP trade agreements. Simply amassing on your obtuse part, to believe in these political parties.
You still can't admit that Reagan ergonomics statistics beat the pants off of Obama Keynesian economics theory, which equates to; Government spending in the economy and its effects on output and inflation.
Go and stick your head in the sand for about twenty years (OPP) troll
The facts and your neocon-liberal lies are astounding. What kind of medication psychotropic drugs are being prescribed by your psychiatrist. Your probably one of those holocaust ney-sayers deniers also.
So please, don't be so "naive" in your comments. Back up your claims with facts and write something interesting. Such a boring reply,Touche
My friend you have a brain disorder. I suggest another bong hit of THC, a shot of vodka, and some more LSD, to get you out of that purple Kool Aid haze that you have been drinking. Just a suggestion !
Here are the 6 types of the "Trolls" or "Trolling attributes that you have in all of your reply's, and should be labeled as such:
So what kind of internetting Troll are you ?
a. Sea-Lioning Troll's, Self-Appointed "Good Cop"
b. Concern Troll's, Pseudo-Displays of "Constructive Criticism"
c. Gish Galloping Troll's, Falsehoods nitpicking arguments unrelated details
d. Impersonation Troll's, create h**x impersonation accounts in your name
e. Dog-Piling Troll's, Online silencing, Cyber Mob to discredit a target
f. Gas-Lighting Troll's, Giving false information to cause self-doubt.
Over and out Char4Dew, Your name sounds like a soda pop recipe or a really bad bar drink that nobody ever heard of before.
I pronounce you Husband and wife, two peas from the same pods.
You deserve each other, my blessings.
But the fasts don't change, you still will not acknowledge my original post.
How Obamas Style Economic Recovery Compares to Reagans Styled Economic Recovery !
(OPP)Trolls
You lost the argument, on my original Post.
How Obamas Style Economic Recovery Compares to Reagans Styled Economic Recovery !
Which you can't, or won't respond to.
This is what your exactly what's wrong about your opinion, to my original post on (OPP).
Again, your trying to appealing to my personal sentiments, because you are offended. This is also wrong of you, on this post, my comments are still the same from my original post.
If I was being condescending, it's because you will not answer the economic politically, correct statement, on my original post. These are my thoughts and freedom of free speech, which which you will not talk about, from my post article.
What exasperates you, is in the way, which your are so offended. i.e. by seeing a comparison of Reagan and Obama and Economic recovery facts.
That Americans people benefited under Reagan and saw more economic growth and prosperity over the Obama, Democratic, dismal economic recovery and his tenure as President which he is responsible for the 1.2 percent GDP growth during his economic policies, do the math.
This is the actual essence of your complaint and comment that offends you the most ... And yet "The emperor still has no clothes." because we are comparing Obama to Reagan. This is what actually offends you.
My friend, and no mater what you say, or do, in your comments you will not acknowledge this very fact..
Whether you agree or my common sense approach, my opinions, which was based is on Economic facts, which you will not discuss the actual economic facts.
Your not very tolerant or are you accepting of the Economic facts, that I have presented to the (OPP) post.
You are actually, the condescending disingenuous person, in your comments and be my continued efforts, you still have not responded, to my repeated efforts to keep you focused on the original post.
The subject is how the Obamas Style Economic Recovery Compares to Reagans Styled Economic Recovery !
Answer the question and the original post subject. Are you brain dead !!!
I'm still waiting for a realistic factual response from you. This subject will not go away and you can't keep on hiding from the facts and t***h on the original post.
And yet, The emperor, "Obama" still has no clothes on, and is exposed to the comparison to his Economic recovery vs the Reagan recovery.
Which you will not acknowledge or discuss in your comments. Good By.
Drink more of the Kool-aid it is the mantra that you profess. Red-Herring-Straw-man argument fallacies which you hold so close to your brain.
Oh by the way, Reagan gave all Americans to open a IRA.
