Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Obama deserves a second term


Off-Topic Discussions

151 to 200 of 810 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

This thread is a singularity of fail.


Heard an interesting argument for voting for Obama the other day. Basically how within days of his inauguration high level republican politicians, news pundits and talk heads voiced a strategy of not allowing him to succeed at anything to increase the odds of making him a 1-term president. Before he even did anything. If he won, it would partially be a message that that kind of strategy isn't desired from our leaders.


So my theory has been this about the Obama presidency.
The one thing he promised, more than anything else, was a change to how business was done in Washington. He planned to reach across the aisle and cooperate with Republicans, and to bring respect and decorum to proceedings. All Republicans had to do to deny him this victory is not cooperate, and that's exactly what we've seen. Republicans not hip to this strategy, those who want to cooperate, are intimidated and drummed out of the party.

Qadira

meatrace wrote:

So my theory has been this about the Obama presidency.

The one thing he promised, more than anything else, was a change to how business was done in Washington. He planned to reach across the aisle and cooperate with Republicans, and to bring respect and decorum to proceedings. All Republicans had to do to deny him this victory is not cooperate, and that's exactly what we've seen. Republicans not hip to this strategy, those who want to cooperate, are intimidated and drummed out of the party.

Do you really think democrats are any better?

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Andrew R wrote:
Do you really think democrats are any better?

Does that excuse either of them for doing it?


bugleyman wrote:
This thread is a singularity of fail.

It's always that way with political threads. I wish it had stayed the light hearted conversation poking fun at politics in general. Alas people falsely think that others care about their opinions so they share them.

I would wager that no one's mind has been changed by anything said about politics between now and the election.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
I would wager that no one's mind has been changed by anything said about politics between now and the election.

I fold.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Andrew R wrote:
meatrace wrote:

So my theory has been this about the Obama presidency.

The one thing he promised, more than anything else, was a change to how business was done in Washington. He planned to reach across the aisle and cooperate with Republicans, and to bring respect and decorum to proceedings. All Republicans had to do to deny him this victory is not cooperate, and that's exactly what we've seen. Republicans not hip to this strategy, those who want to cooperate, are intimidated and drummed out of the party.
Do you really think democrats are any better?

Look at statistics on filibusters in the Senate. Yes, I do.

Qadira

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Do you really think democrats are any better?
Does that excuse either of them for doing it?

Nope, they both suck and both are taking turns ruining this nation. Saying one is worse so you side with the other is still siding WITH the ruin of this nation.

Qadira

Caineach wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
meatrace wrote:

So my theory has been this about the Obama presidency.

The one thing he promised, more than anything else, was a change to how business was done in Washington. He planned to reach across the aisle and cooperate with Republicans, and to bring respect and decorum to proceedings. All Republicans had to do to deny him this victory is not cooperate, and that's exactly what we've seen. Republicans not hip to this strategy, those who want to cooperate, are intimidated and drummed out of the party.
Do you really think democrats are any better?
Look at statistics on filibusters in the Senate. Yes, I do.

Wait until we get the next republican in office and see what happens.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.


PJSlavner wrote:
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

I want to start a write in campaign for Martin Sheen. He did so well on The West Wing.


How can you tell when a politician is lying? When they open their mouth.


Sharoth wrote:
How can you tell when a politician is lying? When they open their mouth.

What do you call 20 poloticians buried up to their necks in sand?

A good start.

Paizo Employee Paizo Glitterati Robot

Removed a post and a response. Please don't resort to outright antagonizing other posters. This doesn't promote community friendliness.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

Alas people falsely think that others care about their opinions so they share them.

I would wager that no one's mind has been changed by anything said about politics between now and the election.

Just because I never change my mind doesn't mean I don't care about your opinion, TCG.

And, did you get to go to the RNC, Comrade Knife? (You stooge of the plutocracy.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
A Man In Black wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
This, by God, this. Although I think we should cut the police too. Not local patrolmen and women, but DEA, TSA, DHS, BATFE, and the FBI could use a good shaking up too. It'll never happen as long as we keep electing democrats and republicans, though. I'd be happy if they offset some of those cuts with some hiring in internal affairs for the gutted departments. Except the TSA and probably the DEA, I'd just rid of them completely.

Speaking of the TSA.

Reversing Bush's stance against allowing them to organize and bargain collectively is one of Obama's (few and small) labor accomplishments. They later joined the AFGE (apologies for linking the Daily Caller).

My god.

