|
|
 |
|
#61
09-12-2006, 12:20 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Rupert,
The government does have choices. We gave them those choices. We voted for them which allowed them to sit up there and make those choices for us. Some have not been very good. Some have. We aren't going to solve the world's problems here, but talking about them is a start. Talk is good. For the record, I'm not a democrat. I used to think that I was a Republican before I could vote. Before I could vote, I liked Dole and Bush. I wanted both of them to win their elections. However, when I became somewhat educated in the subject area because of a PS class and the wars, I decided that it was best not to be in any party. The wars woke me up. I think it woke a lot of Americans up. I think that the U.S. reacted before they thought in regards to 9/11. I didn't know what was going on at the time because I was young and uneducated. Well, I became educated, and I look at the facts. You have to look beyond that party BS, and you have to take everything the media and the government say with a pound of salt because they are biased and they lie. It is very hard to decipher the truth from the lies. This is a topic that you and I can agree to disagree on. I stand firm. If I am given some new information that contradicts my current stance, then I will change my opinion. However, from the evidence that I have seen from this post, I think that I need to stay the course that I am on. Pgardn put it best. The administration is on the verge of going too far, and I think that they have overstepped their boundaries in certain instances. 
|
|
#62
09-12-2006, 12:53 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Let me ask you something...Do you think that those two Americans should have been stripped of their Constitutional rights and held indefinitely without the right to a trial? I would really like to know just what those two Americans did to deserve that. If anyone has any information, please inform me! What about those two women who were handcuffed and strip searched? Was that right? Well, it infuriates me! It makes me want to go protest right in front of the White House with a great big poster saying that I am against the war! I want to see what they would do! That way, I would know whether or not the government did have too much power. I do wish the article would have provided a little more detail as to what actually happened there. Does anyone know of any articles that related to this particular instance? I take it that you are 100% Republican (please correct me if I'm wrong). I thought the author's argument was not particularly weak, and had some extremely valid points that are indeed FACTS and not opinions, although some were opinons, but not ALL. By the way Rupert, if you look, the author is/was in the governement. Also, what our government says to us through TV is not known to be truthful 100% of the time. What they say on TV may be totally different from what they talk about amongst themselves. Last edited by kentuckyrosesinmay : 09-12-2006 at 12:59 AM.
|
|
#63
09-12-2006, 01:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
To answer your question, I have no problem with them holding Jose Padilla for 3 1/2 years. That's a lot better than he deserves. He should hae been put to death a long time ago. That guy who wrote the article is an idiot. He said that everyone in government thinks that the reason that terrorists hate us is because of Israel. If he doesn't lose credibility with that statement, then I give up. He worked at the State Department. That is actually the mindset at the State Department. It's scary that they actually have some power and help make foreign policy. The State Department is completely incompetent and has been for many years. I'm glad that guy's article was published. It shows what the mindset is like over there. With regard to the two women being strip-searched, I'm sure the author is telling us the whole story. Everyting else he said was so credible, I'm sure he's not trying to mislead us with a half-truth. You are correct that you can't believe everything the government tells us. That author worked in the government and he is totally full of it. There actually is a lot of b.s. that comes from both parties. They will often only tell you one side of the story. With most of these things, you really do need to research things on your own or at least get both sides of the argument. With regard to your question of whether I'm a 100% republican, the answer is no. I don't like either party. I disagree with both parties on many issues. In general, I think the republicans are the lesser of two evils. With regard to protesting the war, you can protest all you want. Nothing will happen. There are protests all over the country. Nobody gets arrested as long as they obey the law. Last edited by Rupert Pupkin : 09-12-2006 at 01:43 AM.
|
|
#64
09-12-2006, 06:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
just remember that even protests may not be real. apparently groups who have an agenda hire people for a few hours to carry signs. many are paid to be there 'protesting'!!
