Author |
Message |
mrducky
|
Post subject: Re: Same-Sex marriage Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 1:45 am |
|
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm Posts: 781 Gender: male
|
msomeoneelsez wrote: mrducky wrote: Why not change back to the ways that allowed people the freedom to choose between what they believe to be right and wrong? Why not allow the People to choose between gay marriage and not.
because, if the people choose against gay marriage then obviously the gays will be discriminated against for being a minority.
Not so, as has very clearly been shown by history, discrimination is harmful. Breaks my rule #3
what classifies discrimination? is it discrimination if the person doesnt meet a set bias of expectations. ie, he should be taller for the promotion to look more intimidating during hostile takeovers, therefore no promotion. he shouldnt be black to look more intimidation during hostile takeovers, therefore no promotion. are you seriously not allowed to prevent a highly qualified midget to appear as the epitome of the company during a hostile takeover?
The only reason that I can see for not doing those is that everyone has a desire for their way to be placed unto their little world. Everyone wants some form of control over others, control to make said others not do anything wrong by the controller's opinions. That is all that legislation is... control.
and who gets these "controllers" into power? the people.
And what better option do the people have? I am not arguing about the system, I am arguing that a different mindset be had by everyone; that the government should stay out of morality and should let individuals choose. That is what I was meaning by the people, individual people.
governments have deemed drugs illegal, do you support the heroin drug trade? i mean, its free choice for oneself to become a burden on the system.
Control breeds problems. That is one of the reasons why the Chinese economy boomed once Capitalism was allowed. Capitalism is a lack of control.
lol, to say China has lack of control is plain stupid. the government has its hands in EVERY major corporation and industry. they might have a free marketish system, but the government points the funds and still makes the decisions.
You have now mistaken what I said. I did not say China has a lack of control, I said that Capitalism was allowed. Very big difference, so don't attempt to put a spin on something when you don't understand what is being said.
Without Hong Kong's introduction of Capitalism into Chinese society, China would still be quite far behind the US. That is a fact.
and i attacked how china still held tightly onto the economy, the government chooses who gets rich and who will be flushed out of the system. they have more regulations then USA has bombs. you cannot call that capitalism in any shape nor form. more corporationism under government influence abusing the free trade internationally with cheaper products
And hell, for all of you environmentalists... Guess what nature is! A lack of control. What do humans do to environments? Control them.
so making farmland is bad? prefer to starve?
Yet another point where you misunderstand me. I have never once advocated the opposite extreme than what we have, I merely made a point that we have an extreme. I would find what fallacy you are displaying at the moment, but I truly don't care enough about this topic or debate to find it for you. I just suggest you stop displaying it.
then wtf was the point of that line? bait for stupid people :3 ?
Now I am not advocating Anarchy, I am just advocating minimal control... to keep people from killing each other... to keep people from harming each other... etc.
at what point does control become minimal control? what point minimal control becomes anarchy?
Once again, look at the Constitution. I do FIRMLY believe that it is the single best setup of government that has ever been made. It clearly describes who has what powers, and it gives a very acceptable way to amend the powers should the amendment make sense.
How long did the constitution stand un editted? how long did it stand until it abolished slavery while USA claimed it was a democracy. you cant have a democracy when there are slaves unless you deem the slaves as sub human.
just an outside note, the nazis deemed the jews sub human.
my point is that it is only as correct as the latest modification.
In fact, I outlined my 3 rules for that already.
1: The actions of one person drastically harms another person, i.e. child abuse, assisted suicide. 2: The actions of one person causes financial harm to another person or entity, i.e. stealing, embezzling. 3: Any other thing that can actually harm someone or something else.
you seem to have ignored the "laws". your 3 points does not restrict discrimination nor does it prevent slavery as no one is harmed. you against euthanasia?
How have I ignored these rules? Discrimination is extremely harmful, just ask anyone who has been truly discriminated against. I suggest an African American woman who is older than 50. Slavery not harmful? Umm... I really have no idea what world you come from.