Obama came right out of the gate endorsing that mass teacher firing in Rhode Island (or Mass, I don't remember where). He oversaw the ripping up of years of UAW language as a precondition for the auto bailouts. He dropped the Employee Free Choice Act. Instead of making an appearance in Wisconsin, he hung out with David Cote while Honeywell was trying (did?) to bust its unions and sends its jobs overseas. The Affordable Care Act has a provision aiming to gut hard-won, union health-care plans. Right at this moment, his boy, Rahm Emanuel, is facing off against the Chicago Teachers Union.

But he let the f#$~ing TSA organize?!?

[Sighs]


CNN wrote:

The facts:

The number Castro cites is an accurate description of the growth of private-sector jobs since January 2010, when the long, steep slide in employment finally hit bottom. But while a total of 4.5 million jobs sounds great, it's not the whole picture.

Nonfarm private payrolls hit a post-recession low of 106.8 million that month, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The figure currently stands at 111.3 million as of July.

While that is indeed a gain of 4.5 million, it's only a net gain of 300,000 over the course of the Obama administration to date. The private jobs figure stood at 111 million in January 2009, the month Obama took office.

And total nonfarm payrolls, including government workers, are down from 133.6 million workers at the beginning of 2009 to 133.2 million in July 2012. There's been a net loss of nearly 1 million public-sector jobs since Obama took office, despite a surge in temporary hiring for the 2010 census.

Meanwhile, the jobs that have come back aren't the same ones that were lost.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
This, by God, this. Although I think we should cut the police too. Not local patrolmen and women, but DEA, TSA, DHS, BATFE, and the FBI could use a good shaking up too. It'll never happen as long as we keep electing democrats and republicans, though. I'd be happy if they offset some of those cuts with some hiring in internal affairs for the gutted departments. Except the TSA and probably the DEA, I'd just rid of them completely.

Speaking of the TSA.

Reversing Bush's stance against allowing them to organize and bargain collectively is one of Obama's (few and small) labor accomplishments. They later joined the AFGE (apologies for linking the Daily Caller).

My god.

Obama came right out of the gate endorsing that mass teacher firing in Rhode Island (or Mass, I don't remember where). He oversaw the ripping up of years of UAW language as a precondition for the auto bailouts. He dropped the Employee Free Choice Act. Instead of making an appearance in Wisconsin, he hung out with David Cote while Honeywell was trying (did?) to bust its unions and sends its jobs overseas. The Affordable Care Act has a provision aiming to gut hard-won, union health-care plans. Right at this moment, his boy, Rahm Emanuel, is facing off against the Chicago Teachers Union.

But he let the f*+$ing TSA organize?!?

[Sighs]

He did say "one of Obama's (few and small) labor accomplishments".


Kryzbyn wrote:
CNN wrote:

The facts:

The number Castro cites is an accurate description of the growth of private-sector jobs since January 2010, when the long, steep slide in employment finally hit bottom. But while a total of 4.5 million jobs sounds great, it's not the whole picture.

Nonfarm private payrolls hit a post-recession low of 106.8 million that month, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The figure currently stands at 111.3 million as of July.

While that is indeed a gain of 4.5 million, it's only a net gain of 300,000 over the course of the Obama administration to date. The private jobs figure stood at 111 million in January 2009, the month Obama took office.

And total nonfarm payrolls, including government workers, are down from 133.6 million workers at the beginning of 2009 to 133.2 million in July 2012. There's been a net loss of nearly 1 million public-sector jobs since Obama took office, despite a surge in temporary hiring for the 2010 census.

Meanwhile, the jobs that have come back aren't the same ones that were lost.

All truth, but not quite fair. It's a little rough to blame Obama for jobs being lost in the first months of his administration. It certainly wasn't his policies that were causing the recession. Job losses slowed after the stimulus passed and hiring started, albeit slowly, by the end of the year. How many of those losses should Obama be responsible for? Economies don't turn on a dime.

And it's hard for the "cut bloated government" party to complain about the loss of public sector jobs. I'll complain about. I think the government should have been hiring, not cutting. But you certainly can't argue that Romney plans to reverse that trend.
I've said here before, without the public sector losses, pushed by "austerity" minded Republicans with plenty of Democrats eager to ditch the "big government" label, unemployment numbers and thus the economy would look much better. We'd be hovering above 7%, not 8%.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
He did say "one of Obama's (few and small) labor accomplishments".

