Former UN weapons inspector says NeoCons parasites of GOP

I nominate ScottRidder&RawStory as leader of the reality based community.

Check out this article

"Former UN weapons inspector says NeoCons parasites of GOP


By Larisa Alexandrovna | RAW STORY Staff


This is the third of RAW STORY’s series of conversations with former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter. In the first installment, Ritter spoke about the situations as regards weapons in Iraq, Iran and Russia. In the second, Ritter enumerated what he saw as the failings of the U.S. intelligence operation, calling the CIA ‘terminally ill.’


In this final part of the three-part series, the former weapons inspector details his beliefs about the neoconservative movement, the American legislative process and his hopes for the future.

-------snip---------

<http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=219>

is the definition of a true Patriot. I pray he stays safe.

goddamn right

He knows how dangerous these monsters are, but he still throws sand in their eyes.

Ritter: Yes. Look at who funds the American Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation, and I think you’ll have your answer.

Heritage is funded by Scaife, who is invested in Gulf Oil, a US wholesaler.

American Enterprise is funded by Scaife, Gulf Oil, and Bradley (arms).

Excuse me, how do these groups have nothing to do with oil, Mr. Ritter? The main supporter is in the oil industry.


Ritter: Right. Oil company executives are businessmen and they are in a business that requires long-term stability. They love dictators because they bring with them long-term stability. They don’t like new democracies because they are messy and unstable. I have not run into a major oil company that is willing to refurbish the Iraq oil fields and in invest in oil field exploration and development. These are multi-billion dollar investments, that in order to be profitable, must be played out over decades. And in Iraq today you cannot speak out to projecting any stability in the near to mid-future.

So big oil doesn't want to invest in Iraq. So you are saying that big oil just wants to control the oil fields through its ex-CEO, Mr. Carroll, without investing in them, but big oil is not parasitical?

Mr. Ritter goes on to refer to neocons as parasites. OK, but Karl Rove is not a parasite. He is a host??? A decent hard-working guy who went barefoot or something and picked up a disease? Is this Ritter guy trying to hint that only the Jewish hacks hired by Gulf Oil are parasites? That sounds like what Hitler said. These people were funded by oil and war industries, Mr. Ritter, maybe not the same oil companies as you and your friends, but you are all parasites, IMO.

Very few Jews even voted for George Bush.

You said:

"OK, but Karl Rove is not a parasite. He is a host??? A decent hard-working guy who went barefoot or something and picked up a disease? Is this Ritter guy trying to hint that only the Jewish hacks hired by Gulf Oil are parasites? That sounds like what Hitler said. These people were funded by oil and war industries, Mr. Ritter, maybe not the same oil companies as you and your friends, but you are all parasites, IMO.

Very few Jews even voted for George Bush."

You're upset because his image/analogy of a "host" wasn't a perfect one, and therefore implies that Rove is innocent?

The only place here that Ritter may have erred slightly is in not acknowledging that Rove is a parasite on EVERYBODY but himself, especially what is left of our democratic process.

And where do you pick up on an anti-Jewish angle? I didn't hear it anywhere in this article. Did he touch a nerve or something?

I don't understand why you feel the need to discredit Ritter - he's scary to listen to, but he does tell the truth. If it weren't for hearing him speaking out COURAGEOUSLY in a TV interview during the build-up to the Iraq invasion, I probably would've believed Bush's lies about WMDs.

and says look at Heritage and American Enterprise. Well, I did, and they are funded by Gulf Oil. Just what part of the word "oil" doesn't Mr. Ritter understand?

The anti-Jewish angle is implied when Ritter singles out minorities and labels them "parasites," just as Hitler did. Then he says Rove is a "host" for these terrible parasites, nice white Christian boy who has a disease.

What is so courageous about that?

edit: grammar

The "Neo-Cons" are a very SPECIFIC group of people -- some of them Jewish, some NOT -- who advocate a very specific ideology and push very specific policies. They are considered as a group because of their PHILOSOPHY, not their ethnicity.

Rove is NOT a Neo-Con, he is a Republican party hack. Given the analogy that Mr. Ritter is employing, of this small group of "crazies" fastening onto the Republican party as the vehicle by which they, the Neo-Cons, have latched onto power; it is perfectly consistant to name Rove as part of the "host" body -- i.e. the Republican party.

To read this as some kind of Jew vs. Christian diatribe is not only absurd and unproductive, it is an ugly and pernicious distortion of a very cogent analysis.

sw

and playing the anti-Semitism card in a laughable way.

The word "parasite" has meaning and in this case describes
perfectly the real ideological movement that has attached
it's self to the US foreign policy apparatus.