I was making 18% interest to my retirement account. What is your IRA making you now. 2 to 3 percent growth.
That was one of the best investment returns i ever had. What about the the Ira Investment returns in the year 2015.
That is one of the shining legacies that Redan gave all Americans.
Thats a Fact Jack. Look it up.
But if you even had a thread of evidence, Economic common-core financial facts, which you won't even acknowledge. The same data facts to discuss i.e.
GDP
Governmental spending
Jobs created,
Unemployment records
Worker participation rates, ect.
You can't even acknowledge or refuse to converse on these basic these economic principles.
And you come out with some obscure statistical data report that doesn't equate to apple to apple and orange to orange analysis.
No my friend, you didn't miss much, you missed a lot, and missed the the train a long time ago. Do you even know what a common fallacy term means and how it apples to your comment and logic. Red-Herring and Straw-man approach to the original post.
This is your only argument, the Red-Herring and Straw-man approach to the Original post.
Was the Reagan Economy better for Americans than the Obama Economy ?
You sk**l will not acknowledge the Cornerstone principles of economic measurement, and bring out this useless argument and rebuttal to the Post article.
Observantly, I see the logic to my post, and we are getting nowhere or do not have any common ground, and as well you can't even have a discussion on basic simple acknowledged economic facts.
No, I didn't miss anything, you did.
As I said your comment and additional replays to the original post to (OPP) website. Your comment was a Red Herring-Straw-Man response. With no additional factual rebuttal or an intelligent reply to the Original Post.
Was Reagan's Economy better than the Obama's Economy.
GDP is one measure, Jobs created, economic growth, tax rates, Governmental spending, this is the cornerstone and the measurement and differences that can be evaluated and other economic factors for you to respond to in the post.
This is elementary and child-play to look up these facts. You went down that slippery slope on your own accord.
Which i've pointed out to you manny times in my rebuttal to your comments to the post.
If I keep a list of Troll names, so what it's my prerogative and no concern of your. Sink or swim in the shark blood bath of opinions my friend.
Nothing better to say, Boo-Hoo, I don't interest you.
Get a life, real opinion and use your brain that God gave you.
Or was that one of the gifts that God forgot to give you. ?
And this is your educated reply, Searching has no answers to the facts to the post.
The Reagan Economy vs the Obama economy.
Insults, I'm afraid that you were the first to go down that slippery slope, with your Red-hering and Straw-man reply to the conversation/post.
But NO NO NO, but you chose that fee-will opinion, over logic and coming-up with facts that were fallacies to the original post. It was the Reagan Economy vs the Obama Economy. That was the Issue and the source of the post.
No my friend, you need to re-read the facts, and stop add misleading statistical information and the common misperceptions that are rebutted and the fallacies like i.e. Red Herring-Strawman comment in your replies to posts on the (OPP) website.
You should probably go online to research the article/ statement that was posted on the (OPP) web site. Observe the facts and information.. One question, you know how to do this ?
The difference, between you and I are. Is that I took the time to do the research and you didn't. This is what has been actually been reported, that economists have recorded this information onto stone, for all posterity to view these true statistical facts. Imagine that.
Unfortunately you chose the other path and decided to commenting for the sake of commenting, and not doing the research on the facts.
So I will dream on, wishing for a common sense reply from you and many others on this (OPP) website.
The insults are tit-for-tat and is common practice for Troll like responses like yours. Boo-hoo your feathers got ruffled. And yes I do, expect an educated reply. I also expect some type of respect, but when you come up with a dis-ingenious reply, I never give any respect. I attack the persons comments and dice apart their fallacies as you have written in your two replays to the post.
Reagan Economy vs the Obama Economy and which one was better for the country.
No Brainer,
The Reagan Economic policy, Smaller Government, Lower taxes and more prosperity for the American citizens.
Refute those facts to the Obama Economy.
