Jump to content

KirtFalcon

Members
  • Posts

    47,656
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    348

Everything posted by KirtFalcon

  1. I'm pretty sure the average fair minded American will agree with the president on this issue . . . preventing another 9/11 type terrorist incident is a little more important than partisan politics! - KF :whistle: By William Kristol and Gary Schmitt Washingtonpost.com Tuesday, December 20, 2005 A U.S. president has just received word that American counterterrorist operatives have captured a senior al Qaeda operative in Pakistan. Among his possessions are a couple of cell phones -- phones that contain several American phone numbers. In the wake of Sept. 11, 2001, what's a president to do? If the president were taking the advice offered by some politicians and pundits in recent days, he would order the attorney general to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The attorney general would ask that panel of federal judges for a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to begin eavesdropping on those telephone numbers, to determine whether any individual associated with those numbers was involved in terrorist activities. But the attorney general might have to tell the president he might well not be able to get that warrant. FISA requires the attorney general to convince the panel that there is "probable cause to believe" that the target of the surveillance is an agent of a foreign power or a terrorist. Yet where is the evidence to support such a finding? Who knows why the person seized in Pakistan was calling these people? Even terrorists make innocent calls and have relationships with folks who are not themselves terrorists. The difficulty with FISA is the standard it imposes for obtaining a warrant aimed at a "U.S. person" -- a U.S. citizen or a legal alien: The standard suggests that, for all practical purposes, the Justice Department must already have in hand evidence that someone is a problem before they seek a warrant. Consider the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the French Moroccan who came to the FBI's attention before Sept. 11 because he had asked a Minnesota flight school for lessons on how to steer an airliner, but not on how to take off or land. Even with this report, and with information from French intelligence that Moussaoui had been associating with Chechen rebels, the Justice Department decided there was not sufficient evidence to get a FISA warrant to allow the inspection of his computer files. Had they opened his laptop, investigators might have begun to unwrap the Sept. 11 plot. But strange behavior and merely associating with dubious characters don't rise to the level of probable cause under FISA. This is presumably one reason why President Bush decided that national security required that he not simply follow the strictures of the 1978 foreign intelligence act, and, indeed, it reveals why the issue of executive power and the law in our constitutional order is more complicated than the current debate would suggest. It is not easy to answer the question whether the president, acting in this gray area, is "breaking the law." It is not easy because the Founders intended the executive to have -- believed the executive needed to have -- some powers in the national security area that were extralegal but constitutional. Following that logic, the Supreme Court has never ruled that the president does not ultimately have the authority to collect foreign intelligence -- here and abroad -- as he sees fit. Even as federal courts have sought to balance Fourth Amendment rights with security imperatives, they have upheld a president's "inherent authority" under the Constitution to acquire necessary intelligence for national security purposes. (Using such information for criminal investigations is different, since a citizen's life and liberty are potentially at stake.) So Bush seems to have behaved as one would expect and want a president to behave. A key reason the Articles of Confederation were dumped in favor of the Constitution in 1787 was because the new Constitution -- our Constitution -- created a unitary chief executive. That chief executive could, in times of war or emergency, act with the decisiveness, dispatch and, yes, secrecy, needed to protect the country and its citizens. That is why the president uniquely swears an oath -- prescribed in the Constitution -- to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Implicit in that oath is the Founders' recognition that, no matter how much we might wish it to be case, Congress cannot legislate for every contingency, and judges cannot supervise many national security decisions. This will be especially true in times of war. This is not an argument for an unfettered executive prerogative. Under our system of separated powers, Congress has the right and the ability to judge whether President Bush has in fact used his executive discretion soundly, and to hold him responsible if he hasn't. But to engage in demagogic rhetoric about "imperial" presidents and "monarchic" pretensions, with no evidence that the president has abused his discretion, is foolish and irresponsible. William Kristol is editor of the Weekly Standard. Gary Schmitt is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
  2. No . . . it was kept secret during the Clinton days . . . today we have anti-Bush rats illegally leaking top secret information. THATS the real crime!:w00t:
  3. From CNN.com: President Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who appeared on several network morning shows, said technological advances used by terrorists made it necessary to conduct the surveillance without a court order. "We know that a two-minute phone conversation between somebody linked to al Qaeda here and an operative overseas could lead directly to the loss of thousands of lives," Bush said. "To save American lives, we must be able to act fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new attacks." "It has been effective in disrupting the enemy while safeguarding our civil liberties," the president added. Gonzales said Monday that a congressional act passed after September 11 not only authorized President Bush to use force in the war on terror, it gave the president the power to allow such wiretaps. "There were many people, many lawyers within the administration who advised the president that he had an inherent authority as commander in chief under the Constitution to engage in these kind of signal intelligence of our enemy," he said. "We also believe that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following the attacks of September 11, constituted additional authorization for the president to engage in this kind of signal intelligence." Signal intelligence refers to intercepted electronic communications, such as phone calls. The measure meant the president doesn't need to get a court order to request such wiretaps, as called for in FISA, Gonzales said. I guess now some of our young liberals will whip out their imaginary legal degrees and apply their vast knowledge of the law to trump the Attorney General of the United States! LOL :whome: LOL