To paraphrase Truman (or whoever said it), we'll stop telling the truth about them when they stop lying about us.

Big oil is in control of Iraq, and oil and arms are making money.

Scott has been right about many things and deserves better
than your sleazy smears.

but if you say Iraq is about democracy and not about money and that Rove is suffering from some disease caused by minorities, then you must be exposed.

edit: typo

Absent ANY indications of ANY kind of reference to Mein Kampf, nazism OR the religious identity of any of the persons discussed in the Ritter interview, it is ridiculous to assume the word "parasite" in this context refers to anything other than a simple analogy as in an intestional worm infesting a shark, or a tick on a rabid dog.

Sheeeesh...

Which, apparently, you are unwilling to recognize no matter how many people are pointing it out to you. These nonsensical distortions you are making are not worth expending any more effort on. I'm done.

edit: punctuation

Well then, let's have it. Complete with citations for all your sources and assertions, plus your c.v. so we can assess your credibility.

See, most of us here KNOW who Scott Ritter is, and what his sources of information are. I've been following his work on Iraq since late 2002.

On the other hand, the only thing I know about YOU is the nonsensical stuff you're posting on this thread.

Scott Ritter makes a cogent case, you do not.

sw

I am just an American citizen.

edit: fixed typo

a means to an end.

Kind of like how eating every day isn't about food, exactly, but more about keeping oneself alive.

but I think we could live without it if we tried hard enough.

I was checking into right-wing conspiracy theory a couple of months ago, and I found that the "parasite" metaphor comes into it a couple of different ways:

1) The image of Jews as parasites, leaching off societies that they are not organically part of, goes back at least to the Nazis and probably further.

2) When the John Birch Society retooled right-wing conspiracy theory in the early 60's to remove the overt anti-Semitism, they created a sort of three-tier model of U.S. society. There are parasites at the bottom -- the poor, who consume without producing. There are also parasites at the top -- the intellectual elite, who deal in ideas rather than in things. And then there's the honorable middle, consisting of hard-working ordinary Americans plus the owners and managers of businesses and corporations -- solid citizens who together form the backbone of the economy.

This model has been incredibly useful for the right, since it gets around all those messy questions of class warfare and enables the Republicans to claim both business and workers as their natural constituency, while demonizing the bedrock supporters of the Democratic Party as innately un-American.

But down at the foundations of the model is still that old fascist dichotmoy between a racially pure society and the biologically alien and culturally degenerate (which is to say, black or Jewish -- or gay) parasites who wish to suck out its life forces and leave it an empty husk. And all too often, when the right starts ranting about the "media elite," you still get the feeling that what they really mean is "Jews."

However, I didn't get the impression that Scott Ritter was referring to that model at all. He's talking about something entirely different. In his image, the Neocons are the parasites and the Republican Party is the host they are invading and using for their own purposes. But I can still understand how someone who is sensitive to the traditional anti-Semitic implications of the word "parasite" could have a negative reation to Ritter's use of it.

(Now Wal-mart -- that's a real parasite, in every sense of the world. But that's a different story . . .)

anti-Catholic by the Protestants and anti-American Indian by
white settlers.

I know the ultimate crime is being anti-Semitic but frankly everyone
has used "parasite" to dehumanize whatever group they hate.

I agree Wal-mat is a parasite but so are the neo-cons.

It looks like you have an unfounded soft spot for the
war mongering neo-con Zionists just because many but not
all of them are Jewish.

They suck no matter what ethnic group they are from.

Ask them they say it is not about oil but securing the "neighborhood" through the spread of "democracy".

You have a soft spot for obfuscators.

and Israel's "safety" is a core tenant of their doctrine.

They exist they write and are clear about it.

I know the empire building oil and construction giants have
a equal or greater stake in coalition of the killing.

That doesn't mean the "democracy" hawks aren't in it for
their own agenda.

I don't have a soft spot for oil drillers just because
they aren't the only killers at the helm of the war machine.

as long as we keep using as much oil as we do.

Ritter is carrying on about how big oil is innocent while it is making record profits. Then he goes on and on about minorities while saying Rove is a victim.

No one is innocent in this; this Ritter guy is either conned or conning.

edit: typo, left out word, grammar

How can you smear someone who does that? If I am smearing him, it's with his own crap.

persecution fantasies.

Neo-cons are a very organized and well published ideological movement.

You can read about them in their own words in any number of
web sites, books, and Journals.

