Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 11-01-2009, 06:13 PM   #41 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
There won't be a leftist party in the US in the near future. We're not as organized as other progressive countries.

Update on the race: the Republican dropped out and is now putting full support behind the Democrat.
Willravel is offline  
Old 11-01-2009, 07:34 PM   #42 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Yeah moderate Republicans are turning on the crazies, which is a good thing.
Rekna is offline  
Old 11-01-2009, 08:58 PM   #43 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
You'd think so, but the crazies have the microphone. "See?! See?!" they'll scream, "We told you she was with them!!!" and the idiots will nod their collectively empty skulls.
Willravel is offline  
Old 11-02-2009, 01:40 AM   #44 (permalink)
Human
 
SecretMethod70's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
All of this is interesting, but I'm wondering: If the two-party system fractures, will there ever be any real left representation in America?

Let's face it, the Democratic Party is more centre than it is left-centre. And it's no left.

That right parties consider it too far left and left parties consider it too far right is indicative of its centredness.

It's hard to say.

It all depends on whether the government in its current state already adequately represents the political anatomy of the nation. However, considering how centre and right the government has been and for so long, I doubt this is the case. I doubt the American people today are as conservative as their governmental history. I think there are probably many American left-thinking people that are grossly underrepresented if not unrepresented completely.

With that in mind, it's almost silly to me to think that the Republicans are going through a crisis where some think the party isn't right enough.
The two party system won't fracture. The reason we have two parties in America is not simply because people have accepted two parties, it is the natural outcome of plurality voting. Until we change how we count the votes, there will always be two major parties in the long term, with only very short transitional periods should one major party completely fall out of favor.

You're absolutely correct, though, that the centre-right government does not accurately represent the people. When polled on the issues, rather than on the candidates or the parties, Americans are decidedly more liberal than they vote. Collectively, we're centre-left if anything.
__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling
SecretMethod70 is offline  
Old 11-09-2009, 09:19 AM   #45 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
The New York Times > Log In

Wasn't sure exactly which thread to put this in, but this seems close enough. Krugman really nails whats going on right now
Derwood is offline  
Old 11-09-2009, 10:00 AM   #46 (permalink)
WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE!
 
FuglyStick's Avatar
 
Location: Southern Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood View Post
The New York Times > Log In

Wasn't sure exactly which thread to put this in, but this seems close enough. Krugman really nails whats going on right now
I've said it many times before, and I'll say it again--the majority of Republicans are rational, reasoning individuals, but they have allowed themselves to be usurped by the loonies. TAKE YOUR PARTY BACK, GOP. Only then will there be any attempt at consensus or a chance to pull the nation out of it's quagmire.
__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!
FuglyStick is offline  
Old 11-09-2009, 03:06 PM   #47 (permalink)
let me be clear
 
ottopilot's Avatar
 
Location: Waddy Peytona
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuglyStick View Post
I've said it many times before, and I'll say it again--the majority of Republicans are rational, reasoning individuals, but they have allowed themselves to be usurped by the loonies. TAKE YOUR PARTY BACK, GOP. Only then will there be any attempt at consensus or a chance to pull the nation out of it's quagmire.
I think that's exactly what should happen for both parties. Their numbers will continue to decrease where all is left behind are toothless relics... the clueless politicians, unemployed and scratching their heads. Niether parties are truly representing their traditional base. Time to hit the reset button... time to wipe and flush.
__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo
ottopilot is offline  
Old 11-09-2009, 03:19 PM   #48 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
The game is fixed, though. These aren't just lunatic ideologues, they're seasoned and experienced politicians. Sarah Palin will die in her 70s with a full and vibrant career, far more than simply making a fool of herself, she likely will have shaped a lot of what will be of our country. I hate this fact, and I'll fight against it as much as I can, but I'd be naive to simply think Sarah Palin will stop on her own.
Willravel is offline  
Old 11-10-2009, 08:40 AM   #49 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
One thing I don't understand about the concern regarding the future of the Republican Party and the degree that the "base" will exclude moderates is that John McCain the last party nominee for President was moderate (at least in my opinion) and he did not even get an endorsement from another moderate like Colin Powell. Powell endorsing Obama had nothing to do with the "base" in the Republican Party, whatever his issue was, it was with another moderate but when you listened to him he talked about the extremists in the Republican Party, I don't get it. And given that the party nominated a moderate when there were more extreme right alternatives, what is the deal with all the concern about the "base" being in control - they are not and have never been. Bush had to play to the middle to get elected and re-elected. He toned down his "social positions" and he catered to domestic spending to the degree that he lost popularity with the "base". so, again what is the deal? Sara Palin, as much as I like her, is not going to be the 2012 nominee. The odds are it will be a moderate or a person who down plays their conservatism. So again what is the deal? I don't get it. Seems to me that Democrats are as splintered or more splintered than Republicans, especially given their current control of both Houses and the executive branch and their inability to get things done.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 11-10-2009, 08:57 AM   #50 (permalink)
WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE!
 
