Support NeoGAF

[ArtFuzzy]

Regardless of the landscape of this political issue I will say this: Removing them from the campaign event was a terrible idea.

Think I caught a blip that the person who had them removed got fired?

 

[Dogtooth]

I voted Nader in VA in 2000 and have never regretted it.

Nor should you. Gore was a lousy candidate and STILL WON. Nader wasn't sitting on the supreme court in 2000 last I checked.

 

[jmood88]

Do provide an alternative to both that we might elect and stands on the right side of all issues.

What does this have to do with anything? The story is about Bernie's staff kicking people out of an event. It has nothing to do with Hillary, O'Malley, Obama, or any other person in politics. It's Bernie and his staff.

 

[Foffy]

Never was a fan of the pro-Israel rhetoric politicians in America blindly drink from. It's probably Sanders' most backwards position for it's the most against any interpretation of facts there is.

Now, who, exactly, is even for a pro-Palestine scenario? I can imagine the people and surely a fuckton of people on GAF, but I mean candidates. Israel is often painted as a subsidiary of America, so I see no person really addressing the shady shit of that nation. This is an issue you can paint at nearly everybody running.

Though, to be fair, I don't think pro-Palestine people get kicked out of events..

 

[Arkeband]

Alternate thread title:

Sanders Campaign throws Staffer out of campaign who threw pro-Palestine group out of campaign event.

There, that should appease everyone!

 

[Bronx-Man]

What does this have to do with anything? The story is about Bernie's staff kicking people out of an event. It has nothing to do with Hillary, O'Malley, Obama, or any other person in politics. It's Bernie and his staff.

B-b-b-but Hillary, dude!

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

What is that.
There are criminal elements among the palestinians, some of them terrorists or associates, sure. But most of the support the terrorists get is rooted on the fact that the common people of Palestine have no one else to turn to. The governments negotiating with Israel lose land since they can't deal with the illegal settlements and the countries of the world have abandoned the people of Palestine - or in the case of the USA, support their displacement and killing. In the case of Palestine it's not religion that drives them - it's survival. In the case of Israel it's bigotery, racism and hunger for power. Whoever thinks that Israel needs to build illegal settlements for their survival is bonkers.

I don't think I disagree with you on the situation. I was just saying there is no "right" side to be on.

Wow you know absolutely nothing about what's going on over there.

I admit that I probably don't know the issue through and through, but I'm I know more than the common person. My statements just revolved around how I feel we should just stay out of it.

 

[User 463088]

B-b-b-but Hillary, dude!

You forgot Vince Foster, BENGHAZI!!!!one!!11!!eleven, EMAILS! She-Devil, Witch Woman.

Oh, and she dyes her hair too. Can't trust a candidate who combs their hair.

Spoiler

I kid. I kid.

 

[Kinyou]

What does this have to do with anything? The story is about Bernie's staff kicking people out of an event. It has nothing to do with Hillary, O'Malley, Obama, or any other person in politics. It's Bernie and his staff.

The obvious question that comes from this story is "should this affect my decision to vote for Bernie". So talking about what the alternatives are seems logical to me.

Unless you somehow want this discussion to be laserfocused on this single event, but then I'm not sure there is much to talk about.

 

[Chariot]

They hoard entire luxury cars and expensive hotels to themselves, while leaving the rest of Gaza being in poverty. If that's caring, that makes every other dictator/despot love their country too.

And yet. And yet they are the only thing a number of palestinian have. Who else is there? What is there for palestinian people between rising in anger or watching as Israel's illegal settlements are slowly spilling into their lands.

I don't think I disagree with you on the situation. I was just saying there is no "right" side to be on.

You are of course entitled to hold that position, I would however argue there that siding with a free Palestine is crucial since it has no support so far. Israel is more than well defended, but Palestine had to struggle just to have their flag raised in front of the UN and they still struggle to be accepted as people.

 

[Jawbreaker]

Yeah, but the Sanders campaign is just trying to be equal opportunity by tossing out and belittling every agitator regardless of color or creed. Bernie's just taking state socialism to its logical conclusion.

 

[jmood88]

The obvious question that comes from this story is "should this affect my decision to vote for Bernie". So talking about what the alternatives are seems logical to me.