Oh, I saw it. Believe me, my tone would've been much different if I hadn't. I probably would have yelled more and called someone a stooge.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
Wait until we get the next republican in office and see what happens.

Will it be inflation-adjusted government spending falling for the first time since Richard Nixon?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
meatrace wrote:

So my theory has been this about the Obama presidency.

The one thing he promised, more than anything else, was a change to how business was done in Washington. He planned to reach across the aisle and cooperate with Republicans, and to bring respect and decorum to proceedings. All Republicans had to do to deny him this victory is not cooperate, and that's exactly what we've seen. Republicans not hip to this strategy, those who want to cooperate, are intimidated and drummed out of the party.
Do you really think democrats are any better?

YES.

Show me one time democrats haven't been willing to compromise on something. They have the spines of jellyfish.


Andrew R wrote:
meatrace wrote:

So my theory has been this about the Obama presidency.

The one thing he promised, more than anything else, was a change to how business was done in Washington. He planned to reach across the aisle and cooperate with Republicans, and to bring respect and decorum to proceedings. All Republicans had to do to deny him this victory is not cooperate, and that's exactly what we've seen. Republicans not hip to this strategy, those who want to cooperate, are intimidated and drummed out of the party.
Do you really think democrats are any better?

You do realize that for years and years, the private insurance mandate was a republican idea.

Obama's stimulus package changed before it was passed. They reduced spending and included tax cuts. That is the exact definition of compromise. You can argue that it wasn't enough, etc... but it's still the EXACT definition of compromise.

Obama's cap and trade is essentially the same law that Bush Sr. signed into law back in 1990, which also got 'aye' votes from Mitch McConnell and Newt Gingrich. The 1990 bill applied to sulfur dioxide, which helped reduce the problem of acid rain in this country.

Taldor

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Sharoth wrote:
How can you tell when a politician is lying? When they open their mouth.

What do you call 20 politicians buried up to their necks in sand?

A good start.

I thought the correct punchline to that joke was "Not enough sand"


Guy Humual wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Sharoth wrote:
How can you tell when a politician is lying? When they open their mouth.

What do you call 20 politicians buried up to their necks in sand?

A good start.

I thought the correct punchline to that joke was "Not enough sand"

That too.

It's a joke. I don't believe it's a right/wrong situation.

Shadow Lodge

Guy Humual wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Sharoth wrote:
How can you tell when a politician is lying? When they open their mouth.

What do you call 20 politicians buried up to their necks in sand?

A good start.

I thought the correct punchline to that joke was "Not enough sand"

The best view of a politicians feet ever.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's some more:
What do you have when you have a thousand politicians at the bottom of the sea? A good start.

How many politicians does it take to shingle a roof? Depends on how thinly you slice them.

What's black and brown and looks good on a politician? A doberman.

What's the difference between a politician and a trampoline? People take their shoes off to jump on the trampoline.

What's the difference between a dead skunk and a dead politician on the side of the road? There's screech marks in front of the skunk.

In all seriousness though there are a lot of people that get into politics because they want to do good and change the world for the better. Most of those folks probably leave politics shortly afterwards because of how nasty the business is. I for one blame you the voter. If we didn't vote and reward nasty/dirty campaign ads campaigns wouldn't use them. Like it or not we have the politicians we deserve. Not all of them are bad people but the kind of people that politics rewards aren't always honest and forthright.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:

Here's some more:

What do you have when you have a thousand politicians at the bottom of the sea? A good start.

How many politicians does it take to shingle a roof? Depends on how thinly you slice them.

What's black and brown and looks good on a politician? A doberman.

What's the difference between a politician and a trampoline? People take their shoes off to jump on the trampoline.

What's the difference between a dead skunk and a dead politician on the side of the road? There's screech marks in front of the skunk.

In all seriousness though there are a lot of people that get into politics because they want to do good and change the world for the better. Most of those folks probably leave politics shortly afterwards because of how nasty the business is. I for one blame you the voter. If we didn't vote and reward nasty/dirty campaign ads campaigns wouldn't use them. Like it or not we have the politicians we deserve. Not all of them are bad people but the kind of people that politics rewards aren't always honest and forthright.

I tend to agree with this. I admit that i am totally disgusted with the american political system and something needs to change. It'll have to be a majoral cultural shift, but I really dont know what or how.


Nothing will change while food is affordable.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let alone flatscreen TVs...


Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:
Learn to read. 40% of Americans pay no federal income taxes.