  4. Rural Texans tend to be more self sufficient and resourceful and also better prepared (i.e. "A Country Boy Can Survive"). The "government will take care of us" New Orleans people expected Uncle Sugar (FEMA for you limited thinking libs) to provide royal coaches with hot meals and movies to rescue them! :w00t:
  5. UCLA News Hardly a conservative source! - KF :w00t: Date: December 14, 2005 Contact: Meg Sullivan ( [email protected] ) While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left. These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly. "I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are." "Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co-author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar. The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December. Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter. Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation. Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score. "A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches." Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal. Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter. The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third. "Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators." The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found. "If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia. Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist. An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74. Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post. Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and OpEds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts. Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center. "One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media." Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined. "By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.8)." The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research. "No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said. The results break new ground. "Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers," Groseclose said. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity — politicians." -UCLA- MS580
  6. You are exactly right Deuce! There is a vast amount of oil off shore but it would be difficult and expensive to produce. My brother-in-law is a geologist and works with the Department of the Interior. He's told me several times ANWAR would provide a substantial amount of easily refinable crude oil and be one of the quickest and easiest "bang for the buck" environmental friendly operations of just about anywhere we can drill in this hemisphere. It would also make a lot of sense to build more refineries to refine the ANWAR crude in a northern region where it could be used with limited shipment.
  7. That's what I figured . . . the liberals can't dispute the facts in the article . . . so they rely on their trusty "it was written by a conservative source" tactic. I guess Dan Rather or Michael Moore would have to have written it before we can discuss the actual content and debate the facts! :whistle::lol::wacko:
  8. Newsmax, WorldNetDaily, FoxNews and Drudge are all well respected news websites growing in popularity by millions of fair minded Americans. The liberals don't like them and refuse to accept their reporting because you find truthful stories that the liberal media sources WON"T report. Liberals just can't stand fair and balanced reporting and aren't used to having their bias exposed openly for all to see. Like talk radio, they are discrediting rags like the New York Times and the Washington Compost by honestly reporting both sides, the good and the bad, instead of just the libertal slant we were fed for decades! :whistle::w00t::whistle:
  9. I don't deny we should be developing alternative fuel programs, we've been talking about that for the past 50 years . . . but this topic is about developing ANWAR, a resource we currently have and are not developing because of bogus political posturing by liberal environmental tree hugging dimocrats! Let's try and stay on topic and not change the subject! :thumbsup:
  10. That's your problem Deuce, you're incapable of looking at the facts on both sides of the issue. Take your liberal blinders off and the truth shall set you free! :whistle: I know it would be something new for most of you mind-numbed liberals! :w00t:
  11. No . . . I'm just corrrectly pointing out that this is nothing new and proving the double standard in the liberal press. The dimocrats are screaming bloody murder with the help of the press as if President Bush has done something illegal and that they would have never approved of even though you didn't hear a peep out of them when it was done by their hero Clinton . . . further proof of liberal dimocrats playing pure politics with national security and the war on terror! :whistle:
  12. Funny . . . I read stories Newsmax most every day and my "defensive" spyware programs have never detected any spyware from that website. My pop-up blocker blocks 99% of all pop-ups too. Maybe they are just spying on liberals? Nice try to get off topic though. :harhar:
  13. Newsmax.com Sunday, Dec. 18, 2005 10:10 p.m. EST During the 1990's under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon. On Friday, the New York Times suggested that the Bush administration has instituted "a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices" when it "secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without [obtaining] court-approved warrants." But in fact, the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks. In February 2000, for instance, CBS "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft introduced a report on the Clinton-era spy program by noting: "If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency." NSA computers, said Kroft, "capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world." Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told "60 Minutes" that the agency was monitoring "everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs." Mr. Frost detailed activities at one unidentified NSA installation, telling "60 Minutes" that agency operators "can listen in to just about anything" - while Echelon computers screen phone calls for key words that might indicate a terrorist threat. The "60 Minutes" report also spotlighted Echelon critic, then-Rep. Bob Barr, who complained that the project as it was being implemented under Clinton "engages in the interception of literally millions of communications involving United States citizens." One Echelon operator working in Britain told "60 Minutes" that the NSA had even monitored and tape recorded the conversations of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond. Still, the Times repeatedly insisted on Friday that NSA surveillance under Bush had been unprecedented, at one point citing anonymously an alleged former national security official who claimed: "This is really a sea change. It's almost a mainstay of this country that the NSA only does foreign searches."