They happen to have had the largest roll in the US war planing
for Iraq.

who would have thought it! ROFLMAO

I am glad you agree that your using the term minority to describe the neo-cons is a very deliberate attempt to distract from what Ritter is saying as is using Mein Kampf in such a ludicrous manner.

a big oil guy is not in charge of Iraqi oil? And the neocons weren't financed by Gulf Oil? And Rove is being used? Yes, I'm sorry to distract from what he is saying.

... then stop embarassing yourself.

Apparently this guy changes his mind quite often. He used to be hawkish against Iraq, became a dovish, used to admit that oil was a factor, denies it now. What's up with him?

i'm through with your reindeer games, sorry.

may clarify this a little. They didn't say that American big oil didn't want to take over the oil fields via privatisation out of altruistic motives, but were motivated simply by pragmatism.

Maybe Scott Ritter would have done better just reiterating what many of us know, i.e. that the neocons have battened onto a Republican Party which still numbered some decent old-money toffs, who still retain a genuine Christian faith and values (f somewhat distorted, in economic matters). There! I've said it! Christian faith and values! Oh! Me! Oh! My! How antisocial of me!!!

and we have to be grateful for small mercies. No human being is genuinley Christian or Jewish, 100%.

Only Jesus was perfect truth, and though, we believe he was true God and true man, even he said (when called "Good master") "Call no man good. Only god is good, and he alone".

Oddly enough I was reading an article in a crypto-fascist UK newspaper (it wasn't even crypto before WWII), called the Daily Mail about the terrible consequences of our society's loss of its historic Christian ethos. It sounded really good and contained a lot of sense, but one thing that really jarred was that he said that in Christianity, the poor were as blessed as the rich!!!!

Which part of Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus, I wonder, did he not understand? Or his other declamations of the misfortune it is to be rich.

and you don't need all that money either.

pernicious parasites battening on you.

forgive him, and everything will be OK, won't it?

Did the Bible say, "By their works, ye shall know them"? Are we sure Jesus will know Karl? Maybe he better stop blaming others for what he does if he wants Jesus to know him.

pernicious parasites battening on you. And as I've pointed out, in any case, the Achilles heel of even the best of the right is their hang-up about money.

If it were specific to racist critiques of judiasm, youd be right, but the idea of parasites on society has been used on pretty much every marginalized minority ever and is a major theme on both sides of the class conflict.

The fact of the matter is that a parisite is simply a good metaphor for a certain type of exploitive relationship, so its going to pop up in negative critiques. Just because anti-semites use the metaphor badly doesnt make the metaphor bad.

Who said Karl Rove was good? Show me a quote please.

When conservatives rail about the "Liberal Media," that's code for "Jewish-controlled Media." I've heard conservatives admit it.

We should not be fooled.

Because conservatives and Repups are Israel's best ally. Right? Right?
/sarcasm

this is what Ritter is saying. It is not an anti-Jewish article, it is an article that explains the neo-cons. Scott Ritter has been outspoken about the truth since before the illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq and I am glad he is continuing to speak out about the neo-cons, their funders and their goals. The neo-cons want a 'new world order' with the US using military power and destroying the UN because it is a 'check and balance' against their plan for US hegemony.

Edited to add missing punctuation

Money is the primary goal. Oil and arms are just the means. Whatever.

It sounds anti-Jewish to me, especially with the Nazi-esque comment that Rove is a "host" infected by "parasites." That is "deja vu all over again," exactly what Hitler said about the Jews and the Aryans.

and the word parasite has a definition and in that definition there is NO mention of it being tied to Jews.

One entry found for parasite.


Main Entry: par·a·site
Pronunciation: 'par-&-"sIt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin parasitus, from Greek parasitos, from para- + sitos grain, food
Date: 1539
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return
- par·a·sit·ic /"par-&-'si-tik/ also par·a·sit·i·cal /-ti-k&l/ adjective
- par·a·sit·i·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb
synonyms PARASITE, SYCOPHANT, TOADY, LEECH, SPONGE mean a usually obsequious flatterer or self-seeker. PARASITE applies to one who clings to a person of wealth, power, or influence or is useless to society <a jet-setter with an entourage of parasites>. SYCOPHANT adds to this a strong suggestion of fawning, flattery, or adulation <a powerful prince surrounded by sycophants>. TOADY emphasizes the servility and snobbery of the self-seeker <cultivated leaders of society and became their toady>. LEECH stresses persistence in clinging to or bleeding another for one's own advantage <a leech living off his family and friends>. SPONGE stresses the parasitic laziness, dependence, and opportunism of the cadger <a shiftless sponge, always looking for a handout>.