And 90% of such figures are completely made up. Here are some more important statistics that are sure to contribute to the discussion (I won't bother to link any sources, because these are all common knowledge):

  • 47.8% of Democrats are Communist Muslim terrorists.
  • 98% of Republicans meet the clinical diagnosis for sociopathic personality disorder.
  • 50% of illegal aliens crossing the border from Mexico are actually Al Quaida operatives.
  • 12% of the New York Yankees actually own 324% of the Red Sox.
  • 100% of the above statistics are numbers I pulled out of the air.

    Remember, "it's not news, it's entertainment!" So 'news' channels can cite whatever made-up numbers they want, even if they're outright fabrications.


  • 82.6% of all statistics are made up.

    News at 11.


    So here's as concise a description of the current political landscape:

    The Democrats are trying to mollify the labor force with bread and circuses.

    The Republicans' plan is to make you pay for your own bread and circuses.

    Paizo Employee Paizo Glitterati Robot

    Removed a post. Keep it clean, please.

    Qadira

    I'd just be a lot happier if lobbyists were removed from the equation. I don't know if term limits are the answer, but the moment congressmen start accepting outside money, heck even money for their campaign, whatever possible neutrality they've had is lost, unless of course they don't expect to have more than one term in office.

    We need to rise above huge corporate donations, private interests, lobbyists, corporate loopholes, greed, and personal want. Congress is a job of service, and should not be considered a career.

    I am not sure what to say about the Presidency itself outside of the fact I think we should refer to our current President as such, Pres. Obama, not Mr. Obama. I think it says a lot about a person's character when they don't use proper honoriffics.

    Anyway, these are my thoughts on the matter. Thank you for reading.

    RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Mr. is the correct honorific for the US president. In particular, using Mr. Obama (or Bush, Clinton, Reagan, etc.) on second and subsequent references is part of the NYT's style guide, and has been for decades.


    Zerombr wrote:

    I'd just be a lot happier if lobbyists were removed from the equation. I don't know if term limits are the answer, but the moment congressmen start accepting outside money, heck even money for their campaign, whatever possible neutrality they've had is lost, unless of course they don't expect to have more than one term in office.

    We need to rise above huge corporate donations, private interests, lobbyists, corporate loopholes, greed, and personal want. Congress is a job of service, and should not be considered a career.

    Term limits aren't a solution. They'd just make the revolving door spin faster. You'd still need to suck up the corporate donations to get elected the first time. You'd still need them to run for another office. And if you weren't doing that, they'd be promising you a cushy job when you left.

    I've tossed around the idea of unlimited, but not consecutive, terms. That would fix the problem of fund-raising and campaigning while you're supposed to be running the country. It wouldn't address the revolving door problem.

    It's all moot without a Constitutional amendment though and if we were taking that route I'd rather aim it at campaign contributions and spending directly rather than at term limits.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    How about: all campaigns for federal positions (president, congress, senate) paid for publicly.

    It can be paid for by a change to FCC regulations. Increase the amount of informational programming required, but allow them to substitute some hours for credits that are awarded to the candidates for TV advertising spots. Require that they be equal (i.e. reinstate equal time provisions). The time could also be spent televising debates in prime time.


    Guy Humual wrote:
    ...In all seriousness though there are a lot of people that get into politics because they want to do good and change the world for the better. Most of those folks probably leave politics shortly afterwards because of how nasty the business is. I for one blame you the voter. If we didn't vote and reward nasty/dirty campaign ads campaigns wouldn't use them. Like it or not we have the politicians we deserve. Not all of them are bad people but the kind of people that politics rewards aren't always honest and forthright.

    There are two kinds of politicians: The unsuccessful and the corrupt. Can corrupt politicians still try to do good? Sure, but that always comes after helping those to whom they are beholden. This will never change until we get the money out of politics (i.e. the opposite of Citizens United).


    bugleyman wrote:
    Guy Humual wrote:
    ...In all seriousness though there are a lot of people that get into politics because they want to do good and change the world for the better. Most of those folks probably leave politics shortly afterwards because of how nasty the business is. I for one blame you the voter. If we didn't vote and reward nasty/dirty campaign ads campaigns wouldn't use them. Like it or not we have the politicians we deserve. Not all of them are bad people but the kind of people that politics rewards aren't always honest and forthright.
    There are two kinds of politicians: The unsuccessful and the corrupt. Can corrupt politicians still try to do good? Sure, but that always comes after helping those to whom they are beholden. This will never change until we get the money out of politics (i.e. the opposite of Citizens United).