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#65
09-12-2006, 10:19 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Amendment Six In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. Don’t get me wrong, I am very glad that they caught Jose Padilla before he was able to execute his evil plot (THANK GOD), but I just believe that he should have had a right to a trial as the U.S. Constitution states. Also, to not be a Republican, you sure are very derogatory towards leftists. Also, people are arrested all the time even if they do obey the laws. Just ask the guy on death row that they found to be innocent due to a DNA analysis two hours before his execution!!! The author of the article was very biased. However, you only acknowledged his biases and opinions. You did not even bother to acknowledge the clear-cut facts that he presented which are known to be true. Therefore, I am going to point them out… Fact (reworded) “Five years after 9/11, it's clear that the Bush administration's costly War on Terror has failed on one count. It has undermined our civil liberties. The world has always been dangerous. The direct cost of the war in Iraq, according to Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel economist, has already exceeded $1 trillion, including long-term veterans' care and similar costs. Along with the war has come enormous destruction and loss of life, and major damage to our international standing.” Fact “In the aftermath of 9/11, the administration succeeded in passing a version of an internal security law, called the USA Patriot Act. It permits secret arrests, sneak and peek searches, and obtaining bank, credit, library and Internet records, all without a warrant. The administration also instituted wiretaps and intercepts on millions of Americans' e-mail messages and phone calls without warrants, a program recently ruled unconstitutional by a federal court.” Fact “In 2005, Bush quietly created the National Clandestine Service, which authorizes the CIA to operate within the United States -- despite past abuses such as Operation Chaos -- and reinstituted domestic spying by the military through the Counter Intelligence Field Activity (CIFA), in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. He also created the National Security Service, putting elements of the FBI under his direct control, the closest we have had to a secret police agency in our 200-year history. The FBI now sends out 30,000 National Security Letters per year, demanding personal information without benefit of a warrant. It has imposed gag orders on every aspect of NSLs, making it illegal to reveal that one has been received.” “Documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union show that the government conducted surveillance on as many as 150 peaceful protest or social groups, including Greenpeace, Catholic Workers, and Quakers in Florida. The Bush administration has used the threat of terrorism to silence peaceful protest at public events. It has happened all over the country, including to two women in Cedar Rapids who were handcuffed, led off to jail and strip-searched for "disrupting" a Bush rally.” I’m sure that these are facts, but I would like more information about them. What kind of surveillance was the government conducting? In what other instances has the Bush administration used the threat of terrorism to silence peaceful protest at public events? Was this the only reason those two women were led off to jail? The article didn't actually say that the two women were arrested or charged. If they did get charged, common sense tells me that it was some BS charge that they were disturbing the peace which would have probably not held up in a court of law. Fact “than the arrest of two American citizens, Jose Padilla and Yasir Hamdi, who were held for 3½ years in solitary confinement with no charges, no court appearance and no lawyer. The Bush administration declared them "enemy combatants" -- Enemies of the State -- and threw them in prison indefinitely.” Fact “For more than a decade, they have advocated attacking Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and even Saudi Arabia. The principal reason they wanted to invade Iraq was to eliminate any clandestine weapons-of-mass-destruction program.” Fact (reworded) “Their next target is Iran. The pretext is Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.” This may be a fact (I don’t know) (reworded) “The terrorists hate us because of our blind support for Israel, not because they "hate our freedom." I know that terrorists don’t hate us because of our freedom. A political scientist told me that they hate us because of our wealth and power which is why they attacked the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. The World Trade Center is a significant symbol of our wealth, and the Pentagon is a significant symbol of our power. I have no idea if they also hate us because of our blind support of Israel. Fact “Such a wider war would further inflame the Middle East and provoke an even greater terrorist threat in response, with higher costs than we can now imagine -- including domestic costs.” http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0911-32.htm There may be some other facts in this article, but I don’t have enough knowledge in those areas to have a clear opinion about it. Last edited by kentuckyrosesinmay : 09-12-2006 at 10:22 AM.