Unless you somehow want this discussion to be laserfocused on this single event, but then I'm not sure there is much to talk about.

No, the obvious question is, "why does Bernie and his staff panic if things don't go exactly as planned?". This is yet another example of Bernie's campaign not knowing what to do when they get challenged in a way they aren't expecting.

 

[Sami+]

No by voting Green, I vote for the Green party. My job isn't to make sure the Republicans lose. My job is to vote for who I think is best capable of running the country. This sports fan like attitude among voters is why new ideas can't come in fast enough. Liberals that are mad at Ralph Nader for his support are not really liberals. They are fans of the Democrat party and only want their team to win nothing more.

How can you actually believe what you're saying? What you're arguing against isn't a "sports fan like attitude", it's the acceptance of reality and the sacrifice of pride for the greater good. As far as my views go I'm Green Party too, whoop de doo. They're not going to win, ever, and you need to realize that by voting third party you're taking a vote away from the next best choice and implicitly supporting the worse of the two main candidates.

 

[Clefargle]

It's not that, it's the fact that Sanders supporters can't go 5 minutes without saying something about Hillary instead of championing their own dude. It's the political equivalent of a guy in a FilmGAF thread that disses Ant-Man when someone asks them why they liked Man of Steel.

Pretty much. The entirety of r/politics is monitored by Bernie supporters that "but Hilary" any negative links about sanders. The only one I can think of that bucks the trend is Bernies pro-gun history. At least liberals were cognizant enough to call it like they saw it in that instance. But literally every other bad story about Bernie is diverted into a comparison to Hilary. Nearly all of the polling data about him is relative to Hilary. I wish they would sell him on his own merits more.

 

[Bronx-Man]

Pretty much. The entirety of r/politics is monitored by Bernie supporters that "but Hilary" any negative links about sanders. The only one I can think of that bucks the trend is Bernies pro-gun history. At least liberals were cognizant enough to call it like they saw it in that instance. But literally every other bad story about Bernie is diverted into a comparison to Hilary. Nearly all of the polling data about him is relative to Hilary. I wish they would sell him on his own merits more.

Yeah but.....

but....

......but Hillary, guys.

 

[Valhelm]

Sanders is PEP(Progressive Except Palestine). American politics as usual.

What would you prefer?

 

[Chariot]

Pretty much. The entirety of r/politics is monitored by Bernie supporters that "but Hilary" any negative links about sanders. The only one I can think of that bucks the trend is Bernies pro-gun history. At least liberals were cognizant enough to call it like they saw it in that instance. But literally every other bad story about Bernie is diverted into a comparison to Hilary. Nearly all of the polling data about him is relative to Hilary. I wish they would sell him on his own merits more.

I won't argue with the first part, but in terms of poll data it absolutely makes sense to compare with Hillary. She is the frontrunner, of course you are comparing poll data to her. Doesn't have much of a use with O'Malley.

 

[Kinyou]

No, the obvious question is, "why does Bernie and his staff panic if things don't go exactly as planned?". This is yet another example of Bernie's campaign not knowing what to do when they get challenged in a way they aren't expecting.

And what do you do with the conclusion you take from that? You just look at it floating in a vacuum?

 

[Trouble]

Oh man, there hasn't been a thread with Benji trolling the crap out of everyone in a while. Except PoliGAF, but everyone is on to him there.

popcorn.gif, etc

 

[Veritigo_X]

Pretty much. The entirety of r/politics is monitored by Bernie supporters that "but Hilary" any negative links about sanders. The only one I can think of that bucks the trend is Bernies pro-gun history. At least liberals were cognizant enough to call it like they saw it in that instance. But literally every other bad story about Bernie is diverted into a comparison to Hilary. Nearly all of the polling data about him is relative to Hilary. I wish they would sell him on his own merits more.

He's certified Not Hillary™, that's one of his biggest selling points.

 

[Foffy]

What would you prefer?

Ideally? Someone who is honest about everything, as much as possible.

Does that mean such a candidate is dead in America? Well, yes...but I'd still like to see the bluntness of "here's what is" without any spin.

 

[Jawbreaker]

Pretty much. The entirety of r/politics is monitored by Bernie supporters that "but Hilary" any negative links about sanders. The only one I can think of that bucks the trend is Bernies pro-gun history. At least liberals were cognizant enough to call it like they saw it in that instance. But literally every other bad story about Bernie is diverted into a comparison to Hilary. Nearly all of the polling data about him is relative to Hilary. I wish they would sell him on his own merits more.

