Why would one want to cut military spending when we live in an age in which non christian heretics are launching assaults on our homeland? Are you a terrorist apologist?
That was baffling why Mr Obama didnt agree to this, Saudia Arabia bears blame for allowing the growth of terrorists in the middle east. Money and responsibility is due to our country for their part in this heinous and despicable act of tyranny and infamy.
Because it's a waste of money and resource, and there's nothing to show for the amount that we pump into military spending. Our focus should be on citizens such as yourself, not "non-Christian heretics" who have caused us the least amount of damage. In fact, you should appreciate them as they're killing a lot of Muslims, which is something you and other conservatives want, no?
Seems conservatives are terrorist apologists as long as their own people doing it.
More than that, I would say that no amount of military strength can defend the US from the sort of attacks they have had recently. I mean, it's normally US citizens who go under the radar. If they get caught or stopped it won't be by the military but by the police or maybe US intelligence.... The US military could have a budget 100 times bigger and be 1000 times stronger and it wouldn't make shred of a difference.
That is an issue that has me confused... Obama makes the point that the US could also be sued which of course if true would be a huge problem for them. But then again not even his own allies in congress support him. So... who has the accurate assessment of the situation here?
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
I am sort of confused about the VP debate. Based on what I have read it kinda seems like Pence walked out of it stronger than Kaine but in turn Pence lied about absolutely everything..... As in, he straight up lies about stuff trump says. How does he walk out stronger when so blatantly lying?
Pence as far as I know "won" because he was calm and stuff. Kaine kept getting defensive and all that shit, although Pence is accused of praising fantasy Trump and avoiding answering questions and all that.
More Jobs. Did you know the US Department of Defense is the largest employer in the world? Decreasing military spending is cutting off the source of food on the table for many hard working American families. People will starve.
We can create more jobs by using the money saved from decreasing military spending into something else. More jobs doesn't justify wasting tons of money into something that doesn't produce the result it should for its price.
no we're not, we're ensuring ourselves of creating more enemies that want to kill us as well. Whoever said squashing terrorists in other countries will solve terrorist problems is a naive idiot who doesn't understand how the world works, which seems to be most of Trump supporters.
That logic only makes sense if you deploy groundtroops, and you don't want that (and justifiedly so),
And even if you cut your military spendings, you are able to have interventions.
You do not need nukes, that amount of aircraftcarriers and superbombs against guirilla warfare.
You need an effective plan how to rebuild and stabilize a country.
You had chances to learn how to do that in iraq and afghanistan, but the american people don't want such wars anymore. So why the expensive military? For prestige alone?
You are using drones, and that is pretty effective (even if morally questionable). This is the future of anti terrorist warfare. That and actually helping destabilized countries to get back on track.
It is MUCH better for the US if the kurds fight against ISIS than if US groundtroops do it, quite honestly.
I didnt say I dont want ground troops. I think Ive preciously explained tbat a combination of heavy traditional infantry and smart warfare is more effectove that fighting from afar using drones. Mr Obama has been ineffective with bia drone warfare.
I didnt say I dont want ground troops. I think Ive preciously explained tbat a combination of heavy traditional infantry and smart warfare is more effectove that fighting from afar using drones. Mr Obama has been ineffective with bia drone warfare.
He wasnt ineffective with that. He damaged al kaida very decisively for years.
The rise of isis was not obama's fault. The only thing you could blame him for the rise of islamism in north africa after the lybia crisis, but he only has a small share of the blame there.
And as i said: If your target is smart warfare, you could spend much less on your military. There are a lot of expensive toys you keep arround (like the amount of tanks you got which you won't ever use). I am not someone who condemns spending on a military, but i think the US is right in demanding more support from other nato members (exspecially germany who simply depended on other nations mostly and just provided support even tho is has the means to build up a capable military with moderate spending on it) and cutting some budget itself.
Where is your source for that? Obama has been very effective, and that's one of the reasons why many citizens in Middle East hate him and consider him a war criminal - because he's taken out innocent citizens as well. But then again, conservatives love calling Obama Muslim (didn't he give money to Israel, an enemy of Muslims?) and making shit up. I mean, neither you nor any anti-refugee people have any fact or stat to back up that they'll be a danger to the US.