Obama's legacy will be, Larger Government, more Governmental spending More taxes and the Devaluation and Debasement of the American Dollars worth. Less prosperity for the American citizen.
And what party do I belong to, Oh mighty seeing eye, oracle of oracles.
The original post and article was about the The Reagan Economic growth after a recession economy under Jimmy Cater vs the Obama Economic growth after the recession of 2007 under Bush Jr... This is the "Straw-man and "Red herring" comment and reply that i'm talking about,
But, NO NO NO, you go on a tangent to defer from the post article.
Brain dead, I am a constitutionalist, I quit the republican party years ago.
But this is a moot point, stay focused on the bouncing ball and the original post.
Concentrate your thought pattern, for more than 30 seconds, stay focused.
Thats why I took the time to give you those literary terms, to help you in your writing, a real response to your comments and what common fallacies you wrote in your replies to my post article.
Sorry your argument/comment, just does not hold up to the scrutiny of the post and you defer to the Straw-man and Red-herring fallacies in your comments.
Come up with some facts, something, some type of rebuttal to the article/post.
facts not hearsay. Man, all I can say is that your speaking to a wall and your a one way conversationalist.
When you look at the big picture and when the (OPP) website viewers read your comments, you should be ashamed of your response to the article/post that was written about. Try to do a little better next time in your comment on the (OPP) comment/post section.
The Reagan economy vs the Obama economy.
Stay focused on the bouncing ball.
Searching & Char4Dew,
You both are two real Liberal, tag-team dynamic duo's, that say's nothing and leaving doubt in the mind of the (OPP) reader.
Your comments add's nothing to the original post and the name of the topic by talking about an obscure statistical facts. That article was published by some neo-n**i liberal publisher, your facts are clouded with non-sense.
I can't believe that you have said this. Unbelievable, What a "Red Herring" and "Stacking the deck" logical fallacies that you provided in your reply. Non-evidence supporting, or opposing argument is rejected or ignored. There are a few more "Fallacies" in your argument but these are the major ones.
Look it up its a literary term "Red Herring" and "Stacking the deck". The commenter goes off on a different tangent and never addressing the original statement or in both of your replies, it is unrealistic logical fallacies to the original posted article.
The literary term that you are using in your comments are called, "Common Logical Fallacies." Literary writing arguments; i.e. to justify and or support your Socialistic, Progressive, Liberal, Democratic cause.
"Common Logical literary Fallacies"
1. Hasty generalizations.
2. Missing the point.
3. Post hoc or false causes.
4. Slippery slope.
5. Weak analogy.
6. Appeal to authority.
7. Ad Populum or to the people.
8. Ad hominem and Tu Quoque or "against the people" and "you too."
9. Appeal to pity.
10. Appeal to ignorance.
11. Straw-man or a water-down argument, like a scare-crow.
12. Red herring, post takes on different tangent, not addressing original issue.
13. False dichotomy or there is only two choices.
14. Begging the question, the reader accepts the conclusion and no evidence
15. Equivocation, two or more meanings to the conversation.
16. Stacking the deck, evidence supporting, opposing argument is rejected or ignored.
We are obligated as Americans to correct there political lies and the socialist liberal deceit, on the (OPP) website, by naming the socialist, liberal progressive Democrat as "Internetting Trolls : Tell me what kind of (OPP) troll is; Searching & Char4Dew ?
a. Sea-Lioning Troll's, Self-Appointed "Good Cop"
b. Concern Troll's, Pseudo-Displays of "Constructive Criticism"
c. Gish Galloping Troll's, Falsehoods nitpicking arguments unrelated details
d. Impersonation Troll's, create h**x impersonation accounts in your name
e. Dog-Piling Troll's, Online silencing, Cyber Mob to discredit a target
g. Gas-Lighting Troll's, Giving false information to cause self-doubt.
Your playing the statistical game. Statistics need to be applied to apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Under the Obama Administration we have seen the political "Game of Numbers" the "Game of Thrones" being played out in your response. The actual political statistics have been changed under President Obama Administration than from the Reagan years.
