Why Bush Sucks

[Mr. Lothario]

What i think he was saying, is that law enforcement should crack down on weed, or whatever you want to call it.  This however, would be even more pointless than the abstinance education. .... Youre going to have to spend astranomical ammounts of cash to make it more dangerous to grow it, than it is to get caught.  Plus, youll have to provide all the extra prison space for the flood of new inmates.  Good luck with all the tax cuts pulling that off.

     I agree wholeheartedly with your stance on this one, Lone Wolf. There is no rational reason for marijuana to be illegal. Instead, it is illegal because the manufacturers of the legal drugs tobacco and alcohol don't want that competition and have the bribe money to ensure the legal/governmental status quo.

What would happen if homosexual marriages were allowed at all levels? .... It just seems that since the United States is more caught up with capitalism rather than religion or morality, I believe this issue of homosexual marriage is somehow related to money.  Does anyone else agree with this view?  I just can't believe that Americans in general would really care if homosexuals were married.  It's "big business" that's problem from where I'm standing.

     I think you're wrong on that one, Noto. Many people espouse the open-minded view of tolerance towards gay marriage, but are secretly disgusted by homosexuals. Now, there's nothing wrong with that view, as long as those same people realize that freedom for a minority does not require participation, acceptance, or enjoyment on the part of the majority. It simply requires noninterference.
     At any rate, the status quo re: gay marriage is most assuredly a "moral" problem, as there's no money being lost by "big business", except possibly the manufacturers of bridal dresses. I'm curious what you meant when you said that big business is the force keeping gay marriage illegal. Where do you see the economic motivation coming from?

     On the tax issue, it's a widely known fact that our tax system is crap. I'm in favor of a full replacement, while others prefer the idea of reform. Personally, I believe that the graduated tax system is inherently flawed and will always lead to more trouble than it's worth. We've had the tax discussion before, so I won't go into it here.

[BFG]

I just got to say that i love that quote from Arnold Schwarzenegger....

" Gay marrage is somthing that should happen between a man and a woman"


Oh dear... and somebody made this guy governor of California?

[Noto]

I'm curious what you meant when you said that big business is the force keeping gay marriage illegal. Where do you see the economic motivation coming from?

I was referencing that with the tax issue as well.  I agree with what you have said, but I feel that there are other issues at work other than disgust towards homosexuals, albeit that is the major highlight.  And if there are other issues in American society, it's most likely having to do with money in some form (i.e. insurance companies, pensions, retirement, 401k,... I'm not sure how in depth being married has to do with those items, but i know they are interwoven considerable at many points).

[BFG]

perhaps we could shorten the whole topic by just trying to find one, just one small reason why Bush might not suck... just one.

... just one.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

perhaps we could shorten the whole topic by just trying to find one, just one small reason why Bush might not suck... just one.

... just one.

I can tell you many reasons....but my favorite is:

He isn't committing adultery every other night in the Oval Office.

[Lone-Wolf @ School]

From GhostSniper

10.  Sorry again, my morale values tell me that Marriage was created by GOD to be between a man and a woman.

Last i checked, the laws of the land, aka the United States, were not supposed to be influenced by relgiion, as when this country's constitution was created, a very big point was made for a seperation of church and state.  So, if the state is trying to make a case against same sex marriages, i sure hope it has a better reason than "we're doing this because it goes against the values of christianity"

Im not saying government officials have to be non-religious, or whatnot, I'd just prefer to see the religion of a senator, house rep., president, or whatever, bleed into how this country works, and especially how the laws are created and worded.  

Am i going to get struck down by a bolt of lightning now?

Lone-Wolf

[BFG]

Lone-wolf i think you are so spot on its brilliant. There is a nasty mix of state and religion, hell we have the same damn problem in the UK. Its not a good mix. and to say "we're doing this becasue it goes against the values of christianity" is just wrong. Why should christianity get top spot anyway?

7. Mars/Moon-What the hell? Boosh wants to spend billions on space exploration, when so many other programs of importance on Earth (specifically America) are neglected and underfunded, mmmmk.[quote/]

Honestly, I cannot believe that you are saying this. Do you really think that if we cut back on space exploration and the new frontier, we would really solve the problems we have here on Earth, much less the United States? COrrect me if I am wrong, but looking back on fiscal year 2002, a total of $14.5 billion was spent on NASA while a total of $1.3 trillion was spent on social programs (health care, education, etc.). Do you think by slashing the entire NASA budget (if given to social programs, it represents a whopping 1% rise in spending) we would be doing humanity a favor?