Isn't "but Hillary" a necessary point of comparison when looking at the pros and cons of a candidate in an upcoming election? I get that it's silly if it's only being used to deflect criticism from Bernie Sanders, but it still serves a legitimate purpose if those are the only two viable options for some people. If there's a key issue a candidate isn't meeting for you, you'll also want to see if the opposing candidate's position is similar, better, or worse.

 

[noshten]

No, the obvious question is, "why does Bernie and his staff panic if things don't go exactly as planned?". This is yet another example of Bernie's campaign not knowing what to do when they get challenged in a way they aren't expecting.

Nope what you are describing is what you want to equate this event to and pushing that agenda in this very thread. You haven't addressed my question about the alternative.

No one has addressed why Sanders is the only candidate address Transgender rights after being challenged in such a fashion, if he was so afraid he wouldn't alter his position and campaign based on the feedback he has received from TG activists or BLM. He would shut them down and continue with his original stump speech while not allowing people on the podium to relay their position.

 

[Valhelm]

Ideally? Someone who is honest about everything, as much as possible.

Does that mean such a candidate is dead in America? Well, yes...but I'd still like to see the bluntness of "here's what is" without any spin.

I think Sanders' Israel-Palestine statement does that pretty well.

 

[Kthulhu]

Question; Is it an oxymoron to say that you believe in Israels right to exist, but that you disapprove of the unequal treatment of the Palestinian people?

I wonder if you can be pro-Israel but basically be Anti Israeli-Government-and-Policy?


Is this viewpoint hypocrisy in your guys opinion?

It's only hypocrisy in the US.

Welcome to the politics of one of, if not the, most powerful countries on the planet.

 

[JordanN]

And yet. And yet they are the only thing a number of palestinian have. Who else is there? What is there for palestinian people between rising in anger or watching as Israel's illegal settlements are slowly spilling into their lands.

The Palestinians get a lot of support (or more than than you think they do). Go back as far as 1948,and they didn't go to war with Israelis all by themselves. Also look at aid that also comes all around the world for them.

On the flip-side, Israel isn't magically supported by the world either.

 

[Deleted member 13876]

Hillary Clinton has penned a letter to mega-donor Haim Saban and Jewish organization leaders expressing her strong and unequivocal support for Israel in the face of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement, known as “BDS.”

Hillary getting that Power Ranger money.

 

[Subpar Spatula]

Appears to be the work of a staff member. He's now banned from events. Apologies were given. Shouldn't that be the end of this or is there something Bernie did after that continued this ruckus?

 

[Dogtooth]

Appears to be the work of a staff member. He's now banned from events. Apologies were given. Shouldn't that be the end of this or is there something Bernie did after that continued this ruckus?

That assuages the idea that the Sanders' campaign won't tolerate criticism.

But it doesn't change the substance of Sander's position on Israel/Palestine.

 

[googleplex]

No by voting Green, I vote for the Green party. My job isn't to make sure the Republicans lose. My job is to vote for who I think is best capable of running the country. This sports fan like attitude among voters is why new ideas can't come in fast enough. Liberals that are mad at Ralph Nader for his support are not really liberals. They are fans of the Democrat party and only want their team to win nothing more.

Yeah, no. There are larger issues at stake then self-righteousness. The next president could possibly nominated the next two supreme Court justices and that will definitely shape the direction of this country for the next 30 years.

Just think about how different this county would be right now if that Ralph Naser fuckery hadn't happen.

 

[Mr.Monitor]

All this further concretes the impression I get that Bernie and his staff are pretty out of touch with each other. Speaking from the perspective of someone who basically sees Bernie as the one candidate I'd potentially be willing to back, I really hope they get more organized and in line with each other, because I'm becoming increasingly worried that his personal positions don't necessarily mirror those of his campaign, and vice versa. That's a pretty severe worry to have at this point in the game, and it meshes poorly with Bernie's so far awful track record of conflict resolution and flexibility.

 

[Chariot]

The Palestinians get a lot of support (or more than than you think they do). Go back as far as 1948,and they didn't go to war with Israelis all by themselves. Also look at aid that also comes all around the world for them.