FuglyStick's Avatar
 
Location: Southern Illinois
The reason Obama has been ineffective is simple--he has spent too much time offering the olive branch to a bunch of idiots. The time for trying to negotiate with the lunatic fringe--you know, people who won't even admit that Obama is an American, or invoke the phrase "death panel"--has LONG passed. Fuck em.
__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!
FuglyStick is offline  
Old 11-10-2009, 11:00 AM   #51 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuglyStick View Post
The reason Obama has been ineffective is simple--he has spent too much time offering the olive branch to a bunch of idiots.
Do you mean like these folks or are you talking about the folks who insisted on the Stupak amendment, also Democrats?

Quote:
A source sends over a working copy of the letter without the signatories, and the source says it currently bears the signatures of 41 House Dems. They’re all vowing to vote No on a bill if it contains the Stupak amendment — enough to sink the bill:

As Members of Congress we believe that women should have access to a full range of reproductive health care. Health care reform must not be misused as an opportunity to restrict women’s access to reproductive health services.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment to H.R. 3962, The Affordable Healthcare for America Act, represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women’s ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled. We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law.
Obtained: In Letter To Pelosi, 41 House Dems Pledge To Vote Against Bill With Anti-Abortion Amendment | The Plum Line
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 11-10-2009, 11:03 AM   #52 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Ace, John McCain was a moderate in 2000, when everyone loved him. In 2008, John McCain's platform was nearly indistinguishable from George W. Bush's. He probably still is a moderate, but the RNC was scared shitless of alienating the base when they've become so vocal and involved, so they pushed McCain to go right. And he did. The only reason he looked like a moderate to people on the right in 2008 is that he was standing next to Sarah Palin. She's one of those more fringe right folks (radical Christian, neoconservative, etc.). John McCain's about a 6 on a scale of -10 to 10, with -10 being pure progressive and 10 being pure conservative. Sarah Palin's about a 12. Obama's about a 1.

I'm a -8.
Willravel is offline  
Old 11-10-2009, 11:21 AM   #53 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
Ace, John McCain was a moderate in 2000, when everyone loved him. In 2008, John McCain's platform was nearly indistinguishable from George W. Bush's.
I recall McCain being critical of Bush on many issues and to me it seemed that he made a point of distancing himself from Bush. On a broader not it turns out that Obama actual actions to date have been indistinguishable from Bush and Democrats have controlled Congress for 3 years and have not taken the country in a materially different direction so far.

Quote:
He probably still is a moderate, but the RNC was scared shitless of alienating the base when they've become so vocal and involved, so they pushed McCain to go right. And he did.
McCain has always shifted to what is popular (my opinion) or main stream. I recall the immigration issue, he moved "right" because the main stream is "right" on that issue. That is one reason you won't see Obama and Democrats tackle the immigration issue any time soon. I am not sure what other issue you think may fit into this category.

Quote:
The only reason he looked like a moderate to people on the right in 2008 is that he was standing next to Sarah Palin.
That is incorrect from my point of view. In the primaries I thought he was the worst choice and the one most willing to compromise his convictions. Palin made him tolerable to the "right".

Quote:
She's one of those more fringe right folks (radical Christian, neoconservative, etc.).
The characterization flies in the face of her actual record in elected office.


Quote:
John McCain's about a 6 on a scale of -10 to 10, with -10 being pure progressive and 10 being pure conservative. Sarah Palin's about a 12. Obama's about a 1.

I'm a -8.
I get confused by these labels. For example I support a woman's right to choose an abortion in the first trimester only and when the fetus is not viable outside the womb however I also support legalization of virtually all illegal drugs. What am I?
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 11-10-2009, 11:26 AM   #54 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
The reason Obama has been ineffective is simple--he has spent too much time offering the olive branch to a bunch of idiots. The time for trying to negotiate with the lunatic fringe--you know, people who won't even admit that Obama is an American, or invoke the phrase "death panel"--has LONG passed. Fuck em.
I had a response to this typed out, but forget it. Won't do any good anyway.