|
|
#66
09-12-2006, 01:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
People here live in luxury and thus any country that doesn't gets the sympathetic "oh those poor people" bull****. It's extremely condescending. A soldier from this country who grew up, corn fed, in Kansas of course will be shocked and assaulted by the way people live or survive abroad. Some tolerate it. Some don't. I never felt the obligation to make the situation sound better than it is, but it should always be taken in perspective. But I'm sure that some of you will disagree, because of course you know better, and you've lived outside this country, and you've seen combat, or you have a Master's degree in basketweaving. You have people who hate Americans for breaking the sovereignty of the country and you had the rest of the populace who preferred the Americans
|
|
#67
09-12-2006, 01:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jessica, The Constitution does not guarantee those rights during times of war. By the way, Padilla did have a lawyer. He may not have had access to a lawyer immediately, but he did get one. I don't think he waited anything close to 3 1/2 years to get one.
With regard to people being arrested that do obey the laws such as the guy you mentioned that was cleared by DNA, what does that have to do with President Bush? There have been plenty of innocent people that have been mistakenly arrested over the past 100 years. That has nothing to do with President Bush. If you think the Patriot Act has taken away civil liberties, you can blame Congress. They wrote the Patriot Act. By the way, Congress does have the right to write laws. The Patriot Act was a bi-partisan piece of legislation. It passed by a vote of 450-0 or something like that. If you are against it, then you are pretty hopeless. Even the morons in congress to both the far-left and the far-right were in favor of it. It was absolutely necessary to pass that law. With regard to the Iraq War, the author is right that the war has been incredibly expensive monetarily. He's right about that. The fact that it has been monetarily expensive does not necessarily mean that invading Iraq was a mistake. It may have been a mistake. I have serious questions about whether going to war with Iraq was a good idea or not. As of right now, it looks like it was a mistake. You say that I am derogatory toward leftists. That is absolutely true if the leftist(in this case the author) has no regard for the truth and is intentinally trying to mislead readers with fasle statements and half-truths. the funny thing about the articles in commondreams is that they don't even attempt to be honest. They don't even try to give you the facts. they know they don't need to. They know who their audience is. They're just preaching to the choir. I don't like it when my intelligence is insulted like that by someone from the left or right. For example, my mom is very conservative and she will call me up and tell me something that is an obvious half-truth and I get annoyed. I don't care what someone's politics are. I just want them to be honest with me. I don't want half-truths or propaganda from either side. Who has advocated attacking Saudi Arabia or Lebanon? Where did you come up with that? With regards to why the terrorists hate us, they hate us for a number of reasons. The main thing they don't want to happen is for countries such as Iraq to be free like the United States. If there is freedom, then they can't force their religion on everyone. They want to force women to cover their faces. They want to force people to pray 5 times a day. They won't let you choose your religion. If you want to covert to Chritianity or any religion, you will be put to death. There have certainly been negative consequences to our foreign policy but there have also been positive ones. Look at our relations with many of the countries in that region. Our relations are beter than ever with most Arab states. We have great relations with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Turkey, the new Iraqi government, Pakistan, Libya, etc. Our relations are very poor with Iran but that has been the case for over 20 years. Our relations are not particularly good with Syria either. In terms of our actions inflaming the masses in the Middle East, I would agree that that is true. But that's not totally our fault. Those people get nothing but propaganda over there and are not given the truth. The press constantly bashes us over there and intentionally misleads the masses. Last edited by Rupert Pupkin : 09-12-2006 at 01:24 PM.
