ITMFA
-
Content Count
9,411 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by ITMFA
-
-
That is why in many cases, it is usless to debate such an issue with hardcore liberals like you because it really is a waste of time. Also, if you don't think that another attack is coming, then you live on another planet. I will discredit when libs try to twist and turn things to state garbage rather than facts but then again, it is all about Bush and the libs are running around interfering with the war efforts which in my book is treasonous acts.
8 years-Clinton
8 months- Bush
You do know how to do math do you?
These are the tactics the libs use all the time in politics. Begin with one topic, then mix in some other related types of topics and before you know it, you're trying to answer questions on all sorts of topics instead of the one at hand. Its a confusion tactic they like to use. I caught on to that long ago.
You asked a quetion and I answered it. The answer is not black and white but a mixture of gray so it will stray off topic. If you don't want to hear the answer don't ask the question. Or ask the question in a new thread.
Excluding fuzzy math...
8 years - Clinton
6 years - Bush and a lot more resources
It's 5 1/4 years after the initial 8 months. So in nearly 6 years has Bush come any closer to capturing Osama or Omar? Despite having a military blank check that Clinton was not afforded. I'm still waiting for the answer? Isn't Bush so much better than Clinton? Why are Osama and Omar not in custody or confirmed dead? I'm still waiting...
-
First of all, this thread is about interrogation at Gitmo, not the events of 9/11...
What questions ?
If you wanted to stick to the topic why provide the bs?
Don't participate in digressions 
-
Fact 6 years later Osama Bin Laughing is still free as a bird.
<<Fact: Not quite, Libby. I won't even explain that because it requires brain cells to comprehend which is lacking in your part of the world.>>
Of course you won't go there. You have nothing to go there with.
Fact Clinton didn't have a military blank check as Bush enjoys and Bush still can't find Osama.<<They know of approx. where he is. Wanna go to the extremist part of Pakistan (which Musharif does not control) and get him? Huh? It's obvious you're a peacenik, an appeaser and never served in the military.>>
They know of approx. where he is? If and but...woulda, coulda, shoulda... where ever he is, after 6 years he is not in custody or confirmed dead. The most powerful,best trained, resourceful super power in the history of the world and after 6 years still NOTHING. Largely due to this meddlesome administrations incompetence. Using your words, so you still don't have an answer?? Hmm... I'm waiting...
Fact everytime Clinton tried to get Osama he was "wagging the dog" according to cons<<Clinton did nothing, libby. Of course he ordered Burglar Berger to go and steal classified documents to cover his butt. >>
More con attacks? So I guess $10 million dollar missiles into $10 tents wasn't such a bad idea after all. At least he was trying.
Fact Clinton captured and tried the perps of the first WTC bombing.<<Oh wow...big catch there huh? That was like shooting a BB at an elephant. And out of how many terrorist attacks worldwide against the US did he deal with????? Hmmmmmmmmmm... >>
By capturing them untold attacks were prevented and much was learned. Did I mention that the first WTC attack occurred within a month of Clinton taking office?? No? Well let me mention it. So Clinton had an attack within a month with no warning and George had at least 8 months with 30 days notice of an impending attack and George Tenet and the CIA setting off the terrorist activity increasing alarm. With 30 days notice airline security couldn't be tightened? After 6 years I think it is obvious that Clinton accomplished more with less available resources. Here let's ask Osama... oops we can't ask Osama. Not because he is dead but because he is not in custody.
I guess the appropriate response is to bomb a country that didn't attack us and then hang on so that when we lose Iraq and Afghanistan due to this administrations meddlesome imcompetence, it will be another president who has to pick up the pieces. They are doing what the generals advise until the generals don't give the advice they were TOLD to give. Then the generals are sent packing EVERYTIME.
Fact the Clinton Administration did tell the Bush administration that Al Qaeda was public enemy #1-20.<<Fact: Clinton did nothing for 8 years. Bush had 8 months. Do the math libby. >>
In the 8 months he ignored the warning signs like the Aug. 6th PBD and spent 30 days on vacation instead of putting everyone on the job to prevent it. OK and 6 years later the job still isn't done. So with a thousand times more resources than Clinton, George couldn't get the job done? Not even after 6 years??