On the flip-side, Israel isn't magically supported by the world either.

Israel has the strongest force, the western nations on their side, with the other big nations mostly shrugging. Palestine has some indirect support from countries that just hate Israel and currently hold their feet still. Israel is this very moment oppressing the people of palestine and invading their territory. I can't see how the palestinians are not the underdogs compared to Israel. They're not on the same level.

That assuages the idea that the Sanders' campaign won't tolerate criticism.

But it doesn't change the substance of Sander's position on Israel/Palestine.

To have a two-state solution and to stop illegal settlements? This is his stand on the issue:

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been one of the world’s most difficult and intractable disputes for more than sixty years. Moreover, the failure to resolve that crisis has helped fuel other conflicts in the region. Senator Sanders has long supported a two-state solution that recognizes Israel’s right to exist in peace and security, and the Palestinians right to a homeland in which they control their political and economic future.

The most recent violence in Gaza represented a particularly ugly and violent time in the dispute. Senator Sanders strongly condemned indiscriminate rocket fire by Hamas into Israeli territory, and Hamas’ use of civilian neighborhoods to launch those attacks. However, while recognizing that Israel has the right to defend itself, he also strongly condemned Israeli attacks on Gaza as disproportionate and the widespread killing of civilians as completely unacceptable.

The U.S. must play a leading role in creating a two-state solution, which will require significant compromises from both sides. The Palestinians must unequivocally recognize Israel’s right to exist, and hold accountable those who have committed terrorist acts. The Israelis must end the blockade of Gaza, and cease developing settlements on Palestinian land. Both sides must negotiate in good faith regarding all other outstanding issues that stand in the way of a durable and lasting peace in the region. In the meantime, strict adherence, by all sides, to the tenets of international humanitarian law is necessary in order to avoid escalating the conflict yet again.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

No by voting Green, I vote for the Green party. My job isn't to make sure the Republicans lose. My job is to vote for who I think is best capable of running the country. This sports fan like attitude among voters is why new ideas can't come in fast enough. Liberals that are mad at Ralph Nader for his support are not really liberals. They are fans of the Democrat party and only want their team to win nothing more.

The GOP appreciates your Green vote. Helped them win.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

The GOP appreciates your Green vote. Helped them win.

I vote green in california. Israel appreciates your apathetic sanctimony, helps them win.

 

[Clefargle]

Isn't "but Hillary" a necessary point of comparison when looking at the pros and cons of a candidate in an upcoming election? I get that it's silly if it's only being used to deflect criticism from Bernie Sanders, but it still serves a legitimate purpose if those are the only two viable options for some people. If there's a key issue a candidate isn't meeting for you, you'll also want to see if the opposing candidate's position is similar, better, or worse.

It's fine as a point of camparison. I mean, he does have to beat her first to win. But as a response to negativity on Bernie it falls flat.

 

[Dogtooth]

Yeah, no. There are larger issues at stake then self-righteousness. The next president could possibly nominated the next two supreme Court justices and that will definitely shape the direction of this country for the next 30 years.

It depends where you're at politically, I think. Like I don't accept this kind of political blackmail that you have to vote for someone you strongly disagree with just because of crazy Republicans. It's not about self-rigeousness, it's about having a Democracy.

When I look at the totality of Obama's record, I have to say there isn't much to be positive about. I'd rather vote for policies I believe in and lose than vote for policies I disagree with and win. I see no evidence to suggest that Clinton won't be far worse than Obama. Hell, I strongly supported Obama over Clinton last time around.

If Democrats don't pay a political price for being a pro-war, pro-corporate party, they won't change.

Just think about how different this county would be right now if that Ralph Naser fuckery hadn't happen.

Gore won a majority of votes in Florida. Nader's percentage didn't make a difference. The Supreme Court still would've handed the election to Bush.

 

[Bronx-Man]

Yeah, no. There are larger issues at stake then self-righteousness. The next president could possibly nominated the next two supreme Court justices and that will definitely shape the direction of this country for the next 30 years.

Just think about how different this county would be right now if that Ralph Naser fuckery hadn't happen.

I don't even know what Supreme Court Justices are, you fake liberal!

 

[Cheebo]

If Democrats don't pay a political price for being a pro-war, pro-corporate party, they won't change.