  14. The Heritage Foundation. Friday, December 16, 2005 By Ben Lieberman Drilling for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge makes so much sense, it’s no wonder opponents have to twist the facts to turn it into a controversy. We’re talking about 10 billion barrels of domestic oil located in an area with a proven track record for environmentally responsible drilling. Yet a host of tall tales from environmental activists and like-minded journalists has made it a tough fight in Washington. Congress is currently deciding whether to add ANWR drilling to the defense appropriations bill. Given the continued high oil prices and political turmoil in many oil-producing nations, now might be the best chance to get ANWR done. But it will happen only if the ANWR myths are exposed. Here are several: ANWR Drilling Would Harm Alaska’s Environment. Some perspective is helpful to understand the ecological insignificance of ANWR drilling. ANWR comprises 19 million acres in Northeast Alaska, 17.5 million of which are totally off-limits to drilling or any other kind of economic activity. This is why the news footage showing beautiful snowcapped mountains is misleading, because the drilling would not be allowed anywhere near those areas. Only the flat and featureless coastal plain would be affected, and even there only a small portion of its 1.5 million acres. The current version of the bill limits the surface disturbance to 2,000 acres, a small piece of a big coastal plain in a very big wildlife refuge in the biggest state in the Union. Oil Wells Would Despoil One Of The Few Remaining Pristine Places. Again, the vast majority of ANWR will be completely unaffected by drilling. It would occur only on a small part of the coastal plain where there already is some human habitation. There are plenty of truly pristine places in Alaska worth preserving, but ANWR’s coastal plain isn’t one of them. As it is, Alaska has 141 million acres of protected lands, an area equal to the size of California and New York combined. Drilling Is Incompatible With The Purpose Of National Wildlife Refuges. Drilling critics have tried to confuse wildlife refuges with national parks, wilderness areas and other more highly protected categories of federal lands. But national wildlife refuges typically allow limited mining, logging, drilling, ranching or other activities. Indeed, the statute creating ANWR contemplated future oil production on the coastal plain, subject to congressional approval. It is worth noting that another wildlife refuge in Alaska, the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, has had drilling onsite for decades. The oil production there rarely makes the news because it has not caused any problems, even though Kenai has far more wildlife than ANWR. Oil Development Harms Local Wildlife. An extensive track record proves otherwise. In addition to Kenai, Alaska has oil drilling in the Prudhoe Bay field, only 55 miles west of ANWR. Prudhoe Bay has produced more than 10 billion barrels of oil since the 1970s, which has been transported through the Alaska pipeline to the American market. Decades of studies show that this oil production has had a negligible impact on the environment. Environmental opponents of drilling cannot point to a single species that has been driven to extinction or even a population decline attributable to Prudhoe Bay. In addition, the drilling there was done with decades-old technology and methods far less environmentally sensitive than what would be required in ANWR. The Caribou Herds Will be Devastated. Environmentalists have been particularly excessive in predicting dire harm to the herd of migrating caribou that passes through ANWR. But the caribou herd that migrates through Prudhoe Bay has increased from 3,000 to 23,000 since drilling commenced there in 1977. Alaskans Oppose ANWR Drilling. In fact, polls regularly show 75 percent or more of Alaskans support drilling. This includes the native Alaskans who live in the vicinity of the area where ANWR drilling would occur, although the few who oppose drilling get most of the media attention. Alaskans know from first-hand experience that resource extraction can co-exist with environmental protection. They also know how silly the environmental gloom and doom predictions are, as they have been hearing such nonsense for decades. If the average American, and his or her representative in Congress, knew the facts as well as the average Alaskan, ANWR drilling wouldn’t be controversial in the first place. Fortunately, it’s not too late for Congress to take the common sense step and boost domestic oil supplies by passing legislation allowing ANWR drilling. Ben Lieberman is a Senior Policy Analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