It is human nature to expand beyond the borders as we know them. It is reasonable to think that a lunar base will expand our ability to explore deep space due to it's low gravitational pull and abundance of a perfect fusion fuel, H3.

The question you have to ask yourself before posting this stupid is this: Is putting a mere band-aid on today's problems worth mortgaging the potential futire of humanity? What would the world be like today if we took your thinking and applied it to all the great expeditions that have occured?

So your point is that its a good idea to get a base on another planet so you can hope over there and F*ck that one up? ... Correct me if im wrong but i believe that bush's new proposed space program was going to cost one Trillion, not billions... there is a big difference. Does it matter if its a small amount compaired with other areas? no. Every god damn bit makes a difference. And in my oppinion a trillion dollars can go a long long way to inproments.
It would be nice if we could alls stop F*cking up this planet before the rich countries go to find another one to screw over

[Lone-Wolf@ school]

***NOT*** bleed into how this country works, and especially how the laws are created and worded.

Sorry,  in the first post.

Lone-Wolf

[c| Hathcock]

Well what are the reason's for the mariage tax credits in the first place?  To give married couples a break for when they have kids, I bilieve is an issue.  Now I'm not up on every state's adoption laws but I do not think very many allow same sex marriages to adopt.  And can anyone honestly tell me how two guys are gonna make a kid and thus bring the next generation of American's into being?  

I'm not a homophobe or anything but how can someone that is not going to foster children need to be considered married?  They sure as hell are not going to need the tax cuts to help with a child.  I agree with the seperation of church and state but isn't marriage in the first place a religious concept?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I agree wholeheartedly with your stance on this one, Lone Wolf. There is no rational reason for marijuana to be illegal. Instead, it is illegal because the manufacturers of the legal drugs tobacco and alcohol don't want that competition and have the bribe money to ensure the legal/governmental status quo.

Small addition / correction for Loth.  It's Dow and Dupont that want to keep Hemp illegal (not just marijuana).  Too many uses that compete with Nylon, etc.

Just have too add those into your conspiracy theory, that's all =D.  Since they are the ones that really pushed for it to be illegal in the first place (and they have so much more clout then the smokey five).

Last i checked, the laws of the land, aka the United States, were not supposed to be influenced by religion, as when this country's constitution was created, a very big point was made for a separation of church and state.  So, if the state is trying to make a case against same sex marriages, i sure hope it has a better reason than "we're doing this because it goes against the values of christianity"

Lone-Wolf, you are dead wrong there.  Back when our constitution was formed, this was a christian state, and the laws were all based off christian morality.  The separation of church and state was not intended to keep christian morality from law at all.  It was intended to help end the religious persecution that went on in many European nations back then.  The Holy Roman Catholic Church had much power in governments, and the Church of England was headed by the King of England.  They didn't want the church to have power over the peoples religious freedoms.  That doesn't mean that they didn't base their laws off the 10 commandments, they just didn't want them being told to them from Rome or London.  Learn about these men (the Founding Fathers), most of them were devote, and many were even Masons.  

All that said, I'm not against "same sex unions" being recognized legally.  Live and let live.  Being a fan of liberty, they should have the same liberty to live how they like too, with the same rights and privileges as the rest of us citizens.

[tasty]

However people may feel about this issue, I think it's important to legislate it from a secular point of view. My christian beliefs inform how I feel about many social and political issues, but I never use them as a justification in public discourse. I'll quote the political theorist Kymlicka on the necessity for this:

"Liberal citizens must give reasons for their political demands, not just state preferences or make threats. Morever, these reasons must be public reasons, in the sense that they are capable of being understood and accepted by people of different faiths and cultures. Hence it is not enough to invoke Scripture or tradition. Liberal citizens must justify their political demands in terms that fellow citizens can understand and accept as consistent with their status as free and equal citizens. It requires a conscientious effort to distinguish those beliefs which are matters of private faith from those which are capable of public defence, and to see how issues look from the point of view of those with differing religious commitments and cultural backgrounds."