Fact Bush ignored the Aug. 6th PDB "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States" while on vacation.<<Wow, lots of heads up time huh? Nothing was ignored either, Libby. >>
My name is not Scooter and I don't try to attack and discredit those with a dissenting opinion.
With our resources and 30 days? Yes it's common sense there was enough evidence to make sure airline security was secure. There was enough evidence to know that Cheney should not have ordered the air defenses in Washington to be off. Strange unanswered coincidences because there was no blue dress involved no one was questioned under oath.
Fact there were no WMDs. We are not winning hearts and minds. We are not spreading freedom and democracy. It is about blood for oil.<<Fact: Who gives a rats butt what France and the other backstabbers think. Your oil garbage is whacked too. You're a bleeding heart lib aren't ya? Yep, you sure are. I won't even go into the WMDs because libs like you could care less to know the truth. But then again, no demo in recent memory has given freedom and democracy a chance for 50 million or so people. Slick cannot even claim that or even come close.>>
More attacks without facts SC? That is so not beneath you.
You have no answers so you distract and attack. Yep I wear my LIBERAL BADGE PROUDLY.Fact Sadam was a business partner of the Reagan Administration.<<Fact: Learn history before you speak. You know nothing about who, why,what, and where concerning Saddam and the relation to the US. Learn it, then speak>>
Apparently I know a bit more about history than you do if that is your best attempt at a rebuttal.
<<It is liberals like you that will get us hurt because of ignorance of facts and the dangers we face. >>If you're going to continue to babble aimlessly and attack without facts, I'll just have to ignore you.
-
Ignorance is bliss...
You must be so happy.
According to liberals, Bush looked like a deer caught in the headlights when word came to him of what happened.
Yet he must have had something to do with it.
Four planes, from three airports..... nineteen terrorists, numerous airline passeger phone calls.... four intended targets in two different cities....
And you think it was a big plan by our own govt. that has remained a secret from everyone except for crackpots.
And the govt. did this for... what?.... oil?
I didn't say it was a big plan by our gov't you did. I just said their are questions that have gone unanswered and further investigations that need to be conducted.
-
"What really needs explaining, though, is not 9/11, but the existence of such conspiracy theorists themselves, whose by now well-known speculations about what "really happened" that day are - not to put too fine a point on it - so mind-numbingly stupid that it is mystifying how anyone with a functioning cerebrum could take them seriously even for a moment." - TCS Daily
What are you gonna believe propaganda or your lying EYES?? When you can't supply an answer to questions and you refuse a full blown investigation, then attack the questioner. Attack the messenger. Many engineering experts have many well documented questions but rather than answer them just attack them. I can tell you most New Yorkers are not satisfied with the findings of the 9/11 commission.
-
How have you lost this?
How has America lost this?
It spells out that your right is secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.
If someone is acting suspicious, is a foreign national of a country on the watch list and is getting odd mail from another person in a country on the watchlist.... I don't see it as unreasonable that his mail be searched.
But then you probably think profiling is wrong, too.
How do we know this is only to occur when someone is acting suspicious? Why not enjoy a political advantage as Nixon tried to do? It is naive to think compulsive liars such as are in this administration from the top down would not misuse and abuse such authority. If not they would conduct signing statements before the audience has left the room. Can you imagine the uproar if President Clinton had signing statements such as the ones Bush had? Back then it was all about the "Rule of Law" and no man being above the law. If you're a con, personal responsibility is for other people. Bush has had more signing statements than all other presidents combined. In the past they were to clarify the presidents interpretation of a law. Bush thinks they mean he is above the law and it doesn't apply to him. "Rule of Law" baaah humbug.
Great scenario. You're 100% correct. There would be a reasonable suspicion & the Constitution would allow that probable cause hearing & a judge would grant a warrant.But, in case you didn't read it too clearly, what Bush signed didn't say that, now did it? It gave gov't the right to go through your mail for =whatever= reason it decides is an "emergency." Now please tell me where the safeguards are in that? What proceedures are in place so that some policeman who happens to be ticked off at you doesn't have a friend at the FBI go through your mail? Where are the safeguards? What guarantees do we have that there is a genuine need?