I think it'd be relevant enough because it shows how competent a vice president can be if the president is unable to do his duties. Isn't that one factor why McCain lost, because people were too scared of President Palin? Though, I have no idea if she ever had a debate with Biden.
They did have a debate, and it almost certainly wasn't Palin's debate performance that cost the GOP the election. Her own interviews and the dirt-digging done in regard to her was enough. As well as the anti-GOP sentiment in the country in general due to 8 years of GWB. And even then, not enough credit is being given to Obama or his campaign.
That is an issue that has me confused... Obama makes the point that the US could also be sued which of course if true would be a huge problem for them. But then again not even his own allies in congress support him. So... who has the accurate assessment of the situation here?
It's all conjecture based on supposed legal precedent. The reality is, laws are only laws if they can be enforced. Not to endorse state-sponsored bullying or anything, but yeah...
I am sort of confused about the VP debate. Based on what I have read it kinda seems like Pence walked out of it stronger than Kaine but in turn Pence lied about absolutely everything..... As in, he straight up lies about stuff trump says. How does he walk out stronger when so blatantly lying?
Essentially nothing that Pence represents is something I agree with, but even to me he came off much better than Kaine. Kaine might be wildly popular in Richmond and Virginia and even DC, but he came across as way too eager to smear Trump and his campaign. He came off as a bit hotheaded honestly.
The debates are often as much about how someone acts and behaves, than what they actually say. It was basically a even worse pissing match than the first presidential debate, and Kaine still came off worse to me somehow.
Because it's a waste of money and resource, and there's nothing to show for the amount that we pump into military spending. Our focus should be on citizens such as yourself, not "non-Christian heretics" who have caused us the least amount of damage. In fact, you should appreciate them as they're killing a lot of Muslims, which is something you and other conservatives want, no?
Seems conservatives are terrorist apologists as long as their own people doing it.
Defense spending is not a waste of money and resources. I don't think cutting defense spending and reducing the size of our military is an answer to any question being asked. The issue is oversight and using it for worthwhile causes. The same with any other government-sponsored entity or program.
And really, you need to look up the definition of terrorism. I'm assuming this is hyperbole, but you're embarrassing yourself. Everyone here participating in this discussion might vehemently disagree with what Sharkbait says, but saying that "our focus" should be on him and citizens like him as some sort of solution to our problems is complete nonsense, not constructive, and inflammatory, unless I'm completely missing your point?
More Jobs. Did you know the US Department of Defense is the largest employer in the world? Decreasing military spending is cutting off the source of food on the table for many hard working American families. People will starve.
So then the military industrial complex is something you support and want to encourage? You have no moral objection to war profiteering? That hardly seems like something someone would think if they actually cared about the general well-being of our citizens.
Fivethirtyeight now predicts possibility of Clinton winning is 75%. In their last update flipped Nevada from likely Republican to likely Democrats. And showing Clinton has 50.5% chances of taking Ohio. 63% chances of taking Florida. If she gets Florida she becomes the president.
Its a delight to read analysis of Nate Silver, from a statistical point of view.
Well, we sort of already knew trump didn't want to put a speck of work into his presidency. He just wants to sit on the big chair at the oval office and say yes or no to things without involving too much. Back when trump was looking for a VP one of his first choices appeared to be John Kasich. Kasich asked trump what his duties would be. And the response he got was that he was going to handle domestic and foreign policy. Which is quite literally all of the job. Perhaps in this regard the VP debate was more important than it was given credit for because if trump wins it could be pense running the show. Of course, pence running the country is far and wide a vastly superior alternative to trump running it.
I honestly don't know if I can actually trust Pence, but I can agree that he would be a better alternative than Trump leading the nation (which is where I can only hope that Congress impeaches Trump for a line of failure of duties; there's no point in him being President if he can't even be a Commander-in-chief).
Why would one want to cut military spending when we live in an age in which non christian heretics are launching assaults on our homeland? Are you a terrorist apologist?
First of all: "launching assaults on our homeland" is over-exaggerating for two reasons. First reason is that there hasn't been a single member of ISIS who came from the Middle East (or North Africa) that directly attacked the United States; all of the attacks from the recent years that were done by ISIS-loyals were American-Born citizens. If you're afraid of some group of nutjobs whose transportation revolves around driving trucks with a black flag, then you have safety issues. Second reason, if there's anyone more threatening than ISIS, it would be the Sovereign Citizens. Even if ISIS was the #1 threat in the United States, you're more likely to get killed by lightning than you are by a member of ISIS in the United States.