The discourse on this subject is ongoing, as law and compromise have not been reached. But the current debate is frought with religious reasoning, and until the focus is shifted away from that method of debate a true compromise will not be reached.

["Sixhits"]

Ghost:
Would I rather have the president commit adultry every night and lie about it or wage a war of aggression by misleding Congress and lie about it?

I'd have the president who was an adultrious bastard over the fascist murderer any day.

Getting on to some other topics:
A lot of what liberals have trouble with is the epic shift in government policy towards a state governed through religion.

(And just a quick note to put in your bonnet: Under God does not mean For God. You live "under" your landlord but you do not live "for" him. Think about it.)

I think the vast majority of Americans have trouble with the increased faith based everythings.

Sure, it's totally fair for Bush to voice his opinions and base them in his faith. But, as President, he has a duty to uphold the Constitution. He has a duty to seperate his emotions from his job.

It seem he cannot or will not. He is thus a traitor.

Gay mariage is something that religion plays an emotional role in discussing, but cannot play a policy role. To base the state's opposition to gay marriage in faith is to spit on the good words of our fore fathers.

Consistantly, Bush has based policy on his faith. Of particular concern to me was his goal of providing federal funds to relgious organizations and relaxing the prereqs for those orgs in getting those funds. That's offensive. My priest does not deserve my tax dollars - he deserves my charity and my prayers.

I do not understand how conservatives, who scream when money is given via welfare or when money is given to secular orgs like Planned Parenthood, do not scream when the president promises to give money to relgious orgs. Your money is being given away - isn't that what you hate so much? That and heritics? And we all know that the religious orgs that he's thinking about are Christian ones, predominantly.

Bush is a big spender and he spends worse than any Democrat. Worse, he's only motivated by his special interest in Evangelical Christianity (sic, militant Christianity). He could care less about America, unless it's a fundamentalist America. It's offensive and un-American.

As for taxing rich people unfairly. Cooooome on. EVERYONE hates taxes. I do! I don't like seeing thousands of my glorious greenbacks funneled into Social Sec and state tax and federal taxes! I hate it.

But, it needs to be done. And rich people need to pony up their dollars too. Futher, most people who are classified as rich (over 100,000 in income) have the means to secure their dollars from taxes. They can often incorporate themselves or run their own company. They invest in the stock market, where the wealth generated is not taxed as highly. They can give a small portion of their income but a fairly high dollar amont to charities, thus reducing their overall tax rate. They can put funds into trusts or even start up their own charities, putting wealth into them but controling how it's spent ... And on, and on. Wealthy people are not taxed unfairly. They can and do have the ablity to AVOID taxes. They, in fact, often PAY people to help them avoid taxes. Of course, nothing wrong with that. But there is something wrong with you if you think they ain't getting a fair shake.

And don't even get me started on the ridiculoud ending of the estate tax. Bush sold that shit like it was killing farmer's babies, but all it was doing was hitting people like Bill Gates when they died. it was one of the ONLY TIMES during the lives of the filthy rich then the wealth they made during their life time was taxed. it's gone. But Bush's gonna raise 200 million for his re-selection!

Fuck, I hope there is a new tax put in: called the Gates tax. Anyone with a Billion bucks pays, oh, lets see, an even 10 million bucks in taxes per year. But the government gives them their own rural town to run as they see fit. Fair? You decide.

But, dude, we have it good in America. Taxes all over the world are tremendous. Most democracies have incredibly high taxes compared to ours, and they have them precisely because their citizens demand so much from their governments. We demand a lot too. Only we don't want to pay for it. Fucking freeloaders. So basically my feeling is anyone who bitches about high taxes is human. Anyone who wants to change them is a freeloader. You are a fucking freeloader, Mr. Bush.

You want roads? Pay taxes. You want schools? Pay taxes. You want food? Pay taxes. You want a secure job? Pay taxes. You want a world class Army, one that no one can touch? Pay your fucking taxes. You want to have moon bases and explore the cosmos? PAY your fucking taxes. You want your social security and relef for when you loose your job? PAY YOUR TAXES.

Better yet, DON'T flatten the taxes all helter-skelter. DON'T lower taxes without making sure you can COVER the REDUCED income. And DON'T, don't don't make tax cuts perminant. Cause if you do, and then we have a fucked up economy, we're not going to recover. Cause cutting taxes only provides stimulus IF there remains  enough income from those taxs to keep the lights on.