You scenario is not a problem but the signing legislation Bush gave wasn't needed to cover the scenario you described as that is already in place. The problem is that now there are no safeguards, no part of gov't specifically charged with making sure the other parts are not overstepping the bounds.
Nice TBAR, well stated.
-
Facts lib:
Clinton= 8 years...several attacks...no action taken.
Bush= 8 months...1 attack...action taken.
Side note: Sandy Burglar Berger stole copies for Slick to hide Clinton's lies about Bin Laden and his failures.
Maybe you need to take your own advice.
Fact 6 years later Osama Bin Laughing is still free as a bird.
Fact Clinton didn't have a military blank check as Bush enjoys and Bush still can't find Osama.
Fact everytime Clinton tried to get Osama he was "wagging the dog" according to cons
Fact Clinton captured and tried the perps of the first WTC bombing.
Fact the Clinton Administration did tell the Bush administration that Al Qaeda was public enemy #1-20.
Fact Bush ignored the Aug. 6th PDB "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States" while on vacation.
Fact there were no WMDs. We are not winning hearts and minds. We are not spreading freedom and democracy. It is about blood for oil.
Fact Sadam was a business partner of the Reagan Administration.
-
It is obvious you hate the Jews and hold terrorists unaccountable. It is obvious you have no idea of what the twin towers represented and just how far the terrorists had planned to go. 9/11 was intended to be much worse than it was but since your a lib, have no clue what you talk about, basically just have no idea of anything, someday, you may actually wake up.
You didn't happen to attend the Iranian Holocust's Conference like some 5/6 USA traitors attended did you? Are you David Duke in disguise?
He has no crediability whatsoever. He is about as lib as they come and that is sad.
These are the types that when a mushroom cloud goes up in their backyard, they'll say, "Oh, I guess they were right."
On what do you base the claim that David Duke is a lib? Like most cons you lack credibility when you throw insults and false accusations. Your rhetoric is quite sad but certainly not beneath you.
-
For years, terrorists (all of them Muslims) have been improving their "craft".
From hostage taking, to hijacking airliners and ships, to using humans and automobiles to blow up buildings and innocent people.... to a combination of hijacking and using airliners as the bomb to blow up buildings and kill innocent people.
It is sad that any person would buy into a 9/11 conspiracy.
People like that pretty much lose any and all credibility (if they ever had any) in my opinion.
Anyone willing to blindly accept events without a thorough investigation has no credibility or common sense. Bush fought a 9/11 commission before he flip flopped for it. There was no testimony under oath as usual and there are more holes in the events than in a ton of swiss cheese. Ignorance is bliss carry on...
-
Jewish Radicals- There are none and their defense of "their" homeland does not qualify as radicals.
From the time of the Crusades the Muslims have been in defense of their homeland. If you saw your children bombed and blown to bits what would you do? Say thank you please drop another? From the early 1900s and before when European imperialists came for oil the Muslims have been in defense of their homeland. Israel was carved from Palestine not the reverse.
-
Are radical Jews or Christians by your knowledge planning terroristic attacks against the US?
I can't say that they have or haven't. I find it difficult to believe that 9/11 was done solely by radical Muslims. For years they were considered rock throwing idiots by the right. Now they are competent and capable? PNAC needed a Pearl Harbor like event and it was capitalized on. Bldg 7 was not hit by a plane and valuable and possibly insightful records were conveniently lost when the building was "pulled". It takes weeks to prepare for the controlled demolition of a building yet bldg 7 collapsed in hours. It is naive to think religous fundamentalists, foreign or domestic, of any kind would not make what they consider to be a "sacrifice" for a greater ambition. Just as corporatists are not above it.
-
Cmorg: Acworth Dad and Foxmeister:
Cruicify John W. Whitehead for that passage. Yes, this is the same John W. Whitehead whose rutherford institute was involved in suing Bill Clinton on behalf of Paula Jones.
That was a quote from a column by the rightwing head of the Rutherford Institute, a Christian civil rights group. Here's the link: Read it all ... http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/comm...p?record_id=320
Here's the history of the organization if you are looking for its 'conservative' bonafide's ...
That's the author of the passage you find so 'unpatriotic' and he ain't a libral
As far as barbarity ... your tome seems to say you support barbarity; barbarity is good. Indeed, if a little barbarity is good, a whole lot more barbarity is better.