In other words your statistical numbers don't hold up.
Your argument holds no weight, and gives no argument to the original post;
Reply to: How Obamas Style Economic Recovery Compares to Reagans Styled Economic Recovery !
Nice try, Searching & Char4Dew.
Gotcha.
Oh please Char4Dew,
What a unrealistic response and comment from you. Back up your no-brain response with some realistic opinions facts and common sense. You have a keyboard and an education, please use it in the future on the (OPP) site.
Nevertheless, to argue that the economy is doing better under Obama than it did under Reagan is at best obtuse and at worst partisan hackery.
1. GDP under Reagan the annual real GDP growth was 3.5 percent 4.9 percent.
GDP under Obama the annual real GDP growth was 1.2 percent and last 2015 quarter was anemic .2 percent. Do the enlightened math, Char4Dew.
2. Federal governmental spending fell from 22.9 percent of GDP to 22.1 under Reagan, whereas under Obama it has hit as high as 25 percent and has steadily hovered above 24 percent.
3. That is guaranteed Governmental (US Debt) secured Funded Liabilities, 18.0 Trillion plus and growing in debt obligations.
The Governmental (US Debt) un-secured Un-Funded Liabilities, are 100 Trillion in debt obligations.
Total accumulated United States debt was at 53 percent of GDP when Reagan left office. Today under the Obama Administration, it is at 102.7 percent of GDP.
3. Its misleading to compare employment rates during the two presidencies. Imagine 90 out of 100 people are employed, and because the economy looks like its picking up more steam 10 more people enter the workforce. If nine out of ten of them find jobs, the unemployment rate doesnt go down at all, yet ten percent more people are employed.
All one has to do is look at the recovery's labor-force participation which remains at its lowest level since 1978 and 94 million Americans are out of work or not looking for work.
Char4Dew, Reagan's economy and GDP figures are so much better than this Obama's economic Keynesian theory model. We seen this non-tested governmental economic model in place from 2007 to 2015.
Tell me what economic growth other than Zero precent interest that the government charges financial institutions. It's called Quantitative-Easing i.e. QE-1-QE-2 QE-3 and the current non-Quantitative-Easing happening right now. i.e. Government spending and printing of money from a non-Govermental group of bankers, called the Federal Reserve.
This Keynesian economic that has been adopted by Obama's Economic astute political appointed hacks; which are "Debasement" of the U.S. currency, un-limitless printing of money and spending like drunken sailors.
How's has this Keynesian economic theory worked out for the U.S. and the rest of the world ?
TWO f**e lying Presidents does not make one better than the other.
Reaganomics started to make us aware of how they play in Washington
Reagan the charmer was not the man you want to think he was.
NO NO NO, We just get this downfall piece by piece, If they had told us all the t***h long ago we would have stood up. They wait till the economy is worse and it is coming.
Please back up your statements, Clearly the facts presented in the article speak for themselves.
These two simple diametrically opposed economic policies below, speak for themselves, as to prosperity tho Americans.
Presidents Reagan economic policy and real reported US, GDP Growth.
Smaller Government and less taxes imposed by government = Growth. 3.5 percent 4.9 Real GDP, more growth
Presidents Obama economic policy and real reported US, GDP Growth.
Larger Government and more taxes imposed by government = 1.2, less Growth.
So the Math, and we did not say the job's growth under Reagan vs Obama.
Char4Dew, your just passing gas from your keyboard and it stinks from liberalism, which is a medically fixable brain disorder.
This is how political liberal "Trolls" operate, by being counterproductive in their opinion, by using false or ambiguous inflammatory facts and try manipulating political narrative, to justify the actual l*****t political talking points.
One Political Plaza readers.