As for Euthanasia, in the case of the death sentence, I support it. Here is why; the death sentence is a punishment for an extreme crime. If following my three rules, the extreme crime would be harmful to someone or something else. And for that, I have three words. "Jury of peers"
~ drugs, see first point.
It truly is as simple as that.
it is far more complex. you cannot abide by the constitution into the year 3000, you need referendums, you cant allow mob mentality otherwise minorities suffer, you didnt prevent anything really. you just allow a vast amount of illgood to befall on victims.
You need to read the Constitution, man. You obviously don't understand it. Mob mentality is like what we have today in the realm of presidential elections. Look at the Constitution (and its amendments... i.e. the 13th Amendment, which bans slavery) and you will see that it is very easy to follow and to improve as time goes by, so long as the improvements are necessary and make sense.
first off, excuse me for being an asian australian and not reading that old piece of paper.
1st amendment, bill of rights, 2nd -12 amendment, fodder. 13th amendment, acknowledging the rights of other humans. there is no ban of gay marriage in the constitution, there was no ban of slavery in the constitution. i fear too many people will suffer as too many people oppose such a notion. btw, Article 6. they are limited. isnt this as limited as the forefathers wanted?Honestly, look at the Constitution, truly analyze it, interpret it as the Founding Fathers did. Once you do that, see if you can honestly tell me again that the Constitution cannot be followed even until the year 3500. Also, when looking at the Constitution, you must realize that each individual state is being allowed more power than the Federal government has. If there really is any debate over gay marriage, it should be in the states, unless each state constitution clearly legislates upon gay marriage, or marriage in general. so individual states may discriminate on gay marriage as they please? or are you going to have divided states rather then the united states? that state doesnt allow money laundering, lets live there, that state does like vegetarians, lets live there, that state doesnt like immigrants, lets live there, that state doesnt like gay marriage, lets live in the state NEXT to it that does. as ive said, divided states or united states?hehe, girly pink :3
_________________
![Image](http://i767.photobucket.com/albums/xx313/mrducky/dbaew7.jpg)
-~~Retired Spammer~~-
~Agnostic atheist pastafarian~
Discussion+debates and World Events.
|
|
Top |
|
msomeoneelsez
|
Post subject: Re: Same-Sex marriage Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 4:23 am |
|
Sergeant |
![Sergeant Sergeant](./images/ranks/rank5.png) |
|
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 9:16 pm Posts: 126
|
I will take pink any day over green. Bring it! mrducky wrote: what classifies discrimination? is it discrimination if the person doesnt meet a set bias of expectations. ie, he should be taller for the promotion to look more intimidating during hostile takeovers, therefore no promotion. he shouldnt be black to look more intimidation during hostile takeovers, therefore no promotion. are you seriously not allowed to prevent a highly qualified midget to appear as the epitome of the company during a hostile takeover? Umm, what is your point? I honestly can't find anything resembling an actual point here... Excuse my lack of reading and comprehension skills? mrducky wrote: governments have deemed drugs illegal, do you support the heroin drug trade? i mean, its free choice for oneself to become a burden on the system. Oh, but should the system support that burden? Also, let us look at this economically... Drugs are very susceptible to the "sin tax." Why not make it "legal" (well, not illegal...) and tax the heck out of them? Then you force drug lords to lower prices or the buyers wont buy (unless they are super rich...) and the drug rate will be reduced as it is less and less profitable to participate in the drug trade. mrducky wrote: and i attacked how china still held tightly onto the economy, the government chooses who gets rich and who will be flushed out of the system. they have more regulations then USA has bombs. you cannot call that capitalism in any shape nor form. more corporationism under government influence abusing the free trade internationally with cheaper products If you look at it as a whole, they have continued Capitalistic ideals. That cannot be denied. As for what set off their economic growth, it was a combination of two things. One, Hong Kong was given to China after being heavily established by British capitalism. The Chinese saw that as successful (and it was VERY successful) so they drew on that success. Two, fueled by the money gained by Hong Kong's capitalistic success, the country industrialized extremely quickly. That industrialization coupled with the huge population of China is what makes their products so cheap... Economies of scale. mrducky wrote: then wtf was the point of that line? bait for stupid people :3 ? Just an interesting point about chaos vs. control put into perspective with modern environmental views. mrducky wrote: How long did the constitution stand un editted? how long did it stand until it abolished slavery while USA claimed it was a democracy. you cant have a democracy when there are slaves unless you deem the slaves as sub human.