Second: The United States spends more than 7 highest spending countries combined, and the Economy hasn't even completely recovered yet (let's also not forget about the Tax Breaks that Corporations are receiving).
Don't get any wrong idea, I have nothing against Military Spending. I don't mind if some money is going into them (especially when it can also be used to help Veterans who needs it badly), but the problem is that spending too much over Military when we have enough weapons to potentially take over the world.
Also, why do you think that I'm a "terrorist apologist"? Just because I don't agree with the Military spending, doesn't mean I side with those Jihadist Nutjobs. Maybe I should consider you a Blood-lusting Warmonger just because you think we need more war or more weapons made to kill?
That was baffling why Mr Obama didnt agree to this, Saudia Arabia bears blame for allowing the growth of terrorists in the middle east. Money and responsibility is due to our country for their part in this heinous and despicable act of tyranny and infamy.
Maybe because it could eventually lead to people to sue the United States over the colossal damage we've caused? We've destroyed Iraq, bombed a hospital and a wedding, and even killed some Doctors from MSF (or Doctors Without Boarders).
Wow, you can basically watch trumps chances melt down by the hour when you look at the polls.
I had guessed that the vice president debate would at least stop his freefall, but it does not look like it (the first positive effects of the first debate started to be visible in the timeframe we are in now. While it might still give him a small bump (i admit it is early after all), the general trend speaks a very clear language.
Maybe iwas wrong about who won the debate. I mean, if you lost trust in donald trump in the first debate, then seeing a likeable guy like tim kaine losing against someone who you believe lies nonstop might give you more of a reason to vote for clintonkaine than you had before.
They did have a debate, and it almost certainly wasn't Palin's debate performance that cost the GOP the election. Her own interviews and the dirt-digging done in regard to her was enough. As well as the anti-GOP sentiment in the country in general due to 8 years of GWB. And even then, not enough credit is being given to Obama or his campaign.
I'm pretty sure it was her interviews more than anything else. She came across as an utter dumbass, if I recall, and that turned people away from McCain because they were scared he'd pass away due to his age, and we'd get Palin for the remainder of the term.
Would you expect people who weren't Obama lovers to give him or his campaign credit? If I recall, many of these people still think he's Muslim, wasn't born in America, or some other bullshit.
Defense spending is not a waste of money and resources. I don't think cutting defense spending and reducing the size of our military is an answer to any question being asked. The issue is oversight and using it for worthwhile causes. The same with any other government-sponsored entity or program.
And really, you need to look up the definition of terrorism. I'm assuming this is hyperbole, but you're embarrassing yourself. Everyone here participating in this discussion might vehemently disagree with what Sharkbait says, but saying that "our focus" should be on him and citizens like him as some sort of solution to our problems is complete nonsense, not constructive, and inflammatory, unless I'm completely missing your point?
Yes it is, when we spend so much and have so little to show for it or prove that it's worth pumping so much money into. If we have a lot to show for the amount we spend, then awesome! But reducing spending is an answer because we can use the money saved towards other things, like improving infrastructure, which would give more people jobs.
I know what terrorism means. Facts and stats say terrorism in US comes from homegrown citizens like that anti-abortionist shooter and if I recall, the Orlando nightclub shooter. Banning Muslims or any group isn't going to stop terrorism, especially when we don't even focus on our own citizens. It's Europe who has to be worried about terrorism from inside and outside, until the countries actually fix their vetting process.
Who are people going to blame when all groups are banned, and terrorism still happens? Obama? Liberals?
Maybe iwas wrong about who won the debate. I mean, if you lost trust in donald trump in the first debate, then seeing a likeable guy like tim kaine losing against someone who you believe lies nonstop might give you more of a reason to vote for clintonkaine than you had before.
Kaine came across like he was trying way too hard, a shitload of unrelated comments brought up in response, not actually answering questions that were asked. I mean, both sides do this, but Clinton came off way better in the first debate than Kaine came across against Pence. Yes, Pence was smug as hell, but I think he played it the right way.
But like the study you mentioned, it probably won't be much of a factor at the polls.