Last edited by The_Dunedan; 11-10-2009 at 11:28 AM..
The_Dunedan is offline  
Old 11-10-2009, 12:45 PM   #55 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
I recall McCain being critical of Bush on many issues and to me it seemed that he made a point of distancing himself from Bush. On a broader not it turns out that Obama actual actions to date have been indistinguishable from Bush and Democrats have controlled Congress for 3 years and have not taken the country in a materially different direction so far.
The Obama thing is probably better for the Bush 3rd term thread, but what would you say were the main functional differences between McCain's platform and the policies of the Bush2 Administration?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
McCain has always shifted to what is popular (my opinion) or main stream. I recall the immigration issue, he moved "right" because the main stream is "right" on that issue. That is one reason you won't see Obama and Democrats tackle the immigration issue any time soon. I am not sure what other issue you think may fit into this category.
It probably wasn't popular for calling Falwell and Robertson "agents of intolerance". That was not a populist move, but seemed to stem from McCain's (former?) character. Similarly, McCain refused to speak at Bob Jones U because of their ban on interracial dating. People, myself included, perked up when we heard about the Republican that was moderate on social issues. Holy shit, we thought, a social moderate and fiscal conservative? Those don't come along very often. Around comes 2008 and he's back to race-baiting in a massive way along with his pal Palin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
That is incorrect from my point of view. In the primaries I thought he was the worst choice and the one most willing to compromise his convictions. Palin made him tolerable to the "right".
McCain is right wing. Sarah Palin is the populist far right. If McCain wanted to govern more than he wanted to win, he would have chosen someone capable of doing the job if something happened to him, like Gingrich (not that I can stand Gingrich, but at least he's got a lot of experience under his belt and he's got a lot of support not just in the base, but among moderates).
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
The characterization flies in the face of her actual record in elected office.
Do you mean mayor of Wasilla or governor of a state that has less people than Baltimore? Her record (charging for rape kits, covering up family scandals, coercion, incompetence, and corruption) all fit perfectly with my description, in fact I was being generous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
I get confused by these labels. For example I support a woman's right to choose an abortion in the first trimester only and when the fetus is not viable outside the womb however I also support legalization of virtually all illegal drugs. What am I?
You're a solid 5 overall.
Willravel is offline  
Old 11-10-2009, 01:15 PM   #56 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
The Obama thing is probably better for the Bush 3rd term thread, but what would you say were the main functional differences between McCain's platform and the policies of the Bush2 Administration?
Just going on memory. Interrogation, Gitmo, Iraq War (strategy), deficits, original TARP, Social Security reform, diplomacy (engaging other nations), transparency, more support of military after they return, Katrina response, to name a few.

Quote:
It probably wasn't popular for calling Falwell and Robertson "agents of intolerance". That was not a populist move, but seemed to stem from McCain's (former?) character. Similarly, McCain refused to speak at Bob Jones U because of their ban on interracial dating. People, myself included, perked up when we heard about the Republican that was moderate on social issues. Holy shit, we thought, a social moderate and fiscal conservative? Those don't come along very often. Around comes 2008 and he's back to race-baiting in a massive way along with his pal Palin.
My recollection was that McCain went out of his way to down play the race issue in the campaign. I recall Democrats in their primaries having a bigger problem on the question of race than McCain. I don't recall Palin making an issue of race, I do recall her making an of Obama's "pals".

Quote:
McCain is right wing. Sarah Palin is the populist far right. If McCain wanted to govern more than he wanted to win, he would have chosen someone capable of doing the job if something happened to him, like Gingrich (not that I can stand Gingrich, but at least he's got a lot of experience under his belt and he's got a lot of support not just in the base, but among moderates).
Is the problem with McCain boiling down to him picking Palin as a running mate?

Quote:
Do you mean mayor of Wasilla or governor of a state that has less people than Baltimore?
Not sure I see the point there, but she has a record as an elected official.

Quote:
Her record (charging for rape kits, covering up family scandals, coercion, incompetence, and corruption) all fit perfectly with my description, in fact I was being generous.
None of those things are national "right wing" platform issues, she was not found guilty of charges of cover up or coercion. In terms of competence, Alaska did not suffer under her leadership, by most objective measures Alaska was doing well compared to other states. It is ironic that my post regarding McCain, a moderate, in my view and the party's chosen nominee (not hand picked like Palin was), turns mostly to a discussion about Palin. Palin, just like Rush, Beck, Hannity, etc., are not going to be the party's nominee in 2012, so again it begs the question, what is all the concern about?


Quote:
You're a solid 5 overall.
Until we start talking national defense and capitalism.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."