Bush is such a noob. That's why he sucks.

Bush just wants to cut taxes for the wealthy cause that money goes right back into his and his party's pocket. He trumps up the minor returns you and I get as the reason those taxes are being cut, but really, it's a cut that gives millions to millioniares (excuse my hyperboly)

Does a millionare really need a tax cut? Does he need THREE tax cuts? Does cutting his income tax or his estate tax or his dividends tax make him put MORE money into the economy? No, he saves it in Burmuda, where there are even fewer taxes.

The truth of the matter is that the only tax cuts that provide economic stimulus are those that go to the poor, who spend almost every dime they make each month, or to the middle class, who spend almost every dime they make each month. Give them a little more money, but keep taxing the rich, and the economy works better.

Here's a new but related topic:

Bush's cuts have put us back into massive deficits.

Do you know what a deficit is? It's a nice way of saying debt. Llike with most Americans, teh country is going deeper and deeper into debt. Oddly enough, the value of our dollar is decreasing too (because our economic polices are such crap). That means our ablity to pay off or pay down our debt is reducing while our debt is increasing.

Yay!

Cuttin taxes manifestly for the rich but supposedly for the poor made the situation worse because it reduced our income and insured we cannot maintain our current level of spending.

Think of tax cuts as pay cuts for the Federal Government.

Bush forced the federal government to take a pay cut right before a massive recession. Then we got attacked and had the biggest symbol of American Capitalism destroyed. Then Bush forced the gov to take another pay cut, right before our economy was made even more unstable through treasonous corporate scandals. And then, most recently, Bush forced yet again another pay cut for the Federal goverment, among massed lay offs. Meanwhile, he's been whipping out our children's credit card and buying more of everything and spending our money like a rich white republican in Bancock's red light district. (that's a loose dig at Neil (look asain hookers in my bed while I'm married) Bush.

(btw, why aren't all you conservatives astounded by Neil Bush and his close ties to China, foriegn nationals, and hookers? It's like he's everything you hate - AND he's destroying the sanctity of marriage. I guess, at least he doesn't have loving, consentual, not-with-a-hooker sex with men, right? You fucking hypocrits.)

So what Bush's done is make the government: 1) take three paycuts, 2) timed those cuts so that they hit America hardest, 3) "borrowed" (I say stole) money against the future of our children to pay for what we have now and to expand the heavy foot of goverment to profound levels, 4) watched as our ablity to pay our debt off disappeared.

Yay goes the RNC! Yay goes fundamentalist! Yay goes idiots!

Now, what if you were "America", and suffered three paycuts, were hit by tough times, got mugged by an old friend (the Bin Ladens are known buddies of the Bushes), started going deeper and deeper into debt just to get by, then starting buying new TVs,  new cars, a fancy security system, then rushed out and broke into that old friend-who-mugged-you's house and killed his wife, then bought a new gun and threatend a few neighboughs into helping you bust into another old friend's house, raped his wife and killed his kids, bitched at the local Home Owners association cause you had the most guns and the biggest house (forgetting you owe them all money....) ......

Nothing that's happened has been good. Sure, sure fucking over that old friend was good. Or at least at the time it was fun. I mean, he did mug you. But you only managed to kill his wife and drive him from his home. Now he REALLY wants to get you, but you have to keep an eye on the OTHER old friend's home you busted up and killed everyone in. You lied about why you did it too, so no one trusts you anymore, and you bullied everyone while doing it. (Seemed like he had some heavy weapons and he was hiding that other pal of yours, or something? In the end it didn't pan out.) That, and now your neighboughs hate you and want you to die. Oh, and whenever someone questions what you're doing you attack them, yelling, "9/11, 9/11!" and "God bless America!" Like that really helps.


If you were America you'd be fucking insane, right?


Basically, this is Bush's America. And all of us have to deal with it.

["Sixhits"]

I agree with the seperation of church and state but isn't marriage in the first place a religious concept?

Actually, marriage isn't a religious concept. It's a state concept. Most people get married via a religious organization, but remember, ship's captains (for some silly reason) can marry people. Your local city hall can marry you, too.

Marriage is simply a structure wherein the state recogonizes a union between two people.

