Comments
48 Responses to ““DRIVEN””Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
“Just don’t pee on the seat.. “
Link
#2 Darren: see my 43 on the O/C thread, guess where it leads.
“Will vote for food or beer. Prefer beer.”
How can you guys spin getting homeless people to register and vote into a bad thing? How is it that these people have any less of a right to vote than you or me? If any person should have the need to have their voice heard, it is our most needy. Isn’t helping out the homeless the Christian thing to do? Campaigns routinely set up transportation for their supporters to get to the polls.
As far as I’m concerned this is great news….MORE Americans engaged in the process. Signs of a healthy democracy.
It’s a vicious cycle:
Homeless vote for Dims
Dims raise taxes
Homeless numbers increase
Homeless vote for Dims
If the guy in the picture agrees to vote often enough, he might even qualify for a mortgage.
Houston Dim Bulb:
How can you spin registering a homeless person with no verifiable ID and let them vote immediately before they can be positively identified as a good thing?
Straw man alert!
Transporting someone to the polls is fine. Encouraging voter fraud is not.
If someone is offered any incentive whatsoever (including a meal) to vote, then the process is tainted.
Sincere people offer charity even in non-election years.
Also, I’d like you to address the following point made in the NY Post piece:
Do you think a “healthy democracy” should allow unqualified people to vote, simply to increase turnout?
When I say “unqualified,” I don’t simply mean uneducated or ignorant of the issues. I’m talking legally unqualified — felons, non-residents, the mentally ill, etc.
Why is Dan Patrick’s eyes blocked out for this thread?
How can you spin using homeless people for political purposes? would you pick this guy up and drive him?
They have a right to vote. No one is saying they don’t.
More than me or you?
The best way to help the poor is to allow him to be free to work. Cut all direct taxes, let businesses trive and open up those jobs for the needy. Jesus taught the needy to do what is right. He helped those infirmed who could not help themselves. Yes, we are to help unconditionally but there are those who apparently round up homeless just so they vote for Obama. No regards to what they actually believe. No regards to what they have learned in life. In other words, they are being taken advantage of. As a christian, I’m opposed to that. And as both jimb and matt pointed out, how do you verify the homeless w/ no ID didn’t already vote?
And if you want to compare who helps the poor, it is my experience that in national presidential elections Republican candidates give far more to charities than do the Democrat candidates. In other words, those who believe gov’t should get out of controlling economics are more charitable than those who advocate gov’t involvement. If taxing the rich means less poverty than the cities with the highest taxes should have the lowest homless rates. If you care to look into the stats, feel free. Let me know what you find.
I love it when liberals pull out the Christian card.
How can you guys spin getting dead people to register and vote into a bad thing? How is it that these people have any less of a right to vote than you or me? If any person should have the need to have their voice heard, it is our most dead. Isn’t helping out the dead the Christian thing to do? Democratic campaigns routinely set up transportation for their dead supporters to get to the polls. /sarc
Since they’re homeless maybe we should give each of them TWO votes!
7 - Do you have any evidence this ocurred?
8 - I’m not sure exactly how it worked in Ohio but I am sure there was some sort of database that allowed the voters who were eligible to vote, vote and those who were not, not.
Convicted felons can vote in Ohio. And I have not heard of a law saying the mentally ill cannot vote. Oh and this was available for McCain too.
Okay upon doing a little research on this I found this on another site. Lets look at the facts before everybody gets worked up -
1. They are checking for some form of identification prior to letting people cast a ballot. The GOP is complaining that this is too lax. But Project Vote argues that anything more restrictive than this could deny a legitimate voter the right to cast a ballot.
NOTICE TO ALL VOTERS (R.C. 3503.28(A)(6))
“Voters must bring identification to the polls in order to verify identity. Identification may include a current and valid photo identification; a military identification, or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document, other than a notice of election or a voter registration notification sent by a board of elections, that shows the voter’s name and current address.
Voters who do not provide one of these documents will still be able to vote by providing the last four digits of the voter’s social security number and by casting a provisional ballot. Voters who do not have any of these forms of identification, including a social security number, will still be able to vote by signing an affirmation swearing to the voter’s identity under penalty of election falsification and by casting a provisional ballot.”