Last edited by aceventura3; 11-10-2009 at 01:20 PM..
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 11-10-2009, 02:31 PM   #57 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
Just going on memory. Interrogation,
He changed his mind on torture when he voted against the waterboarding ban after explaining that waterboarding is torture. So no. No, he's pro-"enhanced interrogation" in practice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
Gitmo
You're right, but this isn't a policy issue, it's a specific installation. As above. McCain supports what was done at Gitmo, so closing it is entirely meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
Iraq War (strategy)
While McCain was in disagreement in maybe 2003-2006ish, after maybe mid-year 2007 they were in perfect lockstep. If was funny that while back in 2006, McCain said that Bush Misled Country On Iraq, fighting strongly against it, and in 2008, it was all about the surge, baby! BTW, both Bush and McCain supported the surge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
deficits
Meaningless. Republicans are deficit hawks during a campaign and spend with the best Democrats when in office. Check out this WSJ article regarding the deficit under a McCain administration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
original TARP
Nope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
Social Security reform
For privatization before he was against it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
diplomacy (engaging other nations)

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
transparency
Was Bush ever explicitly against transparency? I mean in practice, sure, but if we're going to compare campaign promises of McCain to practices of Bush... you get what I'm saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
more support of military after they return
McCain is horrible when it comes to veterans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
Katrina response, to name a few.
Hindsight is 20/20.

I'm sorry, but really McCain was tremendously similar to Bush.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
My recollection was that McCain went out of his way to down play the race issue in the campaign. I recall Democrats in their primaries having a bigger problem on the question of race than McCain. I don't recall Palin making an issue of race, I do recall her making an of Obama's "pals".
"That one" was probably the most obvious example/gaff, but there were a lot more. I'm glad that McCain corrected that stupid woman that, between drooling on herself (elitist!), managed to string syllables together and "accuse" Barack Obama of being an Arab, but that doesn't negate other instances. McCain's problem with "gooks" aside, there were racial undertones that were fanned by the McCain campaign.
[quote=aceventura3;2727238]Is the problem with McCain boiling down to him picking Palin as a running mate?[/QUITE]
No, though that was indicative of how much he was willing to do to earn the support of the lunatic base. McCain in 2000 was a moderate conservative. Had Rove not sucker-punched him, his run against Gore would have been spectacular. It might have even elevated the debate. Instead of returning with all his moderate, mavricky goodness in 2008 to duke it out with liberal moderate Obama, he brought the Republican playbook and ran every tired, boring, Bush-era strategy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
Not sure I see the point there, but she has a record as an elected official.
I was vice president of my high school band. I'm not qualified to be president.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
None of those things are national "right wing" platform issues, she was not found guilty of charges of cover up or coercion. In terms of competence, Alaska did not suffer under her leadership, by most objective measures Alaska was doing well compared to other states. It is ironic that my post regarding McCain, a moderate, in my view and the party's chosen nominee (not hand picked like Palin was), turns mostly to a discussion about Palin. Palin, just like Rush, Beck, Hannity, etc., are not going to be the party's nominee in 2012, so again it begs the question, what is all the concern about?
None of my things would have qualified as conservative 40 years ago, but here we are. And yes, she was found guilty. She was leading the charge backing the nutter (and surprisingly boring) tea party conservative candidate in NY's 23rd. She's part of the reason this thread exists. In fact, she's a bigger part of this conversation than McCain. I'm not even sure why we're talking about McCain anymore, I'll have to go back and check.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
Until we start talking national defense and capitalism.
That's why you're not a three. Still, I know a few tens and you, sir, are not a ten. Take that as a deeply sincere compliment.
Willravel is offline  
Old 11-11-2009, 08:21 AM   #58 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
I think we are kinda splitting hairs here, the TARP as an example, this was from a NY Times interview of McCAin and he agreed in principle to the Bush plan as did Obama, but had some problems with it.

Quote:
Sen. McCAIN: I haven't been--I've talked to Secretary Paulson, and I haven't gotten into all the details of it. Obviously the rescue is absolutely called for. But I have focused my attention on two things. One is that I respect and admire Secretary Paulson, but as far as I can dell--can tell, we're placing all those responsibilities in the hands of one person. I think we need to appoint an oversight board of the most respected people in America, such as maybe Warren Buffett, who's a Obama supporter; Mitt Romney, Mike Bloomberg, so that there can be some kind of oversight of, instead of just putting all this responsibility on a person who may be gone in four months.

The second thing is, this CEO executive compensation. I notice at Lehman, aren't bailed out but went bankrupt, that some $2.5 billion in compensation. If they're bankrupt, where did they get that? But the major point is that no CEO of any corporation or business that is bailed out by us, that is rescued by American tax dollars, should receive any more than the highest paid person in the federal government and in...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us...l?ref=politics

But, my original point is that, at least in my opinion, McCain is a moderate. And, I would think he is the type of person people would expect, a little "right" leaning but mostly middle of the road from a party trying to be inclusive and with broad appeal. Seems you think he is much more "right" leaning than I do - it is a subjective call. but if McCain is too extreme who would actually fit what you would expect from the Republican Party?
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
 

Tags
conservative, party

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:35 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360