just an outside note, the nazis deemed the jews sub human.
my point is that it is only as correct as the latest modification. Actually, the US never claimed it was a democracy until relatively late in its life. It began as a republic, and it truly still is a republic. As for slavery, in the original draft, Thomas Jefferson wrote out an abolishment to slavery. He was forced to remove it in order to get enough votes to pass it. That is how it had to be because he faced a lesser of two evils situation. Honestly, read up on it man... its a really great thing to know about. mrducky wrote: first off, excuse me for being an asian australian and not reading that old piece of paper.
1st amendment, bill of rights, 2nd -12 amendment, fodder. 13th amendment, acknowledging the rights of other humans. there is no ban of gay marriage in the constitution, there was no ban of slavery in the constitution. i fear too many people will suffer as too many people oppose such a notion. btw, Article 6. they are limited. isnt this as limited as the forefathers wanted? First off, your loss for not reading that old piece of paper. As for the amendments... name the 2nd to 12th amendments and why they are fodder. Im not sure what your point about Article 6 was... I believe you may have been misdirected in your referencing of the Constitution. Article 6 refers to the previous treaties and agreements that the US made, under the Articles of Confederation, and how they were still bound by those treaties. It also refers to how members of public office must take an oath to defend the Constitution, but must not have any religious test in addition. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... clevi.htmlUnless of course I completely killed my roman numeral counting skills after 2nd grade... mrducky wrote: so individual states may discriminate on gay marriage as they please? or are you going to have divided states rather then the united states? that state doesnt allow money laundering, lets live there, that state does like vegetarians, lets live there, that state doesnt like immigrants, lets live there, that state doesnt like gay marriage, lets live in the state NEXT to it that does. as ive said, divided states or united states? I was just pointing out how the US Constitution allotted powers to the States... No one is going to be as absurd as you mention when they write up the state Constitution, especially if they follow the US Constitution as a sort of guideline to what sort of limitations to include. Also, discrimination in certain states is much better than absolute discrimination in the country. At least there is a choice to live elsewhere. Not advocating, just saying. In regards to the gay marriage though, there is no ban on it, and there is no reason for government to ban it. Just like there is no reason for government to legislate on marriage in general.
|
|
Top |
|
simmen
|
Post subject: Re: Same-Sex marriage Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:32 am |
|
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 5:32 am Posts: 15987 Gender: male
|
i'm really to lazy to read all of that ![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif) just wanted to say that ur drug policy wo't work and u made a bad example there, people would just deal it as normal and ur high prices woulden't sell anyting then u would sit with alot of drungs, what could u dowith that? i see ur plan ![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
_________________
![Image](http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg226/gunfire72/mentorsig.png)
Code: http://battledawn.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=111&t=4690 Thank you Michael http://www.battledawn.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=111&t=15076 Thank you developers (^-check out the topics)
|
|
Top |
|
mrducky
|
Post subject: Re: Same-Sex marriage Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:45 am |
|
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm Posts: 781 Gender: male
|
msomeoneelsez wrote: I will take pink any day over green. Bring it! bring it, pansy. : O DID I JUST SAY THAT?!?!mrducky wrote: what classifies discrimination? is it discrimination if the person doesnt meet a set bias of expectations. ie, he should be taller for the promotion to look more intimidating during hostile takeovers, therefore no promotion. he shouldnt be black to look more intimidation during hostile takeovers, therefore no promotion. are you seriously not allowed to prevent a highly qualified midget to appear as the epitome of the company during a hostile takeover? Umm, what is your point? I honestly can't find anything resembling an actual point here... Excuse my lack of reading and comprehension skills? what would you classify as discrimination, it is inevitable that everyone has their own set of bias and prejudices. the point of the matter is, midgets dont get jobs as CEO of corporations. no, discrimination comes in many forms, how can you define one kind of discrimination as hurtful and another not?mrducky wrote: governments have deemed drugs illegal, do you support the heroin drug trade? i mean, its free choice for oneself to become a burden on the system. Oh, but should the system support that burden? Also, let us look at this economically... Drugs are very susceptible to the "sin tax." Why not make it "legal" (well, not illegal...) and tax the heck out of them? Then you force drug lords to lower prices or the buyers wont buy (unless they are super rich...) and the drug rate will be reduced as it is less and less profitable to participate in the drug trade. the system eventually does support the burden as it has to, at the very least, appear compassionate. there are many people who have been rehabilitated off drug addiction and contribute to society, equal if not more are still addicted and drain from society. the war on drugs was an attempt for a preventative measure. prevention is better then a cure.