We are obligated as Americans to correct there political lies and the socialist liberal deceit, on the (OPP) website, by naming the socialist, liberal progressive Democrat as "Internetting Trolls : Tell me what kind of (OPP) troll is Char4Dew ?
a. Sea-Lioning Troll's, Self-Appointed "Good Cop"
b. Concern Troll's, Pseudo-Displays of "Constructive Criticism"
c. Gish Galloping Troll's, Falsehoods nitpicking arguments unrelated details
d. Impersonation Troll's, create h**x impersonation accounts in your name
e. Dog-Piling Troll's, Online silencing, Cyber Mob to discredit a target
g. Gas-Lighting Troll's, Giving false information to cause self-doubt.
Why, Are The political Powers and Banks That Be, Are Pushing A Cashless Society ?
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/why-the-powers-that-be-are-pushing-a-cashless-society.html
This article is from a European nation perspective. Though it is happening here in the United States indirectly, by many individual corporations businesses and one country in particular, Peru.
Peru has adopted and is at this moment implementing a Cashless Society. Which is a financial regulating tool and "prototype" to come and will be implemented in US shortly there after the world.
After the Federal Reserve and banks have worked the kinks and bugs out have on a smaller population demographic like Peru. Here is my prediction, Their Here and Its Coming Shortly Control of all the worlds banking money by governments.
We Cant Rein In the Banks If We Cant Pull Our Money Out of Them
Martin Armstrong summarizes the headway being made to ban cash, and argues that the goal of those pushing a cashless society is to prevent bank runs
and increase their control:
The central banks are
planning drastic restrictions on cash itself. They see moving to electronic money will first eliminate the underground economy, but secondly, they believe it will even prevent a banking crisis.
This idea of eliminating cash was first floated as the normal trial balloon to see how the people take it. It was first launched by Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University and Willem Buiter, the chief economist at Citigroup.
Their claims have been widely hailed and their papers are now the foundation for the new age of Economic Totalitarianism that confronts us. Rogoff and Buiter have laid the ground work for the end of much of our freedom and will one day will be considered the new Marx with hindsight.
They sit in their lofty offices but do not have real world practical experience beyond theory. Considerations of their arguments have shown how governments can seize all economic power are destroy cash in the process eliminating all rights.
Physical paper money provides the check against negative interest rates for if they become too great, people will simply withdraw their funds and hoard cash. Furthermore, paper currency allows for bank runs. Eliminate paper currency and what you end up with is the elimination of the ability to demand to withdraw funds from a bank.
***
In many nations, specific measures have already been taken demonstrating that the Rogoff-Buiter world of Economic Totalitarianism is indeed upon us. This is the death of Capitalism. Of course the socialists h**e Capitalism and see other peoples money should be theirs. What they cannot see is that Capitalism is freedom from government totalitarianism. The freedom to pursue the field you desire without filling the state needs that supersede your own.
There have been test runs of this Rogoff-Buiter Economic Totalitarianism to see if the idea works. I reported on June 21, 2014 that Britain was doing a test run. A shopping street in Manchester banned cash as part of an experiment to see if Brits would accept a cashless society. London buses ended accepting cash payments from July 2014. Meanwhile, Currency Exchange dealers began offering debt cards instead of cash that they market as being safer to travel with. The Chorlton, South Manchester experiment was touted to test customers and business reaction to the idea for physical currency will disappear inside 20 years.
France passed another Draconian new law that from the police parissummer of 2015 it will now impose cash requirements dramatically trying to eliminate cash by force. French citizens and tourists will then only be allowed a limited amount of physical money. They have financial police searching people on trains just passing through France to see if they are t***sporting cash, which they will now seize.
Meanwhile, the new French Elite are moving in this very same direction. Piketty wants to just take everyones money who has more than he does. Nobody stands on the side of freedom or on restraining the corruption within government. The problem always turns against the people for we are the cause of the fiscal mismanagement of government that never has enough for themselves.