So where does the barbarity stop? Lets all say the hell with the law and open everyone's mail, listen to everyones phone calls and come and take them away for non-standard ... or hell ... any reason we can conjure 'cause we can hold them in perpetuity without a court hearing ... just like the barbarians ... but we're better. We'll hold them in a cell for the rest of their natural lives and feed them which is more than a true barbarian would do.
To which I reply, give me the barbarians as I would rather lose my head in an instant than live in a cell with no chance for release save some psychopaths non-existant conscious who may tire of 'torturing' me after ten or twenty years and think it merciful to release me.
We have a society that lives by the rule of law ... or we don't. If we don't, say so and then tell me how proud you are to have contributed to fall of the Constitution of the United States of America because, prior to your utterance, I always thought it was the law of the land.
If you don't get it, when my ancestors fought in the Revolutionary war they fought for an ideal and it is up to us in this generation to keep that ideal alive.
Apparently you don't care about ideals. What law guides you then?
Might makes right? The law of the jungle? The last man standing is the king of the hill?... oh, I got it, it is the law summarized in that truely American statement that 'he who dies with the most toys wins."
Whatever guides you, it certainly has nothing to do with the law of the land.
pubby
PS: You ask why we're not outraged? We know that the US military is by far and away the most capable military on the face of the earth. We also know that we spend more on that military than all the nations of the world combined spend on their militaries. We know that we are the only superpower.
We also know that, given our relative strength vis-a-vie the world is a multiple of that of Adolf Hitler and the Axis at the beginning of WWII, that power, if abused, could be used to dominate the balance of the earth.
Since we are a democratic people (not at all like the elect citizens of rome who would share in the bounty of conquests including acquiring dozens of additional slaves as was the practice of the time) as individuals we are inclined toward peace.
However, recognizing that our military, if diverted and 'captured' by an 'evil' power, could take on the world and 'win' we have the delimma of needing to be on the lookout for the Bonapartes of the world. We know they would LOVE; hell they drool in daytime and have wet dreams at night at the prospect of controlling the military might of this nation for their personal gain.
We do see that as a danger to the peace of the world.
In contrast, a group of 2000 terrorists, albiet well funded, are not likely to conquer the world in the best of circumstances. While they have the potential to disrupt our modern, technologcially driven world, even with the ability to blow up maybe one city a decade, they are not a threat in terms of world DOMINATION.
I mean, Islam is about as fractious as Christianity when you get down to it and the proof is in the sectarian civil war in Iraq.
For you to see a threat of world DOMINATION from the terrorist threat tells me you have no clue to the dynamics of the world. Disruption, yes, but DOMINATION; acquiring legitimate ruling power? how silly can you get.
Oh I get it, they'll run for congress on the platform if you don't vote for me, I'll blow you up? Again, how silly???
You've totally misconstrued the nature of the threat and you're now out and about calling anyone who disagrees idiots because you know, the sky is falling. I feel so sad for you for your collective heads are stuck at least in the sand if not elsewhere.
pubby
pubby...pubby...Pubby...Pubby...PUBBY...PUBBY...PUBBY!!!!!
-
It is estimated that 10% of the 1,000,000,000 followers of Islam are radical..... that is slightly higher than your number of 2000 that seem bent on our downfall.
At least 10% of christians are radical and 10% of jews are radical I guess that is ok by your standards. Only radical Muslims should be addressed.
-
Doesn't the Constitution bar unlawful search & seizure?
Seems like socialism, communism and fascism to me. Isn't this what Hitler used to do? Isn't it what Stalin used to do? Isn't it what Castro does? Doesn't Juntao do this in communist China? Are we so afraid in this country that we are willing to compromise our liberties and the 4th amendment?
What are these signing statements? What happened to "Rule of Law" and no man is above the law? Do conservatives want President Hillary looking through their mail?
Who is to determine what constitutes an emergency? One man? Is this not the emergence of totalitarianism?
What was that Ben Franklin said about those willing to sacrifice liberty for a little security deserving neither? We are Americans and we do what we want not what some terrorist dictate. If we bow to fear then the terrorist have already won. This administration has taken away more from the constitution and bill of rights than any terrorist can.