One can 'pick and choose' just about anything from an article and 'interpret' it any way one might choose but it doesn't mean squat, imo, unless one interprets the whole article and, in this case, there are three parts to Scott Ritter's interview not just one the one word, parasite, which I think describes the neo-cons perfectly in the definition I have posted.

because they have been useful to the rich. Just ask Halliburton and big oil investors.

If you want to ignore this for some reason and you want to believe that Karl Rove is an innocent victim of minorities who took him in, then fine. IMO, you are in denial.

and that is not how Scott Ritter is using the word from my interpretation. Being a host, in this sense, is enabling and, therefore, equally as destructive.

Ritter is saying that Rove is an enabler, that he doesn't believe in the neo-con philosophy but is more than willing to promote them to achieve his OWN goals. That is Rove's modus operandi as we all know.

Quite the opposite, the neo-cons are parasites, very destructive parasites who, in the end, will destroy the enabling 'host', Rove and the republicans.

Edited to correct spelling error

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Taking ONE word from a long article which, btw, is part 3 of his interview, is beyond 'stretching it'. Quoting Mein Kampf tells me there is an attempt to slur Ritter in the most disgusting and misleading way possible.

There are those who do NOT want Ritter to be credible because he tells the truth and will try ANYTHING, even the most ludicrous insinuations, to try and divert attention to what he is saying.

Thank goodness, the majority don't buy it!!!

Rove is not an innocent "host" of "parasites." Does that bother you for some reason?

If the majority do not buy it, then they must have something to hide, too.

and suspect.

smearing Scott Ridder as anti-Semitic you are.

perhaps you should try the child molester angle.

Big oil doesnt control Iraq, the Pentagon does, and guess who controls the pentagon, the neo-cons.

Yes big oil is behind them, and does in the bigger picture control them, but the people who make the decisions about Iraq are not oil companies, they are neocons. And they are motivated by an insane ideology, not by oil. The oil motivated people are backing them, but not making the decisions. And I would wage you alot of money that the oil industry is often scared of the neocons and thier crazy plans, but feels that supporting them is the only option they have (which should tell you what thier economists are telling them)

the very USE of the word parasite is "anti-semetic"? I think parasite is the perfect word to describe these anti-American people and I'm going to start using it, regardless of some obscure and unrelated passage in Hitler's Mein Kampf.

when Iraq is all about American industries. It's not obscure at all; it's the rationale for Hitler's whole theory against minorities.

poor little neo-cons being used by the big bad money man.

Poor babies.

Poor little neo-cons the sad little neo weos.

Awww ain't it sad to see the weak get picked on.

Awww ain't it sad that the neo-con underdogs are being
picked on by the big bad Hitler Scott Ridder.

but they allowed themselves to be used by these people.

oh wait. those were the poo widdle neo weos that Ritter tried to stop.

oh woe is uh me bop!

yeah, FNC sure loved ritter these past few years. Endless love. Funnily enough, they were very much along the lines of your attacks. Funny, that.

And I don't get where you got the idea that Ritter never mentioned oil in favor of demonizing Jews - he brought it up countless times interviews over the past few years.

"Is it just about oil? Absolutely not. Does oil play a part? You’re darn right it does – it’s part of power."

like Mr. Ritter did. Maybe I would have been good, but I'll never know. :-)

... that's what Fox would do. And does. You have to keep your vile smears up to date. I have it on good authority that he once shoplifted a MAD magazine in the early 1970s, but I wouldn't bring that up now either.

And in case you haven't noticed, we all kind of know he was a Republican. and a Marine. and a UN weapons inspector.

Which made him a much more forceful advocate on the talking heads programs as opposed to say, Moby. Who i'm sure is a nice guy and never worked for Fox news, but really didn't have the experience on stuff like, oh IRAQI WMD and dealing with the neocons that Scott Ritter brought to the table.

He may have made mistakes in the past, but when push came to shove and the fates of thousands of lives hung in the balance - he did the right thing, tried to stop it, tried to warn against it, tried to tell people what he knew.

And for that, you spread slander. Hip hip hooray.

on the KQED radio.

She dismissed a caller who asked why he was so right and she was so wrong
about WMD's by saying he was getting money from a "cutout" and was
under active investigation by the US, now.

Cindy and Judith sittin' in a tree...

Miller is one to talk. Bloodthirsty, warmongering liar.

and how rich, to sniff about active investigation. as opposed to her potential jail time, which is far superior.

What do you think of Keith? Is he guilty by association too?

Chapter and verse, please...

but I can't find it in the Bible, checks, sorry. Maybe it will be in the next edition.

with no supporting text?

That implies that he is diseased by neocons. I don't think neocons have anything to do with what is wrong with Karl.

particular words. Words, like guns, can be used for evil as well as good.