As for the tax stuff: I'm sure it's based around the presumption that they'll have kids. But, that doesn't mean that gays shouldn't be allowed to have state recognized marriages. They are seperate issues. I think gay people can make great parents. Who wouldn't want to be raised in a loving family, even if that family consists of two men or two women.

Hell, people found interracial marriage to be disguisting. In fact, we are seeing a rehash of the same arguments. Of course, it's really only bigots who have trouble with state stancified gay marriage, just like it was only bigots who were against interracial anything.

A lot of fundamentalists presume that when people talk about gay marriage they mean - and want - the various religious institutions to open up to gay marriages. Fuck no. This is an issue of the seperate between church and state. And just like the church should have no say when it comes to state recognized marriages, so too should the state have no say in church recognized marriages.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Sixhits, you'll want to check this out if you haven't already.

http://www.fairtax.org

[c| Spetsnaz.]

perhaps we could shorten the whole topic by just trying to find one, just one small reason why Bush might not suck... just one.

... just one.

I can tell you many reasons....but my favorite is:

He isn't committing adultery every other night in the Oval Office.

 In my opinion the 200 plus FBI agents that the Republicans bogged down with investigations of President Clinton's sex life in order to bring articles of impeachment against him, would have been better utilized preventing TERRORISM as this was pre-9/11. Makes you wonder.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I was against the investigations of Clinton while he was in office.  It was a waste of time and effort (and millions of dollars).  

But that doesn't make me like Slick Willie any better.  Remember, he is the guy that invented the idea of when the spotlight got too much on him, he'd bomb Iraq again.

Besides, being the conspiracy theorist that I am, I blame the Secret Service.  If they would kill an icon like Marilyn Monroe to protect JFK, Monica shouldn't have been an issue.  

["Sixhits"]

Buc, that's an interesting proposal.

Taxes based on consumption rather on income. It sounds like it would hit the wealthy hard while only lightly hitting the poor, cause everyone knows that the rich buy more than the poor.

Interesting.

I looked up those that contributed to the site. One of the primary participants is the Herritage Foundation, an organization that, according to Rush Limbaugh, "[Has] some of the findest conservative minds in America today..."

Could you see why I, as a liberal, would be hesitant to support a policy shift backed by a staunch and, more to the point, closed minded Republican like Rush and backed by a conservative thinktank like the Heritage?

Anyway.

A lot of what the site says sounds good on the surfice. It sounds so simple, too.

However, here's my retort: The problem with taxing only consumption rather than taxing on consumption and income, as we do now, is that taxes on consumption alone would reduce the Federal draw and would drive overall prices up in order to cover that deficit.

If one tax lowers then the other must be raised to cover the difference, right?

The concept that "the more you buy the more taxes you pay, and the less you buy the lower your tax burden" sounds grand, at first, until you consider that consumption taxes would be very, very high. If you dislike 8.5% in Cali now, imagine an additional Federal tax on top of that.

But still, logic seems to suggest that the wealthy would pay more taxes cause they buy more. Right? This depends on what you define as "more".

Ok. In dollars relative to poor people, yes, in a consumption based tax system the rich pay "more". As a percent of income, no, rich will pay considerably less. Poor people have fewer dollars to spend, and as i noted before, cutting the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax will raise the cost of goods and services - ie, raise teh cost of living. Poor people will not be able to afford as much as they once did, plus the social services that once were there to support them will be reduced or non existant, since the total revenue from taxes would be so much lower - how could the goverment afford them? It couldn't.

Income taxes are the only fair tax percisely because everyone HAS to pay them. Cunsumption taxes are not fair becuase people don't have to consume, and they don't have to consume in America.

Getting back to critiquing consumption taxes. Such taxes are not fair versus income taxes because they drive up costs for goods and services, making it harder for the poor to pay for them, while shifting the burden of taxes from the currently progressive burden (rich pay more as a percent of income and in dollars) to a regressive burden (poor paying a higher percent of income).

Regressive taxes hit the poor. Progresive taxes hit the rich.

In a income vs consumption tax argument, that is what it boils down to. And that is why Rush Limbuagh is so keen on the Heritage Foundation, and likely so keen on consumption taxes.