In Greece a drastic reduction in cash is also being discussed in light of the economic crisis. Now any bill over 70 should be payable only by check or credit card it will be illegal to pay in cash. The German Baader Bank founded in Munich expects formally to abolish the cash to enforce negative interest rates on accounts that is really taxation on wh**ever money you still have left after taxes.
***
Complete abolition of cash threatens our very freedom and rights of citizens in so many areas.
***
Paper currency is indeed the check against negative interest rates. We need only look to Switzerland to prove that theory. Any attempt to impose say a 5% negative interest rates (tax) would lead to an unimaginably massive flight into cash. This was already demonstrated recently by the example of Swiss pension funds, which withdrew their money from the bank in a big way and now store it in vaults in cash in order to escape the financial repression. People will act in their own self-interest and negative interest rates are likely to reduce the sales of government bonds and set off a bank run as long as paper money exists.
Obviously, government and bankers are not stupid. The only way to prevent such a global bank run would be the total prohibition of paper money. This is unlikely, both in Switzerland and in the United States because the economies are dominated there by a certain liberalism to some extent but also because their currencies also circulate outside their domestic economies.
The fact that but the question of the cash ban in the context of a global conference with the participation of the major central banks of the US and the ECB will be discussed, demonstrates by itself that the problem is not a regional problem.
Nevertheless, there is a growing assumption that the negative interest rate world (tax on cash) is likely to increase dramatically in Europe in particular since it is socialism that is collapsing. Government in Brussels is unlikely to yield power and their line of thinking cannot lead to any solution.
The negative interest rate concept is making its way into the United States at J.P. Morgan where they will charge a fee on excess cash on deposit starting May 1st, 2015. Asset holdings of cash with a tax or a fee in the amount of the negative interest rate seems to be underway even in Switzerland.
***
The movement toward electronic money is moving at high speed and this says a lot about the state of the financial system. The track record of the major financial institutions is nearly perfect they are always caught on the wrong side when a crisis breaks, which requires their bailouts. The fact that we have already seen test runs with theory-balloons flying, the major financial institutions are in no shape to withstand another economic decline.
For depositors, this means they really need to grasp what is going on here for unless they are vigilant, there is a serious risk of losing everything. We must understand that these measures will be implemented overnight in the middle of a banking crisis after 2015.75.
The balloons have taken off and the discussions are underway. The trend in taxation and reduction of cash seems to be unstoppable. Government is not prepared to reform for that would require a new way of thinking and a loss of power. That is not a consideration. They only see one direction and that is to take us into the new promised-land of economic totalitarianism.
People cant pull cash out of their bank accounts for political reasons, because theyve lost confidence in the bank, or because bail-ins are enacted if cash is banned.
The Financial Times argued last year that central banks would be the real winners from a cashless society:
Central bankers, after all, have had an explicit interest in introducing e-money from the moment the global financial crisis began
***
The introduction of a cashless society empowers central banks greatly.
A cashless society, after all, not only makes things like negative interest rates possible, it t***sfers absolute control of the money supply to the central bank, mostly by turning it into a universal banker that competes directly with private banks for public deposits. All digital deposits become base money.
The Government Can Manipulate Digital Accounts More Easily than Cash
Moreover, an official White House panel on spying has implied that the government is manipulating the amount in peoples financial accounts.
If all money becomes digital, it would be much easier for the government to manipulate our accounts.
Indeed, numerous high-level NSA whistleblowers say that NSA spying is about crushing dissent and blackmailing opponents
not stopping terrorism.
This may sound over-the-top
but remember, the government sometimes labels its critics as terrorists. If the government claims the power to indefinitely detain or even assassinate American citizens at the whim of the executive, dont you think that government people would be willing to shut down, or withdraw a stiff penalty from a dissenters bank account?
If society becomes cashless, dissenters cant hide cash. All of their financial holdings would be vulnerable to an attack by the government.
This would be the ultimate form of control. Because without access to money people couldnt resist, couldnt hide and couldnt escape.