You know if the Democrats lose you aren't sending them a message they aren't liberal enough right? Typically if the Democrats start losing multiple Presidential elections in a row (see 1980, 1984, 1988) they go to the RIGHT in hopes of winning over the voters that voted Republican. It is why we got the DLC movement to try to make the party more centrist that Bill Clinton emerged from.

What you are doing is two fold.
1. Helping the Republican win if you live in a swing state.
2. Telling the Democratic party they need to be more centrist to win.

Those are the two results, you are cutting off your own nose to spite your face whether you see it that way or not. That is the result.

Voting third party helps Republican secure election victories to enact more conservative policies than any Democrat ever would and causes the Democratic party to lurch right to try to appeal to Republican voters. You may feel better by voting third party, but the country is the one that suffers as a result.

Gore won a majority of votes in Florida. Nader's percentage didn't make a difference. The Supreme Court still would've handed the election to Bush.

You know how you avoid that happening? Making sure the candidate who would stack the SC with judges like the ones who shut down the recount don't win!

You ironically just proved how important picking Supreme Court justices are.

 

[Dogtooth]

You know if the Democrats lose you aren't sending them a message they aren't liberal enough right? Typically if the Democrats start losing multiple Presidential elections in a row (see 1980, 1984, 1988) they go to the RIGHT in hopes of winning over the voters that voted Republican. It is why we got the DLC movement to try to make the party more centrist that Bill Clinton emerged from.

What you are doing is two fold.
1. Helping the Republican win if you live in a swing state.
2. Telling the Democratic party they need to be more centrist to win.

Those are the two results, you are cutting off your own nose to spite your face whether you see it that way or not. That is the result.

Voting third party helps Republican secure election victories to enact more conservative policies than any Democrat ever would and causes the Democratic party to lurch right to try to appeal to Republican voters. You may feel better about yourself by voting third party, but the country is the one that suffers as a result.

You're assuming I have some obligation to support a particular party. This is a strange psychology.

I'm doing active work to elect independent socialists at a grassroots level. To a large extent the Democratic party is more of an impediment to my efforts than the Republicans. Right now, Democrats are plowing an absurd amount of money into a city council race in Seattle. The socialist incumbent Kshama Sawant is facing off against a well-funded corporate Democrat named Pamela Banks.

If the Democrats were allies to my political beliefs, they'd run Banks against one of the Republican city council members. Instead they're spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to unseat Sawant, who has very high approval ratings and was a major force behind the $15 Minimum Wage movement currently sweeping the nation.

 

[pgtl_10]

It's not a sports fan attitude.

If your realistic options are A or B (only A or B can win), choosing option C is just you being individualistic and principled, and answerable only to yourself. It does nothing for society. You won't settle because you think you're too good for the system, and then complain when the system doesn't reflect you or moves too slow to reflect you. You get mad at other people who are less idealistic and more pragmatic than you. It's not about teams, it's about the actual future, not your principled idealistic future that doesn't come at the speed of light.

So what if people vote Democratic or Republican? They're the ones who get to have a say, who get to change something. Unless the system changes (which requires you vote for the people who can change it from the inside), your third party vote will be meaningless. Blame the system, blame other people, blame everyone but yourself, sure.

You're making a lot of assumptions about me being mad but know nothing of me.

When I vote for Green then it counts as a vote for Green. My vote is not meaningless. It counts exactly how I intend it.

You claim that I blame everyone but myself. Who I am blaming? I merely comment that the team fanboy mentality in politics prevents new ideas coming to the forefront quicker.

I'm doing what is exactly what a democracy requests of me. I vote for who I want to lead. I have no duty to support a party and certainly no duty to society to support a party.

A vote for a third party is exactly what it is. It is as meaningful as a vote for a mainstream party. If liberals or conservatives are mad at third party voters because their team lost an election then they should look to their party's position and why they did not appeal to enough voters rather than claim that a third party voter is duty bound to vote for them.

Sorry but your post comes off very condescending.

 

[pgtl_10]

Yeah, no. There are larger issues at stake then self-righteousness. The next president could possibly nominated the next two supreme Court justices and that will definitely shape the direction of this country for the next 30 years.

Just think about how different this county would be right now if that Ralph Naser fuckery hadn't happen.