|
|
#68
09-12-2006, 01:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I could care less about prisoners rights, i hope there are secret jails and holding facilities for these bastards in order to get information out of them. They probably do it mafia style, and stick icepicks in their balls, and put their heads in vices til their eyeballs pop out, just like what Joe Pesci did in Casino..lol "Charlie M!, you make me pop your eye out of your head for that mother****er"
|
|
#69
09-12-2006, 02:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Rupert, for a man who wants people to deal in the facts, you're not very careful about checking your own... The Sixth Amendment does not contain an exception for wartime. There have been cases that have argued there is an implicit exception, but if you're a strict constructionist, it ain't technically in there. The two main drafters of the PATRIOT Act were Ass't Attorney General Viet D. Dinh and future Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. I'd hardly call that "bi-partisan." And neither were Congressmembers when they drafted the PATRIOT Act. Yes, it was passed with overwhelming support- 98-1 in the Senate and 357-66 in the House (100 Senators and 435 Representatives, for a total of 535 voting bodies. I guess some abstained. I'm uncertain where you got 450- please let me know if I'm wrong about the number of Reps we have). Many Representatives and Senators didn't even read the whole thing, since it was dropped on them fast and the vote brought up faster (doesn't excuse them for not reading it, but sure seems shifty on behalf of Bush & Co, eh? Where was the harm in letting people have time to read the darn thing before making them vote on it?). If they had read it, maybe they might have noticed provision 411, which makes any association with a terrorist EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW THE PERSON WAS A TERRORIST a deportable offense. How about that? Your coworker turns out to be an Islamic radical and suddenly you are shipped out of the country. Sixteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, weren't they? As in "We have great relations with Saudi Arabia" Saudi Arabia? And most of those nations you list are not democracies, correct? Speaking of the people "over there" getting propaganda and not the truth-- have you watched Fox News lately? Pot? Kettle. Have you met? You're absolutely right to not want to accept opinion as fact, but it sometimes seems that you prefer to cut the right a break on facts and hold the left to a higher standard. And they should both be held to the same one (high). So be fair and balanced, why don' 'cha, since Fox News clearly won't be?  For everyone-- here's a link to Keith Olberman on 9/11-- he's become somewhat of a darling of the liberal blogosphere, which I find odd because he's hardly a liberal, but I guess in these right-winger times, a fair analysis seems like a left-leaning one... http://youtube.com/watch?v=B_4ZmcPEcVY But I'm still glad you're posting, Rupert-- it's no fun debating things when only like-minded people post (much as I love to read what they have to say). And Seattle-- dude, you crack me up. Nice "Casino" reference.
|
|
#70
09-12-2006, 02:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
BTW, I was calling you neither a pot nor a kettle, Rupert (though I have nothing against cookware per se)-- I just find it funny when we in American yammer about propaganda in other nations...
|
|
#71
09-12-2006, 02:30 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You said that people aren't arrested if they are obeying the law. Well, I found a ton of articles that say that the government has been arresting protesters unconstitutionally. Here are just a few... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112302185.html http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20050...5611-3029r.htm http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/...lders+kept+out http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316 Here are also some other articles on how people are starting to fight back. Even state attorney's are finding fault in the government and are starting to talk up about. The fact is that the government is infringing on our rights. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/A...s-Lawsuit.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/us/08liberties.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/op...c7a&ei=5087%0A http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/07/wa...8prexycnd.html Also... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/us/12bush.html How do you beat these people... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/wo.../12afghan.html Here are the articles about the two women who were arrested at Cedar Rapids...they were teachers... http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...otesters_x.htm http://www.blogforiowa.com/blog/_arc.../7/136478.html http://www.drudge.com/news/83680/arr...protesters-sue Here is the Jose Padillo case... http://www.chargepadilla.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%...d_terrorist%29 http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...amiherald_news He didn't do anything bad, he only was planning on detonating a "dirty bomb" in a major US city to try to kill a few-hundred thousand people. This statement that you said earlier is very false. They have no evidence out that whatsoever as stated in the last link above. Last edited by kentuckyrosesinmay : 09-12-2006 at 02:59 PM.
|
|
#72
09-12-2006, 03:03 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
are you taking some kind of class?