2. The other issue in question was whether those that sign up to vote today can immediately request an absentee ballot. The GOP argued that a voter must be registered for 30 days before they can cast an absentee ballot. The court agreed but said that because the ballot is actually COUNTED on election day, it didn’t matter if the person requested the provisional ballot the day that they registered.
from Project Vote v. Madison County Bd. of Elections, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74016
And
Ohio Revised Code section 3501.01(N) defines a qualified elector as “a person having the qualifications provided by law to be entitled to vote.” Section 3503.01 gives a definition of qualified voter that mimics the definition provided in Ohio’s constitution, stating that,
Every citizen of the United States who is of the age of eighteen years or over and who has been a resident of the state thirty days immediately preceding the election at which the citizen offers to vote, is a resident of the county and precincts in which the citizen offers to vote, and has been registered to vote for thirty days, has the qualifications of an elector and may vote at all elections in the precinct in which the citizen resides.
O.R.C. �3505.01.
The above statutes and the Ohio Constitution state that a registered voter is not a qualified voter until that registered voter has been registered for 30 days. And again, section 3509.02 states that “any qualified elector may vote by absent voter’s ballots.” Section 3509.02 does not govern the request or receipt of the absentee ballot, but rather, establishes a broad class of people that can vote absentee, i.e., those people that are qualified to vote. This statute only says that a registered voter must be qualified to vote when voting occurs. The voting does not take place until the election day, regardless of when the voter mails or hands in the ballot. Millsaps v. Thompson, 259 F.3d 535, 545, 546 (6th Cir. 2001).
It is worth noting that those that register and vote on the same day still must have their registration confirmed before the vote will be counted.
Oh homeless man, are you a felon, please come vote for Obama. Oh homeless man, have you lived in this state to be a resident? No, oh come vote for Obama. Now Mr. Dem, tell me you want the Republicans to pull this kind of under the table stuff on you. One more thing, If your Mesiah is so messianic, why do you need votes from those who are questionable. Clue…….. cause you are scared of the average Americans vote.
Looks like it probably didn’t matter anyway:
I got my utility bill which conveniently doesn’t have my picture on it as my ID. I can register and then vote in Ohio. If I have access to a copier, I can register and vote several times a day at different polling places using different names.
Wanna guess what percentage of these same day votes will be fraudulent? Wanna guess how many Dims will want these votes thrown out?
Answers are Most and None.
Houstondem - if you think that those that contribute nothing to this society except to be a burden more deserving of a vote than those that do contribute, then I don’t know if there is any hope for you. That is totally socialist thinking. Those that contribute nothing will always vote for those that promise them something for nothing. It doesn’t take long before those that contribute nothing outnumber those that do. What happens to all your feel good social programs then? There isn’t anyone left to fund them because all the people that did contribute have been picked dry by those that are freeloaders. (And this has nothing to do with being a Christian - being a Christian doesn’t mean you have to be stupid)
Maybe the good old days when the Dems could manufacture enough votes to steal elections is over. Where’s LBJ and Joe Kennedy when you need ‘em?
i have a confession, i don’t vote to have my opinion heard i vote for whichever candidate gets me the most “i voted today” stickers. this is a serious issue, i mean i can’t believe that i am the only one that does this this could be a method that the government rigs the elections
I see dead people….
Voting.
18 - Do you really want to go down the route of voting based on “contributions to society”? Where do we draw the line? Do you know for a fact that every homeless person has made no contribution to society? What if he was in the military? What if he is down on his luck? What if she was in an abusive relationship and has no place to go?
houstondem - do really think it is good for democracy to have people only voting for your candidate because someone scoops them up off the street and gives them a ride and a hot meal?
This particular case doesn’t really trouble me that much. I think there are some safeguards built in to catch voter fraud. What I find most troubling is the fact that Democrats loudly and vociferously fight any attempt to reduce voter fraud by requiring picture IDs to vote. That alone tells me they are not interested in fair elections.
