Don't watch it. I've heard it is good though.
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote: > Homeland is on tonight... > > From: Josh Reynolds > Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 5:42 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT...A fact check on Donald Trump's first week in > office > > "The Council also serves as the president's principal arm for coordinating > these policies among various government agencies." > > A secret National Security Council panel pursues the killing of an > individual, including American citizens, who has been called a suspected > terrorist.[9] In this case, no public record of this decision or any > operation to kill the suspect will be made available.[9] The panel's actions > are justified by "two principal legal theories": They "were permitted by > Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in > the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001; and they are permitted under > international law if a country is defending itself."[9] > > On Jan 29, 2017 6:34 PM, "Chuck McCown" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> NSC is part of the Executive Office of the President of the United States. >> Since its inception under Harry S. Truman, the function of the Council has >> been to advise and assist the president on national security and foreign >> policies. The Council also serves as the president's principal arm for >> coordinating these policies among various government agencies. >> >> So, this is essentially a committee, put together by the president, do do >> what he wants. It is not a branch of government, it is an advisory council. >> Period. President can do what he wants with it which includes dissolving >> it, or renaming it the orange hair dye council. So why get your panties in >> a twist that he is using his committee as he wants? >> >> From: Josh Reynolds >> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2017 5:24 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT...A fact check on Donald Trump's first week in >> office >> >> The security council decides on many things, and anything pushed to from >> the security council to another branch (judicial for example) is expected to >> be followed. I'm a little fuzzy on the legality of how that aspect works. >> >> Are you familiar with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court? >> >> It's proceedings are keep very secret (in the name of national security) >> and no reviews or appeals from said court can travel to the supreme court. >> >> That said, they've had quite a few leaks by outraged defendants and other >> individuals of said court. >> >> The FISC, in very broad terms, rules on the legality of many things the >> National Security Council wants to accomplish. It actually doesn't so much >> check to see if they are legal as it does wordsmith what the NSC wants done >> to make it fit in loopholes of the current legal framework. >> >> This is the court that has legalized large scale spying on American >> citizens, among other things. >> >> So now, we have a National Security Council who's senate appointed members >> are only allowed to attend when asked to, that pushes policy down to a >> secret court that has used any and every means to find ways around the US >> Constitution against American citizens. >> >> Carry on though, it's no big deal. >> >> On Jan 29, 2017 6:01 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I understand the whole "granting yourself powers" thing but I don't get >> why you think the executive branch deciding who inside the executive branch >> should attend meetings or briefings is somehow unconstitutional. I don't get >> that. It is his branch, not the judiciary and not the Congress. I am not >> saying it is good judgement, just not unconstitutional or granting himself >> powers. Unless I missed something which is possible as this discussion had >> worm me out. But by all means, continue. >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017, 5:45 PM Josh Reynolds <[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. >>> >>> 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? >>> >>> On Jan 29, 2017 5:41 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.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/presidential-memorandum-organization-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/20170127/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. >> >>