|
|
#73
09-12-2006, 03:10 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#74
09-12-2006, 03:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You say that it is false that Padilla planned on detonating a dirty bomb? I'd like to see where you came up with that. There are tons of witnesses that have said he was planning to do that and I believe he even admitted it himself. Granted the plan was in the very early stages and he hadn't obtained radioactive materials yet. Just because he wasn't charged with this specific plot, that does not mean that there was no such plot. They have a ton of things that they are charging him with. He will probably receive multiple lfe sentences. They don't need to charge him with that specific plan. They would rather charge with things that are even easier to prove. There have been serial killers that murdered 40 people. They aren't always charged with all 40 murders. If the police have their strongest evidence in 20 of the cases and the guy is only charged in those 20 cases, it hardly mean that he is innocent in the other 20. That's basically the case with Padilla. They have such strong evidence against him on multiple charges that they probably won't charge him specifically with the "dirty bomb" plot because it was in the early stages and it is a harder case to prove than the other charges that will be brought against him.
|
|
#75
09-12-2006, 04:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
With regard to the media, you have it totally backwards. For years we had a media that was way left of center. I think the polls showed that over 90% of the media labeled themselves as liberal democrats. There was a huge liberal bias in the media. Now we have Fox News that is a little right of center, and you think that is awful. It's hilarious. Fox is no further right than the mainstream media has been to the left over the years. At least with Fox, all of their shows have guests from both sides. O'Reilly is definitely well right of center but he constantly brings on guests that are way left of center and debates them. What is wrong with that? Both sides get their say. Not only that, at least Fox News has plenty of liberal hosts and anchors. Geraldo is a democrat. Gretta is a democrat. Allan Colmes is a democrat. Name me a republican anchor at CBS, NBC, or ABC. There are so few republican reporters in the mainstream media that it is ridiculous. I find it amusing that many liberals see Fox News as so far right-wing and yet they don't even recognize how left-wing the mainstream media is. You are so used to the left-wing media that when a news organization(Fox) comes along that is a little right of center, you think it's some crazy right-wing propaganda. It's hilarious. By the way, if you're an American, you can't be deported for knowing a terrorist. I think you misunderstood that part. That only applies to people that are here on visas. By the way, you are wrong about the Constitution. The Constitution specifically says that certain rights cannot be guaranteed during war time or emergencies. Last edited by Rupert Pupkin : 09-12-2006 at 04:24 PM.
|
|
#76
09-12-2006, 04:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Constitution also states clearly how war can be declared.
Not that it's been followed since WW II.
|
|
#77
09-12-2006, 05:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Leftists can't tolerate the slightest dissent or criticism. Just look at how Wee Willie Klinton and the mindless Klintonoids are squealing like greased pigs over a few scenes from a TV movie. And where are the howls of censorship from the usual leftist quarters? Fifty years of absolute leftist media monopoly isn't enough for them. When AM radio turned to talk formats to keep from going out of business ... and right-wing hosts proved to be very popular ... again all we've heard is pig-squeals over reinstating the "fairness" doctrine in order to drive any and all right-wing commentary off the air. And how about PBS and NPR ... funded by all taxpayers ... at least 50% of whom are rightists ... yet still spewing 100% leftist crapola for over 40 years. When a couple of right-leaning members were appointed to the board of directors ... again the lefties squealed and squealed. Leftists are utterly bankrupt ... ever since their secular god ... the Soviet Union ... was thrown into the trash can by their nemesis ... Ronald Reagan ... these disillusioned lefties can think of nothing better to do ... than howl at the moon. Just wait and see the screaming and gnashing that occurs when the cigars explode in their faces again this November. Now that's entertainment!
|
|
#78
09-12-2006, 05:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I would be very happy to tell you where to put your cigar.
I'll even tell you how to light the fuse. I'll watch. It should be very entertaining. At least your budget will be spared the expense of all the preparation-h. Hemmeroids? What hemmeroids? BOOM!
|
|
#79
09-12-2006, 06:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm not referring to anyone on this board, but I have found incredible hypocrisy amongst most liberals when it comes to civil rights, free speech, etc.