This is comforting to me, how? I could also load up my car with bills, checks, etc. to give to…er,uh, use as an example to the homeless as to what they need to vote.
No, but it is the Mormon thing to do!
Well, THERE’s a secure method. Hey, my name is Ralph Miller and the last four of my Social is 5715. Can I vote?
Got that right jimb.
But it *IS* a Christian thing. Mormons are just the only Christians who practice this teaching.
22 - The point is that the highly productive members of society have a right to one (1) vote. The bum on the street that is an eligible US citizen has the right to one (1) vote. Your suggestion that the bum has more of a right to vote is as ludicrous as is the suggestion that the highly productive member of society’s right to vote is more important.
No, there wasn’t. These people were allowed to register and vote the same day without even presenting any form of identification, must less having it verified.
Do you really think that “penalty of election falsification” is sufficient deterrence? It seems to me that it’d be virtually impossible to even charge, much less convict.
Show up, leave a fake name and address, swear it’s true, sign your fake name and cast your ballot that very day.
Then repeat daily.
RE: #27;
Change 1st “Chronicles” to “Corintihians“.
I think I’m reading too many anti-Chronicle public service rants from Matt.
27 - I know this is off topic, so I’ll leave you with this: That Mormon doctrine is based on a misunderstanding of Scripture.
More on topic:
jimb 1:45
What happened to the days when a pack of cigarettes could buy a dhimmicrat a vote? Price of cigarettes have gone so high because of all the dhimmicrat taxes that it is now cheaper to take the homeless to the local McDonalds and feed them a Meal Deal.
#34 whitetop, I would like to remind you that the regressive, excessive, and confiscatory $1.00 per pack tax increase suffered upon the great state of Texas was passed by a predominately republican lege and signed by our pseudo republican governor. Is having the 7th highest pack-tax in the nation something republicans should be proud of? I think not! (But apparently the Grand Old Party disagrees…)
Any inherent superiority assumed of republican politicians is a quaint historical notion, and fails to take into consideration the party inflicted deterioration of the noble ideals it formerly held and practiced.
Now they talk the talk when they want your vote but when it comes to walking the walk, as far as they’re concerned you might as well be homeless too — Your value to them ends as soon as your chad hits the floor.
Heads they win… Tails we lose…
Happy Voting!™
#33;
So the Dems get into power.
jimb;
Back on to your topic:
Not true.
This practice was realized for centuries after the death of Christ and His Apostles. With out the guidance of living prophets, however, the understanding of the practice of baptism for the dead diminished and was, as is many truths not guided by prophets, lost. Or, f you read my linked article, almost completely lost.
Just forget it. Don’t understand why it’s done, so just ignore it.
Here’s the theological dilemna I see solved through the restoration of the simple truth that all souls need baptism n Christ for salvation.
Jesus taught: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” So for the billions that have NOT been baptized, what of their salvation?
Let’s take two examples. First, a child who is born and quickly dies without being baptised. Second are uncounted numbers of God’s children spread throughout God’s earth who have even heard of God, Jesus Christ, or the Everlasting Gospel of Jesus Christ. According to some Christian beliefs:
(1) They cannot be saved. They have not been baptized and thus cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
(2) This teaching is not literally true.
I cannot see how it’s not true since it’s so plainly taught in the ancient scriptures. Even Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. So looking at the revelation given to Joseph Smith that restored this plain doctrine: salvation of the dead, all of God’s children will receive the opportunity of baptism and thus the possibility to enter into the kingdom of God. When Jesus taught baptism is necessary to enter into God’s kingdom, we of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints beleive it. And God has prepared a way for all His children to receive it.
Let me propose a different reference to Paul’s mentioning of baptism of the dead.
In preparation for judgement, we read in 1 Peter 4:5-6
The Apostle Peter taught that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was taught to those that were dead. And that they are to be judged according to “men in the flesh”. The way I read this, Peter taught that the dead will be judged according to what was taught to man in mortality. As previously mentioned, Jesus taught man that baptism was/is necessary to enter into the kingdom of God. So, according to Peter, that law applies to the dead.