A consumption tax just nukes the Federal draw. Absolutely nukes it. If we shifted tomorrow and quit taxing income ... even IF we hiked tax rates for goods and services ... we'd loose billions if not trillions in revenue. The only way to make a consumption tax work as well as an income tax is to target tax rates on consumption to the income level of the consumer. But that's just another income tax, just an income tax by another name.

Frankly, I find the info-light Fair Tax website to be mildly offensive.

I trying to research their arguments I looked at a few of their policy PDFs and re-read their front page:

"Everyone pays their fair share of taxes, and with the FairTax rebate, spending up to the poverty level is tax free. The Federal government is fully funded, including Social Security and Medicare, and you don't need an expert to determine your Federal taxes."

This implies, without any nuance nor any note on how that if we jumped to a consumption tax right now everything would work perfectly. Clearly, by reading this paragraph, one of three on the main page, we can see that it is not targeted at the rich, who already know that ending the income tax would be a boon to them, and tries instead to convince you and me that we'd be better off under such a system. It's scandelous, really. It promises the moon.

The research links are also light. They focus on the fact that the income tax was amended into the constitution and was originally very small. And look at the monster we have today. Ok. Yah, it's big and complex. You know what is even more fucked up compared to the goals of the original founders? The fucking vast and institutionalized military. Which would shock the founders more?

Anyway, i'm sick today and am much pissed for it, so no offense intended Buc. Taxes suck. Each side wants to do things to them. Obviously I'm gonna be rather skeptical when Rush is backing the stuff you show me. ;-)

[MainMaN]

This may be offtopic, but its something to remember.

Why does every post result is some type of flame. I mean, if some one expresses their opinion  STFU and argue you point instead of thinking about some punk @ss insult. I mean, great debats are nice, try respecting other peoples views.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Sixhits, we had a whole thread on this before, but I'll just say that you need to dig a little deeper.

1) Conservatives are not for a consumption tax, they prefer income tax (and it's many many loopholes).

2) Rush hasn't backed this (as far as I know), he just talks about a group that advocates this.  Him talking about something never made it true.

Now, on to some deeper issues.

3) There are states that do not have income tax, just consumption.  If they have been doing it for years, it isn't really doomed to fail.

4) In your talk about the poor, you missed that some items would not be taxed (like food isn't today, at least here).  This system would be more fair to the poor.  A) the necessities wouldn't be taxed, so they wont suffer there and B) it will encourage them to save money, not spend it (and we can talk about the effects that would have on economy later).

5) I think your point about losing billions and trillions is completely off base.  We wouldn't have to have different rates.  What we'd have to do is look at what the budget is (should be) and plan a % based upon that.  We know what the GNP is, we know how much people spend on luxury goods.  All it takes is to define what those goods are, and set the tax accordingly (of course adjusting the number to fit with both the initial slump in sales and yearly budgit considerations).

If you look in depth on that site, they actually answer, and not just on the surface, most of the things you've stated.  The models are already there, the examples are already existing.  7 States currently do not have income tax and 3 other state only tax interest and dividends (no other income).  So, if they can do it, why can't the Federal Government?  I suggest you look at the states too, since they range from Texas and Alaska to Florida and New Hampshire to Nevada.  

[c| Lone-Wolf]

 It was intended to help end the religious persecution that went on in many European nations back then.  

Ok, so lets say hypothetically, we have a religion that approves of (if one doesnt already) demands, or otherwise allows same-sex marriages.  But then, Bush pushes through congress a bill that includes no same-sex marriages.  The entire time, he has given no other reason for it than it is morally wrong, according to christianity.  Given a lack of other reasons (i cant think of any, probably because there are none) it becomse a law passed only to appease the standards for one religion, but now its law, so the religion that once practiced or encouraged same-sex marriages, is squashed by a law, and is then in the same spot the Lutherans & Calvinists were in late 17th century Europe.  

Unfortunately, the only "new land" they could go to is about 37 million miles of pure nothingness away, at its closest, with a 97% Co2 atmosphere, and no pre-existing native inhabitants to save their ass the first year they're there ( that they can kill later for resources).

Oh and dont worry, I know all about what was going on in Europe in the religious revolutions of the early 1500's.  Taking AP European History helps these things.  When you can name me all the Fredrick Williams and William Fredricks that popped up in Prussia & the German states in the 1600's, you get a cookie.  

Lone-Wolf