economically speaking, what you wrote was batshut insane. illegal drugs will be cheaper then legal drugs with tax on them. lets see what kind of drugs are illegal. Marijuana- easy to grow anywhere, hard to tax. Heroin - extremely addictive and a tonne comes from afghanistan and South America. Ice (mephametamineifosadhufwalhsdf) - produced in factories or can be home brewed in a bath, hard to tax. what else... party drugs - become lethal when taken in combination with other drugs, this includes alcohol, alcohol combo sucks with a party drug although some are for raves only. lets see what the government can tax. tobacco - you need a field of these to draw profit, you cant hid this in hydroponic greenhouses like with weed, government can tax, government has been sleeping with the tobacco industry for sometime now. alcohol - you cant ban alcohol, its like a national iconic beverage, and noobs cant ferment well cause they dunno how to play with starch (see the blindness and deaths caused by bad alcohol poisoning during prohibition). mrducky wrote: and i attacked how china still held tightly onto the economy, the government chooses who gets rich and who will be flushed out of the system. they have more regulations then USA has bombs. you cannot call that capitalism in any shape nor form. more corporationism under government influence abusing the free trade internationally with cheaper products If you look at it as a whole, they have continued Capitalistic ideals. That cannot be denied. As for what set off their economic growth, it was a combination of two things. One, Hong Kong was given to China after being heavily established by British capitalism. The Chinese saw that as successful (and it was VERY successful) so they drew on that success. Two, fueled by the money gained by Hong Kong's capitalistic success, the country industrialized extremely quickly. That industrialization coupled with the huge population of China is what makes their products so cheap... Economies of scale. hongkong was a major port with western countries. ie. TEH BRITISH ARE COMING!
and how did they industrialize quickly? did they leave it to individuals with money to invest in factories? no, the entire thing was one long process on puppet strings by the chinese government. what took USA 80 years, took china 12. sure, the technology wasnt around with USA at the time but nonetheless, there was always control, intense amounts of control, even today. i should know, im chinese and i went there 3? 4 months ago to say hi to relatives and see my aunties baby daughter :3Just an interesting point about chaos vs. control put into perspective with modern environmental views. do not respond, this point is to DIE.mrducky wrote: How long did the constitution stand un editted? how long did it stand until it abolished slavery while USA claimed it was a democracy. you cant have a democracy when there are slaves unless you deem the slaves as sub human.
just an outside note, the nazis deemed the jews sub human.
my point is that it is only as correct as the latest modification. Actually, the US never claimed it was a democracy until relatively late in its life. It began as a republic, and it truly still is a republic. and isnt a republic MEANT to protect against minorities? wasnt the last lynching in the 70s? thats pretty recent... thats after cold war, hitler, WWI and WWII... seems a bit twofaced, judgemental of others, ignorant of afflictions upon oneself.As for slavery, in the original draft, Thomas Jefferson wrote out an abolishment to slavery. He was forced to remove it in order to get enough votes to pass it. That is how it had to be because he faced a lesser of two evils situation. and any of the other so called "wonderful" founding fathers voice out? how many years was it? tell me.Honestly, read up on it man... its a really great thing to know about. ceebsmrducky wrote: first off, excuse me for being an asian australian and not reading that old piece of paper.