I'm pretty sure it was her interviews more than anything else. She came across as an utter dumbass, if I recall, and that turned people away from McCain because they were scared he'd pass away due to his age, and we'd get Palin for the remainder of the term.
Would you expect people who weren't Obama lovers to give him or his campaign credit? If I recall, many of these people still think he's Muslim, wasn't born in America, or some other bullshit.
Yeah, like I said. Stuff like the Katie Couric interview buried her. But even then, the VP picks this election aren't worthy of having the same complaints. Both are seasoned politicians who have an understanding and at least come across as being coherent. Despite Kaine appearing to have lost the debate, I don't think he's a weakness for the Democrat's chances.
Yes it is, when we spend so much and have so little to show for it or prove that it's worth pumping so much money into. If we have a lot to show for the amount we spend, then awesome! But reducing spending is an answer because we can use the money saved towards other things, like improving infrastructure, which would give more people jobs.
"When we spend so much and have so little to show for it".....I mean, that's not how defense spending works. I don't think we're disagreeing here honestly. I don't think defense spending should continue to rise like it has, we spend more than enough on it. But I don't think cutting it drastically solves any of our problems either. It's what it's spent on that matters.
I know what terrorism means. Facts and stats say terrorism in US comes from homegrown citizens like that anti-abortionist shooter and if I recall, the Orlando nightclub shooter. Banning Muslims or any group isn't going to stop terrorism, especially when we don't even focus on our own citizens. It's Europe who has to be worried about terrorism from inside and outside, until the countries actually fix their vetting process.
Who are people going to blame when all groups are banned, and terrorism still happens? Obama? Liberals?
This isn't really the gripe I had with your reply to Shark... It's the false equivalency between what you think Shark believes and violent extremism. I think we both disagree with what he thinks, but I digress.
And I think it's sort of confusing to say that we don't focus on our own citizens? Focus on them in what way exactly?
Essentially nothing that Pence represents is something I agree with, but even to me he came off much better than Kaine. Kaine might be wildly popular in Richmond and Virginia and even DC, but he came across as way too eager to smear Trump and his campaign. He came off as a bit hotheaded honestly.
The debates are often as much about how someone acts and behaves, than what they actually say. It was basically a even worse pissing match than the first presidential debate, and Kaine still came off worse to me somehow.
I get what you mean but.... at the same time I just can't see how pence would "win" this. The guy blatantly lied about the stuff he and trump say. Look at the ad at the end of this article: http://www.salon.com/2016/10/05/watch-new-clinton-ad-demolishes-every-mike-pence-lie-from-vp-debate/
It is a hillary clinton ad but even then it presents things quite clearly.... Who in his right mind can take pence seriously? What's wrong with people? The GOP and perhaps the media that supports them kinda has to say pence did well but for the rest of the world his lies should be crystal clear.
Well now they put Clinton's possibility even higher at 78%. Ohio 60% chances of going to Dems. Iowa 55% chances of going to Dems. Colorado, Pennsylvania about 80% chances of going to Dems. One more swing in favour of Clinton and she might be ahead in Arizona.
Nate Silvers articles are really good. In one he wrote: if you see Trump winning Wisconsin while trailing on the polls then you should assume that Trump have won several other states trailing on the polls as well and probably secured enough electoral votes as well.
Well now they put Clinton's possibility even higher at 78%. Ohio 60% chances of going to Dems. Iowa 55% chances of going to Dems. Colorado, Pennsylvania about 80% chances of going to Dems. One more swing in favour of Clinton and she might be ahead in Arizona.
Nate Silvers articles are really good. In one he wrote: if you see Trump winning Wisconsin while trailing on the polls then you should assume that Trump have won several other states trailing on the polls as well and probably secured enough electoral votes as well.
Interesting. So if she can get just a few more states, she might have a chance at winning the election. But definitely winning Florida should be important to Hillary.
Yeah, like I said. Stuff like the Katie Couric interview buried her. But even then, the VP picks this election aren't worthy of having the same complaints. Both are seasoned politicians who have an understanding and at least come across as being coherent. Despite Kaine appearing to have lost the debate, I don't think he's a weakness for the Democrat's chances.
"When we spend so much and have so little to show for it".....I mean, that's not how defense spending works. I don't think we're disagreeing here honestly. I don't think defense spending should continue to rise like it has, we spend more than enough on it. But I don't think cutting it drastically solves any of our problems either. It's what it's spent on that matters.