-
This source :
"It's important for Americans and others across the world to understand the kind of people held at Guantanamo. These aren't common criminals, or bystanders accidentally swept up on the battlefield -- we have in place a rigorous process to ensure those held at Guantanamo Bay belong at Guantanamo. Those held at Guantanamo include suspected bomb makers, terrorist trainers, recruiters and facilitators, and potential suicide bombers. They are in our custody so they cannot murder our people." - President GWB Sept 6, 2006
If you do not wish to debate me on the issues then fine,
but all these juvenile attempts to change the subject to my posts is petty nonsense...
To think that mistakes are not made is nonsense.
Reportedly, in a number of cases (such as Khalid el-Masri) the practice of "extraordinary rendition" has been applied to innocent civilians, and the CIA has reportedly launched an investigation into such cases (which it refers to as "erroneous rendition"). In el-Masri's case, he may have been mistaken for another man with a similar name, Khalid al-Masri. The introduction of the term "erroneous rendition" should not be interpreted to mean that extraordinary rendition of any intended subject is legal.The well documented release of hundreds of detainees without charge would say that George is either lying, wrong or both.
-
POWs... that's Prisoners of War... are not afforded the right to a trial.
They can be held for the duration of the war.
There is nothing that says that you or I have any right or need to know where POWs (again.. that's Prisoners of War) are being held.
The Kyoto conference came to a conclusion that put the most pressure (unjustly) on the U.S., and as such, our leaders decided not to sign the accord.
I haven't read them recently but I'm certain the Geneva Conventions account for prisoners of war. I also believe that POWs are supposed to be reported and available to the International Red Cross.
-
You're quick to demand a source from others... what is your source to prove your belief of the "chickenhawk war profiteers" going in for their own selfish reasons.
I'm always willing to provide a source, I just never seem to get one. Based on the overbilling and profits that KPMG, Haliburton, Bechtel and others get I think it's pretty much common sense. How is it that Haliburton can overbill 200+ million dollars and still get paid without justification for the billing? How is it that Haliburton can serve the troops contaminated water and still be paid?
-
That's interesting.
If there was a draft when you tried to join the Navy, you would have gotten a medical deferment.
I have heard from plenty of people who toot the horn of "I was supposed to....." and it means nothing to me.
As for me, I did serve.
I was in the Marines during Panama and played in the sand in Shield/Storm.
There were even a couple of things that you or anybody will never hear of.
So, yes.. I did my time.
You might say I was supposed to.. and did.
As for those who "hide behind other's sons"...
Are there any in the military who were forced to join?
Are there any who had no idea that they could be called upon?
I am sure there are a few that joined for the "bennies" and to "see the world".
Now they pay for the training and the fun and the adventure.
Your Vietnam-era comments are outdated.
Try something new.
Thank you for your past service, however, I'm not going to whine about my missed opportunity. I tried and wasn't taken. I don't owe you or anyone else anything for that. Least of all chickenhawks who did not try and actually avoided service. I will not excuse a war of choice created by chickenhawk war profiteers that some do not have the mental capacity to see through. Afghanistan harbored those who attacked us so removing the Taliban was just. There were no WMDs so Iraq was not just. Cutting veterans benefits during a time of war to give taxcuts is not just.
I was simply making the point that... had there been a draft instead of him trying to join, with a medical problem, he would have gotten a deferment.It was a reference to his unsavory remarks about those who send our kids to fight but didn't fight themsleves for various reasons... including deferments.
Cheney got 5 college deferments. Ashcroft got 7 teaching deferments. Limpbaugh was the only one who got a medical deferment because he had a boil on his arse...err uhm anal cyst.
-
You're funny!
Dick "5 deferments" Cheney!!
I am in stitches!!!
It is hilarious that there are people in the world that think like you!!!
Did you serve?
Or were you too chicken?
I enlisted and was supposed to go Nuke Navy in Orlando FL but they stopped me at meps in NJ due to medical reasons. I was supposed to be my brothers bootcamp buddy but he had to go without me.
So no I wasn't able to serve and I haven't sent anyone else's kids either.
How about you? Did you serve? Or are you hiding behind someone else's kids too?