Uh no. Just think how different the country would be if democrats would appeal to enough voters.

 

[pgtl_10]

This is the kind of stuff that just drives me absolutely insane. Who are any of us to tell someone what they are or what they aren't. If you say you're a liberal, you're a liberal. Ralph Nader fucked over the 2000 election. Not just in Florida, but elsewhere as well. (Especially New Hampshire) Was Nader the sole reason Gore lost? No. Gore made some mistakes, especially running away from Clinton.

The shit that our country went through (in part because of) Ralph Nader's inflated view of self-importance, quite literally, nearly destroyed our country. It fucked over our economy. Caused the loss of thousands of Americans and god knows how many Iraqis.

So, ya, as a liberal who has worked for a decade to get liberal candidates into office up and down ballot, I can be pissed at what Nader helped to achieve. .

Except Nader did not take the US to war and Nader did not commit 9/11. You're making broad accusations and putting his election bid as proximate cause to events that he could not have possibly influenced nor were foreseeable.

Nader didn't ruin Al Gore's chances. Al Gore couldn't enough people to vote for him. That's Gore's problem.

 

[Dogtooth]

One thing I don't understand about the anti-Nader sentiment: Did Nader more suitably fit your political beliefs? Are you mad because you didn't like his program, or were you mad because he was too successful as a candidate?

 

[lednerg]

This story reeks of desperation.

 

[Wall]

For anyone who cares, here are the links to descriptions of Sander's gun control plan I was talking about earlier. I apologize for not being able to post them from mobile.

bernie-sanders-says-he-is-pulling-together-a-plan-to-address-gun-violence

Washington Post
As he has in recent days, Sanders cited several measures he can support, including a strengthened system of instant background checks, closure of the “gun-show loophole,” a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons “designed strictly for killing human beings” and far greater investments in mental health.

In this article he talks about building consensus on the issue:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/255741-sanders-sees-consensus-for-serious-gun-control

“I think there is a consensus for serious gun control, including among people who own guns. And I think that’s what we have to bring about," Sanders told host Chris Hayes on MSNBC’s “All In" after a rampage in Oregon left 10 dead.

“What we need, Chris, as a nation is to get beyond all the shouting,” Sanders told Hayes. “You know, you got some people who want to ban every gun in America and some people believe nothing at all.”

“I think the vast majority of the American people, as the president indicated, including gun owners — I know that’s true here in Vermont — want sensible gun control legislation,” he added.

So yeah, he has a gun control plan, but it is most probably more moderate than those of the other Democratic candidates. I get the feeling allowing suits against gun manufactures will be the sticking point, along with a less aggressive plan for executive action; although, I don't know for sure. I imagine details will be released later in the week.

Either way, if you are looking for the farthest left candidate on gun control, Sanders isn't it. On the other hand, Sander's position might be more palatable to voters in rural areas where the Democrats have been losing since 2010 - at least that is the intent, I think.

 

[Damaniel]

I'll absolutely vote for Sanders if he wins the primary (ha!), but his supporters and their Ron Paul supporter-like fetishism of the guy are a huge turnoff. Hint: he's still a politician, and he's not perfect (his pro-gun stances make me especially uncomfortable, for example), so don't feel like you have to dig up a relevant quote from the Sanders treasure trove every time someone points out a flaw in his campaign or policies.

 

[Wall]

I'll absolutely vote for Sanders if he wins the primary (ha!), but his supporters and their Ron Paul supporter-like fetishism of the guy are a huge turnoff. Hint: he's still a politician, and he's not perfect (his pro-gun stances make me especially uncomfortable, for example), so don't feel like you have to dig up a relevant quote from the Sanders treasure trove every time someone points out a flaw in his campaign or policies.

If this is directed at me, I was posting in response to people who asked for the links. Have a nice day.

 

[Veritigo_X]

If this is directed at me, I was posting in response to people who asked for the links. Have a nice day.

I think it was directed at Sander's supporters in general since they like to do that. No need to get so defensive.

 

[GYODX]

I like how people are angry that his views on issues aren't uniformly left-wing. What is nuance?

Him being pro-Israel is a plus for me.

 

[lednerg]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hnw2bPcEros

I think that's the smart road to take rather than jumping in the pro or anti side of things.