This isn't really the gripe I had with your reply to Shark... It's the false equivalency between what you think Shark believes and violent extremism. I think we both disagree with what he thinks, but I digress.
And I think it's sort of confusing to say that we don't focus on our own citizens? Focus on them in what way exactly?
I don't know, thought Kaine did worse. He's accused of being too defensive of Hillary, while Pence is accused of skirting questions. Kaine probably won't be as big a weakness as Palin was as long as he shows some sort of competence.
I think cutting it can help alleviate problems. What do we have to show for the billions that we pump? What kind of technologies have been created that help us fight wars and protect people? I mean, if you kept spending tons of money on security and it didn't do much in protecting, would you continue to waste money on that?
What? I'm saying that terrorism isn't defined or restricted to Muslims or non-Christians, and that anyone can be a terrorist, from Christian Americans to Spanish Muslims. Shark can become as much of a terrorist as you, I, or Mohammad.
How many of our citizens committed acts of terrorism? I think we've had more citizens shoot people than non-Americans kill our people. Hell, it seems we focus more on black Americans than anyone else.
I get what you mean but.... at the same time I just can't see how pence would "win" this. The guy blatantly lied about the stuff he and trump say. Look at the ad at the end of this article: http://www.salon.com/2016/10/05/watch-new-clinton-ad-demolishes-every-mike-pence-lie-from-vp-debate/
It is a hillary clinton ad but even then it presents things quite clearly.... Who in his right mind can take pence seriously? What's wrong with people? The GOP and perhaps the media that supports them kinda has to say pence did well but for the rest of the world his lies should be crystal clear.
So then the military industrial complex is something you support and want to encourage? You have no moral objection to war profiteering? That hardly seems like something someone would think if they actually cared about the general well-being of our citizens.
There are tons of things out there for the military defense to spend on beyond building weapons, scientific studies leading to vaccines against potential new bioweapons and other diseases in places where our troops are stationed can be beneficial to not only the community of soldiers but even people in those areas as well, further spending on better enhanced computer networks aids not only military but even the security of all records for all Americans. Enhanced aviation studies can enhance the entire american aviation industry one of the largest fleets in the world.The defense budget goes towards many scientific pursuits that dont just aid the military but even the nation as a whole, energy, health, etc. Decreasing spending is just completely silly considering how much goes into our indirect and direct benefits to all citizens.
First of all: "launching assaults on our homeland" is over-exaggerating for two reasons. First reason is that there hasn't been a single member of ISIS who came from the Middle East (or North Africa) that directly attacked the United States; all of the attacks from the recent years that were done by ISIS-loyals were American-Born citizens. If you're afraid of some group of nutjobs whose transportation revolves around driving trucks with a black flag, then you have safety issues. Second reason, if there's anyone more threatening than ISIS, it would be the Sovereign Citizens. Even if ISIS was the #1 threat in the United States, you're more likely to get killed by lightning than you are by a member of ISIS in the United States.
How is it over exaggerating when these folks are polluting the minds of impressionable young folks to try to get them to pledge their allegiance and carry out heinous acts. You do know people in their 20s and younger have been imprisioned. It is only because our defense forces are so diligent that someone hasnt executed an attack. I do not how you can live in a world of probability sleeping easy at night thinking that threats to our nation wont happen.
Second: The United States spends more than 7 highest spending countries combined, and the Economy hasn't even completely recovered yet (let's also not forget about the Tax Breaks that Corporations are receiving).
Don't get any wrong idea, I have nothing against Military Spending. I don't mind if some money is going into them (especially when it can also be used to help Veterans who needs it badly), but the problem is that spending too much over Military when we have enough weapons to potentially take over the world.
What would you have these 3 mln trained people do if suddenly the budget was cut and half of them laid off? Where would you employ them? What about the disrupted local economies in places that have heavy numbers of government workers? Local small business would go belly up now that many of their locals are now unemployed.
Also, why do you think that I'm a "terrorist apologist"? Just because I don't agree with the Military spending, doesn't mean I side with those Jihadist Nutjobs. Maybe I should consider you a Blood-lusting Warmonger just because you think we need more war or more weapons made to kill?