Significant from Corinthians is any condemnation whatsoever from the Apostle Paul regarding the practice of baptism for the dead. So the likelyhood he was referring to a pagan religion is very improbable in my view. I think he used an aknowledged practice in Christianity to settle the dispute of wether or not man will be ressurected. Indeed they will, and then the day of judgement. And they will be judged according to the gospel as taught on earth.
Baptism for the dead has nothing to do with pagan practice or religious belief. Sure pagans might have adopted it but the practice itself was established on earth so that all souls may truly come unto Christ and enter into the kingdom of God. To me it shows the eternal grace of God and the greatness of Christ Atonement on behalf of all God’s children.
I’m not going to start on this subject today, beyond saying that there are many, many, many errors in Mormon doctrine, many of which are justified by a one-off reference in scripture that is misunderstood and misapplied (NOT BofM, D&C, or PoGP, nor the Ensign for that matter).
Believe me jimb, I know where you’re coming from. But regardless of where you may think we error, baptism for the dead is not one of them. It’s taught in the Bible. It compliments the teachings of Peter that the dead are preached the Gospel of Jesus christ. The Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ which testifies alongside the Bible that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Redeemer of the world. Every Christian heart should rejoice for its existence. The Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price are moder-day scripture and so may conflict with traditional interpretations and understandings of ancient scripture but they are true.
And as for the “many, many, [mucho], errors”, mormons are guilty of, in the words of George W. when I used to like him…bring it on. Though this format may not be appropriate. Perhaps if you continue to inject yourself for no reason whatsoever into correcting Mormonism, we might get away with it. Also, a Bible bash debate is almost always fruitless. I don’t care at all for one.
And your premisis that Mormons are not Christian is entirely baseless. You yourself have read the many times I have defended Christianity and declared Jesus Christ as our Savior. There is no such thing as a “Mormon Jesus”. If I didn’t know people were serious believing there is one, I’d count it as a laughable joke. And notice with the exception of me one time berayting atheism (that was politically motivated, and it was too good at that point to pass up), I have attacked no one’s spiritual beliefs. Yet for some wierd reason you sem to be on a sel-proclaimed errand from God to correct my ways. Again I reiterate the fact that you for no reason whatsoever, inject anti-Mormon spew here. You’ve done it consistantly. If that’s your path to God, than God bless you on it. But things could get ugly by treading that path and I truly don’t want that result. In the end it will accomplish nothing.
Are you the guy who called Pat while he was filling in for Dan Patrick and said you’re one of the few who DO know where Mormons error?
Baptism for the dead is NOT taught in the Bible, based on one reference that could just as easily refer to Man’s dead condition in sin prior to receiving Christ’s free gift of salvation.
The Book of Mormon is not only NOT scripture, it is not even completely followed by modern day LDS teaching.
D&C and PoGP clearly contradict the Bible in many ways.
What you call “anti-Mormon spew” I call warning those who would be decieved. It isn’t my path to God at all. The “Jesus” that Mormons believe in is a fabrication of Joseph Smith’s. The Mormon gospel is no gospel at all. Paul warned us against such.
I should know. I was one of the deceived for years.
And no, I didn’t call in to a radio show to talk about Mormons, I’ve never called an AM talk radio show.
Eternal progression?: Read Psalm 90:2
Amos 3:7(Surely the Sovereign Lord does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets)? Read Hebrews 1:1-2
Jesus’ reference to “other sheep” ? The Gentiles, not the “Nephites”.
“2 sticks?” Refers to the regathering of Israel.
2 Nephi 25:23 (we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do)? Read 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 for a discourse on where works fit in. Also, Ephesians 2:8.
Priesthood authority needed to confer the “gift of the Holy Ghost”? Acts 10:44-47 indicates that the Holy Spirit comes into believers at their conversion, not at some predetermined time when ‘those in authority’ lay their hands on you and perform an ordinance to confer the Holy Spirit upon you.
The Godhead is 3 composed of 3 distinct and separate personages? Not according to Jesus in John 8:58. Not even according to 2 Nephi 31:21b!