1st amendment, bill of rights, 2nd -12 amendment, fodder. 13th amendment, acknowledging the rights of other humans. there is no ban of gay marriage in the constitution, there was no ban of slavery in the constitution. i fear too many people will suffer as too many people oppose such a notion. btw, Article 6. they are limited. isnt this as limited as the forefathers wanted? First off, your loss for not reading that old piece of paper. As for the amendments... name the 2nd to 12th amendments and why they are fodder. well, the right to bear arms was the constitutional right to kill grizzlys and wear their arms. it allowed pioneers in the day to expand and by constitutional law, be armed and protected. nowadays, how many bandits will you come across while delivering supplies by caravan? will you fight off a coyote? a bear? if you know me, i feel the 2nd amendment is stupid and redundant.
12th amendment is old and stale, the process is inefficient and does not represent democracy which is popular vote. it also never foresaw advances in technology that allows voting to happen on a scale other then POSTAL!!! BOOYEAH! tis fodder i tells youIm not sure what your point about Article 6 was... I believe you may have been misdirected in your referencing of the Constitution. Article 6 refers to the previous treaties and agreements that the US made, under the Articles of Confederation, and how they were still bound by those treaties. It also refers to how members of public office must take an oath to defend the Constitution, but must not have any religious test in addition. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... clevi.htmlUnless of course I completely killed my roman numeral counting skills after 2nd grade... nope, you didnt, i screwed up there, dunno what i was reading :/ i feel lost now, forgot what i read and where i read it.mrducky wrote: so individual states may discriminate on gay marriage as they please? or are you going to have divided states rather then the united states? that state doesnt allow money laundering, lets live there, that state does like vegetarians, lets live there, that state doesnt like immigrants, lets live there, that state doesnt like gay marriage, lets live in the state NEXT to it that does. as ive said, divided states or united states? I was just pointing out how the US Constitution allotted powers to the States... No one is going to be as absurd as you mention when they write up the state Constitution, especially if they follow the US Constitution as a sort of guideline to what sort of limitations to include. Also, discrimination in certain states is much better than absolute discrimination in the country. At least there is a choice to live elsewhere. Not advocating, just saying. then my point is the same, the Divided States of America, you are advocating a bunch of seperate countries bound together by a piece of document. everything else is "too much control".In regards to the gay marriage though, there is no ban on it, and there is no reason for government to ban it. Just like there is no reason for government to legislate on marriage in general.but marriage is a fundamental pillar of society, it often paves the way for more stable long term relationships, more home buys, more children, a market for the marriage industry, etc. how can the government NOT stick its face in? you say no discrimination, but when there is discrimination, and the minority is being abused by the local majority, how can the government stand back? remember your old life? well too bad, go move to cali or florida or etc. you are disturbing the conservative locals who wish to uphold the true meaning of USA by systematically picking on a minority through the decades and centuries be it african american, mexicans, homosexuals or otherwise. in short, it can be summerized with GREEN beats pink
_________________
![Image](http://i767.photobucket.com/albums/xx313/mrducky/dbaew7.jpg)
-~~Retired Spammer~~-
~Agnostic atheist pastafarian~
Discussion+debates and World Events.
|
|
Top |
|
Daganev
|
Post subject: Re: Same-Sex marriage Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 11:58 am |
|
Second Lieutenant |
![Second Lieutenant Second Lieutenant](./images/ranks/rank6.png) |
|
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:25 am Posts: 231
|
Marijuna is not hard to tax.
That is like saying that fruits and vegetables are able to be grown anywhere and are hard to tax.
Once you make something legal, those who are able to mass produce it, make more profit. Those who mass produce things, makes it very easy to tax.
