the fact that you "heh" a national security leak is very disconcerting.
this isnt "oversight" its attendance You want oversight, demand dedicated overseers, just dont confuse it with attendance. There will be records of who is where, if your scares get scared, then address it then. its not required to be done via a bill, and if it is dont via a bill, it takes yet another bill or summarily equivalent action to alter or undue, limiting every executives ability to build a functioning and cohesive system On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> wrote: > Okay, thank you for answering. > > I agree, via bill I am totally for. This is how our government was > designed to be ran. > > Doing what was done via executive action to the Security Council of all > things I have a major problem with. > > It is VERY HARD to get info out of the Security Council. Since 9/11 there > have been numerous abuses of power that have arisen, and any requests for > additional info on them have been denied in the name of national security. > Thankfully (heh) some people leak things, phones get hacked, etc which is > why we know these things even exist. > > With that in mind, I can't in good conscience support an executive action > that even potentially removes additional oversight of that appendage and at > the same time grants additional power and position to a presidential > appointed advisor in any form. > > This should have been done via a bill, but it wasn't. WHY? > > On Jan 29, 2017 5:58 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> To be completely honest, had i not watched that particular interview, I >> might be a little more bent about this >> >> (taking bannon out of the equation, i still dont know what this guy is >> actually doing there, but theres probably alot more I dont know about this >> guy than I do know) >> >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 5:58 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Do you support a president removing access to hearings for individuals >>> in positions that were confirmed by the senate via executive action. >>> >>> No, and if it ever happens that way, Ill be the first to say its bad. I >>> however have zero problem with restructuring departmental and >>> interdepartmental discussions to be more efficient, if any of the multiple >>> governmental and civilian oversight and watchdog committees find instances >>> of abuse of this then we have an impeachment process already on the books. >>> >>> Do you support a president removing access to hearings for individuals >>> in positions that were confirmed by the senate via the passing of a bill or >>> bills? >>> >>> Assuming you mean signing into law a change that has presented as a bill >>> and made it through the house and senate for signature by the executive to >>> sign it into law... without question (caveat being if in two years we >>> achieve super-majority, then I trust zero bills that come through) >>> >>> >>> Now, I will admit, my last full reading of the constitution was well >>> over twenty years ago, but I do not recall any component that defines the >>> structure of the meetings, I could be wrong, I did smoke alot of pot and >>> take alot of acid back then. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> There was an interview, I think on PBS with Obamas outgoing chief of >>> staff. It was an excellent interview, where they discussed what amounted to >>> interdepartmental communications and the separation of the executive from >>> each of the individual departments. Well worth watching. >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 5:40 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> ask a less purposefully vague question >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Answer this question: >>>>> >>>>> Should we allow any government official to bestow powers upon their >>>>> own office? >>>>> >>>>> I know exactly what the founding fathers thought of this, because they >>>>> wrote extensively about it. >>>>> >>>>> I'm asking for your opinion here. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 29, 2017 5:32 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> no, we need compartmentalization of government. Thats exactly what is >>>>> happenning. and people like you are just too ego pilled to actually see it >>>>> happen. >>>>> >>>>> "he will waterboard" who? "Drumf" really? "yeas, he said so" >>>>> interesting, will he hold the towel, or pour the water? "well no, but hes >>>>> going to" really? "well, not him directly" oh, so who? "he will put people >>>>> in charge to do it" really? "yes" like mattis and pompeo? "exactly" >>>>> interesting >>>>> >>>>> he cant run, he cant win, his numbers are too low, he wont get the >>>>> primary, he wont get those states, why is he there, he doesnt know what he >>>>> is doing...... really? >>>>> >>>>> The problem with people like you, you think very very small, not >>>>> bigly. You cant comprehend this presidency has been in the works since the >>>>> 80s. People like you are exactly why its going to grow, youve already >>>>> clinched 8 years. Why you ask? See above. >>>>> >>>>> There has never been a presidency like this presidency, where the >>>>> constitution fully worked exactly as intended, yet you want to pull the >>>>> "when in history" well, thats easy... never. >>>>> >>>>> 1 week and the whole nation is in play, this has never happened >>>>> before, on this many fronts, and you are still talking about what you >>>>> know. >>>>> You are begging, pleading, insulting for the status quo, because thats >>>>> what >>>>> you do actually know. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> So I sit here and go through the trouble of providing a historical >>>>>> list of times this has happened. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your response would be "doesn't matter, that isn't Trump". >>>>>> >>>>>> And on one hand you'd be right, Trump isn't them. >>>>>> >>>>>> It still sets up a terrible precedent for himself and future >>>>>> presidents that allows for rampant abuse that remains unchecked by the >>>>>> house and senate. Do we really need more government shadow organizations >>>>>> that have no mechanism for congressional oversight? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 29, 2017 5:08 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> you are living in what ifs, assumptions, and biased logic. youre >>>>>>> doing fine for yourself. Carry on comrade, in fascism younite >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 5:03 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected] >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I can't dispense of pretenses I never claimed to hold. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You said it wasn't a big deal, you couldn't find a source. I >>>>>>>> provided a source, and you also found a copy (but failed to read it). >>>>>>>> Then >>>>>>>> you said it didn't read that way, so I highlighted the exact line in >>>>>>>> question to save you the time from reading it. Then you went on some >>>>>>>> batshit tangent about filing a FOIA on the National Security Council >>>>>>>> of all >>>>>>>> things. Then you brought up "it hasn't happened yet". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can you please provide a reference in the history of the world when >>>>>>>> a power was granted to someone BY THEMSELVES in government that later >>>>>>>> wasn't abused? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You're blindly trying to maintain a position on this without any >>>>>>>> sort of rational thought. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is the world our kids are going to grow up in. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please, at least try to make it a better one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2017 4:51 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> how centrist of you to devolve so quickly >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Josh Reynolds < >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Steve, you are a prime example of the failure of the public >>>>>>>>>> education system :P >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2017 4:46 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> oh.... so you are saying youre complaining about something that >>>>>>>>>> hasnt even happenned... at least thats clear >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Josh Reynolds < >>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm saying if you're going to have a meeting of the security >>>>>>>>>>> council, it would be fucking prudent to have the Director of >>>>>>>>>>> National >>>>>>>>>>> Intelligence. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You can't file a FOIA request until after something has taken >>>>>>>>>>> place, and FOIA requests are redacted or denied in the name of >>>>>>>>>>> national >>>>>>>>>>> security. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2017 4:20 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> thats an awful small amount of text to deliver the entirety of >>>>>>>>>>>> the message. >>>>>>>>>>>> hwat check and balances are you describing here by a person >>>>>>>>>>>> attending a meeting that doesnt pertain to them? >>>>>>>>>>>> are you saying they have excluded appropriate personell from >>>>>>>>>>>> meetings? >>>>>>>>>>>> File a FOIA for the specific meetings you are referencing. >>>>>>>>>>>> reply in line now with the specific meetings you are >>>>>>>>>>>> referencing having taken place so that when you recieve the FOIA >>>>>>>>>>>> response >>>>>>>>>>>> we can correlate them to the listed grievances you are referencing >>>>>>>>>>>> today >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Josh Reynolds < >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the line you are looking for. Above and below it lists, >>>>>>>>>>>>> by item, who is allowed to attend at all times, and who shall >>>>>>>>>>>>> attend when >>>>>>>>>>>>> it pertains to them. So who's to say that it ever pertains to >>>>>>>>>>>>> them? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Our government is based on checks and balances, right? This >>>>>>>>>>>>> removes quite a bit of balance when the only individuals >>>>>>>>>>>>> confirmed by the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Senate may spend the next 4 years without anything "pertaining to >>>>>>>>>>>>> them". >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2017 4:09 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Im assuming this is excerpt of this: https://www.whitehouse.g >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/presidential-memorandum-organ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ization-national-security-council-and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this sounds like bannon is becoming the equivalent of an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> executive secretary, not jesus of jihadi as its being portrayed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The NSA >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and HSA (why isnt there a big stink here?) are glorified >>>>>>>>>>>>>> secretaries (like >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the girl at the desk on steroids) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> At no point does it state that the directors are disinvited >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to anything that pertains to them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A restructuring with formal time management. Have you watched >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the senate hearings... very inefficient time management. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Josh Reynolds < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His position is mandatory for them to meet. The JCoS and DNI >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may only attend when it is determined it is required. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Text attached from the order. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2017 3:39 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this im still trying to find a legitimate source of what is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually happening on. just like youre saying it makes him >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more important >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the director of the cia, i cant find much other than ego >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inflated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Josh Reynolds < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's your take on making Steve Bannon's new role >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> critical to the National Security Council (making him more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> important than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Director of the CIA) while only allowing the Joint Chiefs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Staff and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Director of National Intelligence to attend "when it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pertains to them"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This was an executive order... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2017 2:40 PM, "Lewis Bergman" < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't believe everyone is arguing about who lies more. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wouldn't it be great if we could argue about the policy and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory rather >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than the character, or lack thereof? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2017 2:23 PM, "Josh Reynolds" < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sounds like you want a dictatorship. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2017 2:11 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i truly hope you maintain your thought process, exactly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it is, and those of like mind, it will make 2020 a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> breeze. And ivankas 8 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year reign will be glorious >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Josh Reynolds < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He's trying to use the very tactics he promotes in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "art of the deal", which basically means "lie about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> negotiate down". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will be absolutely amazed if he makes it into a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second term. I am also thinking that the Dems won't have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their shit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> together over the next 4 though. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What a fucked up place we are in. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2017 2:04 PM, "That One Guy /sarcasm" < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then even more work can be done >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Ken Hohhof < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The real question is whether he can keep it up for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 207 more weeks. And once the news organizations stop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fawning over him, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what does he do? Start wars? Drop a nuke on Mexico? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He can't stand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything else being the shiny object, but you tell the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news media to shut >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up and listen, at some point they will shut up and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cover something else. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anybody notice all the old actors kicking off? Did >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they really die over the past 18 months and the news is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just now dribbling >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out, or did the Trump victory just take away their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hope? Barbara Hale was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 94, I guess waiting 4 more years to see if the Orange >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One wins re-election >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> might seem a bit much to ask. John Hurt was 77, Mary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tyler Moore was 80. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm 66, it's always a bit unnerving when someone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> younger than me dies. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they say, only the good die young. Carrie Fisher must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been very, very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good. We miss you, Princess. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Prince >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 1:25 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT...A fact check on Donald >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump's first week in office >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is just not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Several fact organizations made it pretty clear that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> untruths from Orange's mouth were about twice as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plentiful as untruths from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other politician from either party ( and that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes Obama and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clinton). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/29/2017 10:44 AM, Rory Conaway wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Nobody will ever lie as much as Obama or Hillary. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is a bar the will never again be reached. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Rory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of Bill Prince >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 11:32 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT...A fact check on Donald >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump's first week in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > office >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Nothing factually incorrect in that piece. It is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largely opinion, so take it for that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > One thing that I disagree with is calling him a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> liar. I think he's not necessarily lying; he just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't know the truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of what he says appears to be just made up on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fly, and my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observation is that his memory is not so good. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > bp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On 1/28/2017 10:48 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> First week...What a joke... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> http://www.dispatch.com/news/2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0170127/fact-check-on-donald-trumps-fir >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> t-week-in-office >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't see your team as part of yourself you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already failed as part >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the team. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't see your team as part of yourself you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already failed as part >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the team. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failed as part >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the team. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already >>>>>>>>>>>>>> failed as part >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the team. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see >>>>>>>>>>>> your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of >>>>>>>>>>>> the team. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see >>>>>>>>>> your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the >>>>>>>>>> team. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see >>>>>>>>> your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the >>>>>>>>> team. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >>>>>>> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >>>>> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >>>> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >>> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team >> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >> > -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
