Karl Rove was not allowed in Bush's meetings with the NSC. Imagine removing the military and intelligence organizations from the national security council and then putting Karl Rove in as a required member in their places in a Bush administration. That's basically what we are looking at here.
On Jan 30, 2017 11:28 AM, "Adam Moffett" <[email protected]> wrote: > Not to split hairs, but naturally his political choices are based on his > political views. That would be true of anyone. Maybe you meant something > else. > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Jaime Solorza" <[email protected]> > To: "Animal Farm" <[email protected]> > Sent: 1/30/2017 11:53:44 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT...A fact check on Donald Trump's first week in > office > > > Of course Dumbo Trumpshit didn't put a ban on Saudi Arabia where 911 > attackers came from....Wonder if its because he has beautiful golf courses > there > Then puts Banning in top security job and demotes guys that actually have > knowledge...All based on his political views.... > > On Jan 29, 2017 6:26 PM, "Josh Reynolds" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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/presi > dential-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/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. > >> > >> > > >