-
What surprises me is that they found 500 tons of the yellow cake, many vehicles headed to Syria and Lebenon before the war began. Hmmmm....
Wow that's really interesting. I never heard they were on vehicles headed elsewhere. Are you referencing the forged documents incident that we may hopefully find out more about when Scooter Libby goes on trial or are you referencing the incident where our marines mistakenly broke the IAEA seals?
-
Attacking the source again, no surprise there...
Source? What source? You mean you actually provided a reference? No? I didn't think so...
-
I am curious though......
My husband, a former Marine, mentioned this:
I wonder how many people who are "against" the way the detainees have been treated have served in the military (or had close family memebers serve in the military), or were "directly" affected by the events of 9/11, OR have a police background???
How many of those who are NOT against this alleged treatment have served?????
I would assume the same number as the people who are for it who have not served or fought in a war. Chickenhawks like:
Dick "5 deferments" Cheney
Rush "boil on my @$$" Limpbaugh
Tom "Marianna Island Boy" Delay
George "No Vietcong in Alabama" Bush
John "7 deferments" Ashcroft
Rick "voted out of office" Santorum
Karl "Bush's brain" Rove
And a host of others who send everyone's kids off to war but their own and were too chicken to go when it was their turn.
-
"It's important for Americans and others across the world to understand the kind of people held at Guantanamo. These aren't common criminals, or bystanders accidentally swept up on the battlefield -- we have in place a rigorous process to ensure those held at Guantanamo Bay belong at Guantanamo. Those held at Guantanamo include suspected bomb makers, terrorist trainers, recruiters and facilitators, and potential suicide bombers. They are in our custody so they cannot murder our people." - President GWB Sept 6, 2006
Is that the same guy that said there were WMDs in Iraq? We were winning hearts and minds? Bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi’s? Yep no need to question his credibility.
If you were drug from your home locked in a container with bullet air holes and shipped to Gitmo to be wrongfully accused and abused, what would be the first thing you would do when you were released??
There are a lot of releases for George to claim the process of detaining people is just and well coordinated.
18 More Detainees Leave Guantanamo
By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 20, 2005; Page A22
Eighteen detainees at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were released yesterday, the Defense Department announced, marking the largest number of captives released from the facility at one time since last September.
Seventeen detainees were returned to Afghanistan, and one was sent home to Turkey. All will be released, defense officials said. The detainees had been through tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, where it was determined that they are no longer enemy combatants. Officials would not discuss any additional details about the detainees or their cases.
The release brings the total number of detainees to leave Guantanamo Bay to 232; 167 have been sent home and released, while 65 others have been transferred to the custody of foreign governments including Pakistan, Britain, Morocco, France, Russia and Saudi Arabia.
The release this week was the fifth largest since 2002 and the largest since 35 detainees left Guantanamo Bay in September. Only 10 detainees have been moved into the prison for alleged al Qaeda and Taliban fighters since November 2003. All of them arrived at the same time in September.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Apr19.html
Britain frees all five former Guantanamo detainees
LONDON (AP) — All four men who were arrested on their return to Britain from U.S. military detention at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were released Wednesday without charge, police said.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03...-released_x.htm
-
Name one instance where we have "done to them as they do us" ?
Tbar, you are an intelligent man, surely you can see that the interrogation techniques used at Gitmo,
are in no way comparable to the murderous evil of the terrorists... Not even close...
The information obtainted from these prisoners has SAVED THOUSANDS OF LIVES !
Can you give a SPECIFIC reference of one instance supporting your claims? Once again I see you are asking for references but you don't provide one yourself.
Many of the so called terrorists where turned in by their neighbors so they could get reward money from our troops for turning them in. Once the neighbors are sent off to the island paradise their homes are inhabited by the ones who turned them in. This scenario plays again and again.
Same thing happens when one tribal leader and or warlord turns in another. He has gotten our troops to do his dirty work and gets paid for it! Most of the troops don't speak Pushtan or any other dialect so it is hard to confirm who is telling the truth.
Interrogation Tactics at Guantanamo Bay
in Internet Cafe
Posted
So 1/2 the cons think I'm thin skinned and the other 1/2 think I'm always attacking. So which is it going to be? On second thought don't reply. I'll start with you because other than a little cheerleading you don't have anything to contribute.