Maybe because it could eventually lead to people to sue the United States over the colossal damage we've caused? We've destroyed Iraq, bombed a hospital and a wedding, and even killed some Doctors from MSF (or Doctors Without Boarders).
Yes it is, when we spend so much and have so little to show for it or prove that it's worth pumping so much money into. If we have a lot to show for the amount we spend, then awesome! But reducing spending is an answer because we can use the money saved towards other things, like improving infrastructure, which would give more people jobs.
I know what terrorism means. Facts and stats say terrorism in US comes from homegrown citizens like that anti-abortionist shooter and if I recall, the Orlando nightclub shooter. Banning Muslims or any group isn't going to stop terrorism, especially when we don't even focus on our own citizens. It's Europe who has to be worried about terrorism from inside and outside, until the countries actually fix their vetting process.
Who are people going to blame when all groups are banned, and terrorism still happens? Obama? Liberals?
Well Obama failed to squash terrorists so he is to be blamed. Democrats and liberals are to be blamed for wanting to pull all troops out from overseas and focus on enhancing technology so that can live in more comfort with their apple products while living safely. Lets not forget they comfortably staged a sit in in air conditioned well lit secure congress blogging, vlogging, and instagraming for some social justice cause with little to no sacrifice implying they want to experience more comfort for themselves while doing little to protect other citizens every who struggle in insecurity and fear of lack of security and peace.
What infrastructure projects would they do? I see nothing that implies we need more people building roads or bridges to nowhere.
Well Obama failed to squash terrorists so he is to be blamed. Democrats and liberals are to be blamed for wanting to pull all troops out from overseas and focus on enhancing technology so that can live in more comfort with their apple products while living safely. Lets not forget they comfortably staged a sit in in air conditioned well lit secure congress blogging, vlogging, and instagraming for some social justice cause with little to no sacrifice implying they want to experience more comfort for themselves while doing little to protect other citizens every who struggle in insecurity and fear of lack of security and peace.
You can't see what's in front of you anyway, so it doesn't matter if you see nothing. We do need more people building or fixing bridges and roads and even erecting new buildings that can become cheap housing or recreational centers for youths in order to get them off the streets. We can employ these people to help build some sort of transportation system that connects the country even more, like Amtrak. so many things we can do that would benefit the country more than spending more and more in defense and warfare where the results don't justify the waste of money.
No one will be able to squash terrorists. And if you wanna play it like that, then we can blame Bush, Reagan, and many other presidents as they also created terrorists and failed to squash them. Why just blame Obama? Republicans and conservatives deserve as much blame for creating terrorists for selfish (country) gains and arming them with weapons that are being used against us.
Ironically, conservatives do the same thing as well, and they don't even care about anyone unless it serves their agenda. Conservatives are happy to let vets and homeless people rot and die, but when it comes to refugees, they somehow bring up that we should take care of vets and homeless first. And yet, they proceed to do nothing.
How is it over exaggerating when these folks are polluting the minds of impressionable young folks to try to get them to pledge their allegiance and carry out heinous acts. You do know people in their 20s and younger have been imprisioned. It is only because our defense forces are so diligent that someone hasnt executed an attack. I do not how you can live in a world of probability sleeping easy at night thinking that threats to our nation wont happen.
It's over-exaggerating that you're making it sound like a group of nutjobs who's only transportation are a bunch of trucks would actually invade the United States. Their forces are diminishing, resources going low, territories being lost, and they need recruitment (badly); ISIS won't be as threatening as they were last year or the year before, and they sure as shit won't be a threat to the United States, not in a million years. It's one thing if this was Europe, where the Middle East is close to them, but that's not the case at all.
So you're telling me to be afraid of these nutjobs who uses scare-tactics against a nation that has enough weapons to literally takeover the world? What a lousy joke...
What would you have these 3 mln trained people do if suddenly the budget was cut and half of them laid off? Where would you employ them? What about the disrupted local economies in places that have heavy numbers of government workers? Local small business would go belly up now that many of their locals are now unemployed.
Redirect the budget spending to Veterans and those who served, including the 3 million trained people. Also, I'm pretty sure that these "trained people" would have developed the skills for appropriate jobs they might be seeking (for example: If you were an Engineer for a military base, then you can work at Airports. Or if anything, a military person can always be a Police Officer).
I guess it all comes down to the skills they have and what the Demand of the Economy has as well.