    I think that goes too far. Sure, no one who's successful in politics is pure. They all compromise their ethics, they all sell out.

    But just saying they're all corrupt loses the important difference between those who still try to do the right thing as long as that's compatible with staying in office and those who're really just out to loot what they can. Those who can't even follow Congress's loose ethics rules are a special breed.

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
    Paul DiAndrea wrote:
    Guy Humual wrote:
    Anyone notice that the financially stable governments like Canada and Sweden are also the ones with the higher tax rates? And countries with 0% corporate tax like Ireland are financially unstable?

    You're cherry picking examples. Greece, Italy, and Spain have pretty high tax rates and are all on the verge of financial collapse.

    The difference is efficency of their government, not the rate at which they tax.

    Perhaps not scuttling the public sphere to give it all to your wealthy cronies might have something to do with it as well.

    Taldor

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    The one thing that bothers me about US politics right now is the apparent inability of either side to reach across the floor and work with the other side for the betterment of the Country. One of the things I like about the American system is that it was built with that ability in mind and the lack of cooperation in these economic times is disgraceful. Let's not point fingers, saying one side is more to blame then the other doesn't fix the problem, but if Obama gets a second term, maybe we can see a bit more cooperation in the house and senate. I'm not asking people to like each other but your job is looking after your constituent, maybe this time they could spend more time doing that then trying to score political points or please your party. Compromise is what you're supposed to be looking for and if you can't do that then you have no business putting your name into the ring.

    Qadira

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    meatrace wrote:

    How about: all campaigns for federal positions (president, congress, senate) paid for publicly.

    It can be paid for by a change to FCC regulations. Increase the amount of informational programming required, but allow them to substitute some hours for credits that are awarded to the candidates for TV advertising spots. Require that they be equal (i.e. reinstate equal time provisions). The time could also be spent televising debates in prime time.

    I say give them ONE commercial to run on tv ONE for radio, ONE website. Maybe by limiting them they will say what THEY WILL DO instead of flooding the media with attack adds.


    Andrew R wrote:
    ]I say give them ONE commercial to run on tv ONE for radio, ONE website. Maybe by limiting them they will say what THEY WILL DO AND HOW instead of flooding the media with attack adds.

    I added that bit there. It's actually important.

    EDIT: And "By making the hard decisions..." is not an acceptable response.

    Taldor

    Andrew R wrote:
    meatrace wrote:

    How about: all campaigns for federal positions (president, congress, senate) paid for publicly.

    It can be paid for by a change to FCC regulations. Increase the amount of informational programming required, but allow them to substitute some hours for credits that are awarded to the candidates for TV advertising spots. Require that they be equal (i.e. reinstate equal time provisions). The time could also be spent televising debates in prime time.

    I say give them ONE commercial to run on tv ONE for radio, ONE website. Maybe by limiting them they will say what THEY WILL DO instead of flooding the media with attack adds.

    That would be a good idea IMO. Maybe we could also make it against the law to tell falsehoods or use sound bites in political ads? Add a fine to any station that knowingly airs such ads. You have the right to free speech but you shouldn't have the right to lie to the public.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Guy Humual wrote:
    The one thing that bothers me about US politics right now is the apparent inability of either side to reach across the floor and work with the other side for the betterment of the Country. One of the things I like about the American system is that it was built with that ability in mind and the lack of cooperation in these economic times is disgraceful. Let's not point fingers, saying one side is more to blame then the other doesn't fix the problem, but if Obama gets a second term, maybe we can see a bit more cooperation in the house and senate. I'm not asking people to like each other but your job is looking after your constituent, maybe this time they could spend more time doing that then trying to score political points or please your party. Compromise is what you're supposed to be looking for and if you can't do that then you have no business putting your name into the ring.

    I don't actually like this attitude. It sounds all very nice in theory and it would be nice if it worked like that.

    But what if it is really one group not cooperating? If your highest priority is "working together", should you compromise more and more to get a deal while the other side holds fast? Always blaming both sides for the lack of cooperation spreads the blame equally and thus rewards the side that does the least.
    Maybe rather than "not pointing fingers", we should actually look at the data and find out if one side is more of a problem than the other and react to that?


    I would think normal Libel or Slander laws would apply, right? Or is that suspended for political discourse?


    Corporal punishment for theft or bald face lying by public officials.

    151 to 200 of 810 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
    Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Obama deserves a second term All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.

    ©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.