  15. Arnold Palmer Who was the first person to shoot in the 60s in all four rounds of a U.S. Open?
  16. It still amazes me that liberals in congress and their willing accomplices in the media would rather play politics with our national defense than get on board with making America a safer place after 9/11. I guess trying to regain power is more important to them so they continue to undermine our efforts to stop terrorism and prevent future attacks! They will never learn and will pay at the ballot box once again! - KF Bush Acknowledges Approving Eavesdropping By JENNIFER LOVEN Associated Press Writer Dec 17 10:40 AM US/Eastern WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday he personally has authorized a secret eavesdropping program in the U.S. more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks and he lashed out at those involved in publicly revealing the program. "This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security," he said in a radio address delivered live from the White House's Roosevelt Room. "This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and their civil liberties and that is exactly what I will continue to do as long as I am president of the United States," Bush said. Angry members of Congress have demanded an explanation of the program, first revealed in Friday's New York Times and whether the monitoring by the National Security Agency violates civil liberties. Defending the program, Bush said in his address that it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have "a clear link" to al- Qaida or related terrorist organizations. He said the program is reviewed every 45 days, using fresh threat assessments, legal reviews by the Justice Department, White House counsel and others, and information from previous activities under the program. Without identifying specific lawmakers, Bush said congressional leaders have been briefed more than a dozen times on the program's activities. The president also said the intelligence officials involved in the monitoring receive extensive training to make sure civil liberties are not violated. Appearing angry at times during his eight-minute address, Bush left no doubt that he will continue authorizing the program. "I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al-Qaida and related groups," he said. Copyright 2005 The Associated Press.
  17. Here's a statistic for our young liberals to ponder: Not one single criminal tried, convicted and executed for their crimes ever commited another rape, armed robbery or capital murder after they were executed! :banging:
  18. I'm conservative to the core. :smileybanger: I have never thought of Colmes as liberal. I could be wrong, but think he's a lot closer to me politically than anyone else on SDC. :whistle:
  19. Jane Fonda and several other "Hollywood" kooks have joined forces with liberal politicians like Howard Dean, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and the Moveon.org crowd and have taken over the Democrat party. That's a fact! They are the primary reason main stream Americans trust conservatives and continue to vote Republican. We can't trust the anti-war, anti-America, Moveon.org crowd with our national security, homeland defense, or even the economy. How can anyone say Jane Fonda and the rest or these kooks are inconsequential when they are the face of the Democrats every day on the liberal news broadcasts? :whistle:
  20. No . . . the MAJORITY of the people sending their kids to small schools do so because their families and their ancestors are natives of these small rural communities. My fathers family has always lived in Garrison, as did his father . . . therefore we all went to school in Garrison . . . comprende? :whistle::w00t::whistle:
  21. The president has had several intelligent conversations with America, including democrats, about his strategy. The libs just don't want to cooperate and have no plan of their own because there is nothing in it for them politically if his plan succeeds . . . and it is succeeding! :whistle: In case you haven't noticed his poll numbers are rising, the economy is booming, his tax cuts are working to stimulate the economy . . . meanwhile liberals wanting to regain congress continue to oppose everything and will be left once again twisting in the wind saying "we didn't get our message out" during the next election cycle! The liberal message IS out and Americans aren't buying it! What a country! :w00t:
  22. The demographics of most of these schools and others nearby like Garrison, Timpson, Teneha, Cushing, and Mt Enterprise are not significantly different than Nac or Lufkin. Most of these kids go to the smaller rural schools because their parents have always lived in these rural communities. It has nothing to do with "white flight" or racism. You're grasping at straws! :w00t:
  23. I believe the "anti-waranti-Bush" while we pretend to "support the troops" dimocrats will pay dearly at the ballot box! Who could trust them with our national defense and homeland security? :w00t:
  24. The exit stategy is simple and has been explained by the president on numerous occasions. I will outline it for you liberals once more. It goes as follows: We will bring our service men and women home when the job is done . . . plain and simple! :whistle: Oh I see, you libs you don't like that strategy? You want to cut and run . . . maybe surrender? You could care less about finishing the job? That's your problem . . . it's not really that we don't have an exit strategy, you just don't LIKE the presidents strategy for VICTORY. You wan't us to tuck tail and run BEFORE we finish the job so you can declare everything a failure for political reasons. I get it now! :w00t:
×
×
  • Create New...