Apostasy and restoration? Matt. 13:24-43 suggests in the parable of wheat and tares that the church has been and will be here until the weeds are pulled “at the end of the age” and cast into the fire.
Priesthood? The Bible indicates in Hebrews 10:5-10 that the Priesthood of Aaron was set aside when the law was fulfilled by Christ. It further suggests that Jesus himself is the sole holder of the greater Priesthood in Hebrews 7:24-25.
Preaching to the spirits in prison?
There are 3 views on 1 Peter 3:18-20 that I found (originally from Defending the Faith Ministries, but at least one of which is covered in the notes in my own Bible:
The Triumphant Theory
Between His death and resurrection, Christ descended into hell (”prison”) where the evil angels (”spirits”) have been bound with everlasting chains (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 1:6). These “spirits” refer to those evil angels who were “disobedient … in the days of Noah” when they married daughters of men (Gen. 6:2). And in hell Christ revealed and proclaimed (”preached”) to these angels His victory over the powers of darkness (cf. Col. 2:15).
2. The Captive Theory
Between His death and resurrection, Christ descended into hell (”prison”), which contains two distinct areas: (1) the place of torment for the wicked, and (2) the place of conscious bliss for the righteous/Old Testament saints, called “paradise” or “Abraham’s bosom” (Lk. 16:22; 23:43). And in hell Christ proclaimed (”preached”) to all the imprisoned souls (”spirits”), including those who were “disobedient … in the days of Noah”, that He was the crucified Messiah who had atoned for the sins of His people. Then He took the righteous (including the thief who died on the cross) out of paradise and brought them to Heaven with Him (cf. Eph. 4:8).
3. The Pre-incarnate Theory
Between His death and resurrection, Christ did not descend into hell. Rather, through Noah, “a preacher of righteousness” (2 Pet. 2:5), Christ proclaimed (”preached”) a message of condemnation to those men who were “disobedient … in the days of Noah” (cf. Heb. 11:7). These men are now “spirits” in hell (”prison”). In other words, Christ’s proclamation refers to Noah’s preaching of the gospel — “to them that are [now] dead” (1 Pet. 4:6). Therefore, Christ’s proclamation did not take place between His death and resurrection, but during the days of Noah, in His pre-incarnate state.
I’ll take any of those over Smith’s interpretation.
There’s more and more. I’ve done a lot of research on this.
I have a tendency to doubt that the people picked up at homeless shelters and like places by democrats and driven to the poll to register and vote did so out of a sense of civic duty.
Therefore I must wonder just what they were offered to go cast their vote for the democrat candidate,
jimb;
So were you a church member?
The Book of Mormon is a book of scripture revealed to a living prophet. It is in no way contradicted by moder-day LDS teachings.
No they don’t, they clarify much of the Bible, especially the Pearl of Great Price.
Everything you gave referencing the Bible is your interpretation of it. nothing you spoke of contradicts what the Church of Jesus. theres’ no reason the 2 sticks has to refer to just the gathering of Isreal. And one of the purposes of the Restoration of the gospel in our moder-day is to do just that: gather Isreal. One can receive the gift of the Holy Ghost “on the spot”, so to speak, but that does not exclude a set ordinance to receive the gift of the holy Ghost. your three theaories of Peter are all good and if those are what you believe, God bless you for it. May it bring you peace. But nothing you said excludes the interpretation of the gospel being preached to the dead in the manner I previously mentioned. They are interpretations. The mere fact that there are many interpretations of the same scripture tells me there is a need for a prophet to guide man inthat interpretation.
Was Hebrews 1 supposed to contradict Amos? It seems like it confirms it.
Yes, by grace we are saved. But God will not save people in sin but from sin. Works are necessary as John taught. You cannot name one prophet or apostle who just believed. they believed and acted upon those beliefs.
The Holy Trinity did not exist until the latter end of the 4th century. it’s not found in the Bible anywhere. Anything you cite to support it is only an interpretation that God the Father, the Son jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are literally one being.
Jesus is the aouthor ofthe priesthood and has given it to man to act in his name. This is not a new concept in Christianity but there are many interpretations as to what the priesthood is and how it is given.