When a conservative speaker goes to a university to speak, the students will often times try to drown him out and not even allow him to speak. These are liberal students who are supposed to be in favor of free speech. In reality, they only want free speech for people they agree with. In addition, what President was the biggest violator of people's civil rights? I'll give you a hint. He was the biggest liberal ever. It was FDR, who actually put Americans of Asian descent in internment camps during World War II. I have this one friend who is a real liberal. He said that someone should kill Bill O'Reilly. It's amazing. My friend is a liberal yet he so desperately wants to silence O'Reilly that he wishes someone would kill him. My friend obviously does not belive in free speech even though he would claim that he absolutely does. The ironic thing is that O'Reilly is a big believer in free speech. O'Reilly is always brining people on his show who have the total opposite views and he debates them. Like O'Reilly, I like to let these idiots talk. The more they talk, they just end up making fools of themselves most of the time. Last edited by Rupert Pupkin : 09-12-2006 at 06:16 PM.
|
|
#80
09-12-2006, 06:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Rupert, you claimed the PATRIOT Act was written by Congress, which is wasn't. In addition, the Constitution does not contain an "emergency power" or "suspension" clause other than the clause allowing limited suspension of habeas corpus-- BUT-- that power is granted to CONGRESS, not the President (Article 9, Section 1). And it's been the White House, without Congressional knowledge in many cases, who has been orchestrating the secret prisons, the torture, etc. etc. Not that there haven't been cases decided in favor of eroding civil liberties, but the decisions weren't found in the Constitution. The Patriot Act is 340 pages. The Senate was given just three days to read the bill before voting on it. Two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Sen. Orrin Hatch found a pending appropriations bill due for a vote, and tacked on a slew of amendments servings as a sort of precursor to the Patriot Act — again, giving the Senate no time to actually read and discuss them. You really think all 98 people who voted for the PATRIOT Act read it in its entirety and had time to consider it? In three days? But do you think they'd admit to it? And what does that say if they didn't vote to renew? Oh, gee, now that I've had a chance to actually read the thing I think I was wrong? Although some did-- the vote went 280-138 in the House and 89-10 in the Senate. (This year, by the way, not last year. It failed last year.) In fact, Congress NOT reading legislation they have passed has gotten so bad several organizations are pushing for legislation that will require Congressmen and women to sign legal affadavits that they've read what they voted on. I kid you not. Fat chance seeing it passed, of course. If you think mainstream media is liberal-- I don't even know how to address this one (I'm sure your Fox KoolAid is deeelicious, though!). Yes, many reporters identify as politically liberal. They aren't the ones who decide what stories get reported. It's the editors and the owners, who tend to identify as conservative. It doesn't matter one whit what political way you lean if you don't have the authority to decide what gets on the air. And Colmes, or any of the other straw dogs Fox offers as "liberal viewpoints?" Oh please. I could stick a dildo on a desk next to Chris Matthews and claim it was a "Republican commentator" but that doesn't mean that it's going to be any good at commentating. If you can't see that they find the most incompetent idiots for O'Reilly to shout at and bully, you're kidding yourself (You call that debate? What he does?). But how can they claim to be "fair and balanced" unless they pretend to be giving both sides? Please. Oldest trick in the book, next to "Look at the monkey!" Call me when Fox puts on Joan Walsh or Sidney Blumenthal or someone good. I won't hold my breath. Geraldo? Gimme a break. I can't believe you even typed that in any seriousness. It'd be like me assuming your Ann Coulter is the best you right-wingers can offer. Unfair and untrue of me to do so. Geraldo. Right. 'Fess up-- you meant that as a joke, right? Please feel free to give me any examples of major news outlets showing a clear liberal bias in their reporting. As you have said, best to deal in facts and not opinions. What, just because Section 411 doesn't apply to citizens, that makes it okay? Thanks Rupert, as always, for the opposing view! Makes me do my homework, which I appreciate. 
|
Linear Mode