This is no different from the time of prohibition where everyone and their grandmother made alcohol in their bathtub, to after prohibition where large companies were formed that sell most of the alcohol in the country.
|
|
Top |
|
simmen
|
Post subject: Re: Same-Sex marriage Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 1:16 pm |
|
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 5:32 am Posts: 15987 Gender: male
|
he were talking heroin, heroin be bad ![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif) i suport legalization of cannabis! difrence between fruit and drugs are difrence in cost ![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
_________________
![Image](http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg226/gunfire72/mentorsig.png)
Code: http://battledawn.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=111&t=4690 Thank you Michael http://www.battledawn.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=111&t=15076 Thank you developers (^-check out the topics)
|
|
Top |
|
Daganev
|
Post subject: Re: Same-Sex marriage Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 6:40 pm |
|
Second Lieutenant |
![Second Lieutenant Second Lieutenant](./images/ranks/rank6.png) |
|
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:25 am Posts: 231
|
The difference is cost is only because one is illegal and one isn't. (if canabis is as easy to grow as people say it is)
In my house I have my own fruits trees, doesn't stop me from buying fruit from the shops which pay taxes on them when I need more.
|
|
Top |
|
mrducky
|
Post subject: Re: Same-Sex marriage Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 11:06 pm |
|
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm Posts: 781 Gender: male
|
Daganev wrote: The difference is cost is only because one is illegal and one isn't. (if canabis is as easy to grow as people say it is)
In my house I have my own fruits trees, doesn't stop me from buying fruit from the shops which pay taxes on them when I need more. i addressed more then one point you know >.> anyways, marijuana is a drug. that is obvious. and as a drug, it has negative effects. the government can try to compensate and balance these negative effects by taxing the drug and them using those taxes to help create an equilibrium if not better ie, they tax $3 from marijuana, $1 goes to help pay for damages such drug causes like health effects and another $2 goes to hospitals and education. Quote: The short-term effects of marijuana include:
* Distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch) * Problems with memory and learning * Loss of coordination * Trouble with thinking and problem-solving * Increased heart rate, reduced blood pressure
Sometimes marijuana use can also produce anxiety, fear, distrust, or panic.
When high doses of marijuana are used, usually when eaten in food rather than smoked, users can experience the following symptoms:
* Hallucinations * Delusions * Impaired memory * Disorientation
the damage it does to the peoples hearts and lungs needs to be adequately met by increased health spending. marijuana is easy to grow because you can have a shed, have some lights, have some water and you have a hydroponic set enough to pump marijuana out at an affordable amount. you cant do this with tobacco (cigs) nor can you do this with barley (alco) vegetables are generally taxxed less then many other foods and drugs. marjiuana would be taxxed heavily because it has a deleterious effect upon society that the government has to try and fix in order to keep good public opinion. even if one mass produces it, a hydroponic farm in ones tool shed is still 100X cheaper then buying it from the corporations. buying it from street vendors is still 2X cheaper then buying it from the taxxed corporations. it would be safer but all you need is a seedling and you have your own little garden of money. its a lost battle.
_________________
![Image](http://i767.photobucket.com/albums/xx313/mrducky/dbaew7.jpg)
-~~Retired Spammer~~-
~Agnostic atheist pastafarian~
Discussion+debates and World Events.
|
|
Top |
|
simmen
|
Post subject: Re: Same-Sex marriage Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 3:34 am |
|
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 5:32 am Posts: 15987 Gender: male
|
cannabis is easy to grow, and even if the plant die u still get ur drugs.
and as long as there are cheaper options people will turn to them unless the goverment can provide something to make them buy their
_________________
![Image](http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg226/gunfire72/mentorsig.png)
Code: http://battledawn.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=111&t=4690 Thank you Michael http://www.battledawn.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=111&t=15076 Thank you developers (^-check out the topics)
|
|
Top |
|
Daganev
|
Post subject: Re: Same-Sex marriage Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 11:35 am |
|
Second Lieutenant |
![Second Lieutenant Second Lieutenant](./images/ranks/rank6.png) |
|
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:25 am Posts: 231
|
Ok, clearly you guys have no idea of how taxes work.
Lets put this another way.
Currently, how many people buy marijuana from drug dealers? How many people grow their own? which is cheaper?
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
![cron](./cron.php?cron_type=tidy_cache&battlegate_prod_sid=733d32a4987e6a110b4db17f864cb855)
|