To continue this you’ll need to email me. I’ll see if I can get you a proxy email (no pun intended
) to get it to me.
Take care jimb and God speed your sojourn to Him.
trl3;
You cynic you.
I won’t be arguing the finer points of Mormonism over email. Really shouldn’t have done it here, as it was way off topic and I already know I won’t be converting anyone via an argument. I’ll leave it at this: The Bible is complete, “another testament” isn’t necessary, and any level of study of Mormonism reveals it to be “another gospel” that Paul warns against in Galatians 1.
By the way, works follow faith, and are evidence of the change wrought by Christ in one’s life. The works in and of themselves are not what saves us. That would be grace alone. Can’t earn grace.
As for interpretation of Scripture, a prophet is not required. That was taken care of on the Day of Pentecost.
We agree completely that it is grace that saves. No doubt. God was graceful to send His Sonto die for us. Christ was graceful to go through what He did for us. Works do not earn grace but I find it hard to accept that one’s work is full of filth and/or slothfulness and yet God will say, “OK, you get all the blessings given to those who have been faithful and did good works continually to gloirfy my name.” That violates justice and grace does not violate justice. In fact I agree completely with the Book of Mormon which teaches that justice is needed to fulfill grace or mercy.
The Bible is complete but at times misinterpreted. Why else would there be thousands of different ways to practice and apply the exact same teachings? Prophets have always been part of God’s plan to reveal His will and I don’t see how that’s any different today. If the Bible is the sole source of truth, than what about the centuries when the Bible didn’t even exist? And which verson of the Bible is correct? Also, do non baptized babies and billions of God’s children who never even heard of Christ go to Hell automatically? If not, than what of Jesus’ proclamation that baptism is necessary to enrer into the kingdom of God?
I’m content with the beliefs that Jesus walked upon the earth, set up His Church guided and directed by Him through apostles. That that church was lost and now returned to earth. You yourself proclaim the necessity of a remformation, r a making better, of Christ’s church. Thus the emrgence of the Protestants. I think this was a divinely-inspired movement in our history and great blessings came from it. Particularly our poitical freedom. I also believe God took things one step further ad Restored, or returned that which once was, His church to the earth. Once again we have Christ’s church guided by living apostles.
If you did once belong to the Church and fell away, you’re always welcome to visit return or to visit. you’re not the only one who has belong to the Church of Jesus Christ and then decide to leave and to warn others of the dangers of the Church. I myself have heard Galatians cited a thousand times to justify other’s warnings against Mormon theology. I simply do not agree with them. If what you’re doing now is what you think and feel is God’s will than God speed my friend.
Just a word of advice. The longer you make anti-Mormon comments, the more you and I will go around in circles. I’d prefer to avoid this. If, of course, you want to discuss, I’m very open to that as well. But I do want to avoid contentious arguments, as much as possible especially using this forum/blog to do that. I don’t think the readers here really care to read it and I agree that it does not accomplish much at all. I’m always open to email conversations.
Take care and God bless.
Since this isn’t strictly anti-Mormon, I’ll say this re: faith and works:
re: My “falling away”. I’m fully aware of that the LDS church believes about the “restoration” of the gospel and the way in which it came about. According to LDS theology, I’m eternally damned for walking away from the LDS church. Of course, my understanding of Scripture (and many conversations with God about the subject) leads me to believe that the LDS church has no lock on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
re: My stance on Mormonism, I consider myself pretty even-handed regarding differences in Christian denominations, however, this is far beyond a debate of whether or not one should baptize by immersion or sprinkling or or style of worship, or some such. Mormon theology redefines too many aspects of the Christian faith, to where it is not recognizable as such any longer.
I don’t wish to judge are belittle any individual who chooses to adhere to the Mormon faith but, as Paul warned against “another gospel” in the strongest of terms, I cannot in good conscience do otherwise when it comes to the LDS church itself.
OKOK moderators. Wrong forum. I know. I’ll stop now.
Again jimb, nothing you say I have not heard a thousand times before. I think I said everything I wanted to say at this point.
Take care jimb and God bless you and yours.