And I like the word 'parasite' as a description for the neo-cons.

We are using up the world's resources and blaming it on others.

Rove is PART of the host body which is the Republican party. Being a HOST in no way implies "innocence" in the context of Ritter's analogy. The Republican party "host" -- which includes Rove -- has actively enabled the flourishing of the Neo-Cons.

Rove is not a Neo-Con, that's a simple fact, he's not part of that particular group. That doesn't make him any less sleazy or cynical, it certainly doesn't make him "innocent" -- he's happy to accomodate the Neo-Cons in order to further his own power.

sw

Scott is Hitler.
Hitler is Scott.

Scoot. Hitler.
Hitler. Scott.

Scott Hitler Scott Hitler.

Now relax.

Scott Hitler.

We will go even deeper.

Hitott.
Scotler.

There that is better.

:toast:

Money is democracy.

Monocracy.

Demoney.

Whatever.

especially after several years of their murderous policies in action.

i'd expect that of David Frum trying to weasel out of even acknowledging the neoconservative movement, but not from a DUer. Ugh.

What a loathsome thing to do to a man who tried to warn the world of this folly before it began... and he certainly wasn't blaming Jews.

Even David Brooks had to backpedal and pretend he was only joking. Somehow I doubt we'll even get that out of you. Do you really want to go lower than even David Brooks?

is goddamn disgusting. I can't believe you can do that with a straight face.

Again, even David Brooks apologized. An actual, card-carrying Weekly-Standard neocon.

keep up the good work. I'm sure Bill Kristol appreciates it.

If he doesn't like being smeared with the truth, he should stop distorting it.

i'll bow out now, as you're on some repetetive tapeloop.

One last repeat: even David Brooks apologized. Shameful. fucking shameful.

big oil did not invade Iraq, big oil did not dream up the neocon strategy of world domination. Big oil would prefer a "friendly government" that could facilitate the acquisition of cheap oil for them other than "owning" these fields. It would be grossly unprofitable for them considering the nearly daily sabotage of the pipelines and facilities. To bring it all up to speed would be cost prohibitive under current conditions and would take many years to recoup. Right now, the situation is so bad there, Iraq is having to "import" oil.

It's wholesaler versus Big Oil, but big oil profited from it as did the war industries. I'm not blaming any one particular interest group; they are all at fault.

Why should that invalidate use of the metaphor for succinctly conveying truth about a genuinely evil splinter group?

There is no such thing as a genuinely evil splinter group. That is known as scapegoating.

edit: typo

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Why are you so enamored with defending the warmongering neo-cons?

Just because a few of them are Jewish?

Or is it some bizarre ideological affinity?

a few people and acquit yourselves. It is a bizarre idealogical identity called responsibility.

we must part company, CindyDale, because I'm afraid you've lost me there entirely.

edit: typo

I have always thought that GWB was a parasite, or puss postule, on the ass of the neocon butt.

Am I wrong.. or neither am I wrong? ;-)

Sue

We just have to hope none of them get to the top.

He's been fighting the ascendency of the neocons for quite awhile. I do know the neocon movement has infiltrated the dems as well, just not as complete and not under the same appearances. I'm also tired of anybody who criticizes current policy being called anti-semitic. I don't view Ritter as someone with total purity, but he is someone that recognizes there's a problem, an invisible coup that is ideological. That ideology will use corporate America to its advantage as well as religious institutions and the like.

Big oil is in control of the Iraqi oil fields.

the privitization plans of the neocons and won that point through the state department. So the oil will belong to the new Iraqi state, not an oil company. Big oil would rather buy it (oil) than sink too many dollars in modernizing and running it.

currently running the situation are doing so under government contract.

You are implying a relationship between corporations and our governement that simply doesnt exist. Certainly they are by far too intertwined but the government is still very powerful and the pentagon controls Iraq. Of course it lets oil companies into the fields because of the control they have over our political system, but the actual decision makers in Iraq are in the Pentagon.

And apparantly that poster is literally anti-American as she believes, without qualifiers, that Americans are parasites.

I am beginning to understand why you like Mr. Ritter.

edit: typo

that you believe you are alluding to about me? Don't be coy and evasive. Let's hear the specifics.

Am I incorrect in saying that you are anti-American?

need an apologist, then you will like anyone who does that type of thing.

If you think anyone who doesn't like to see this type of hypocrisy in Americans is un-American, so be it.

Good grief, do you know how to do anything in politics other than complain and insult? Anything constructive at all?

You like him because he gives you a scapegoat for your share of the guilt.

with Scott Ritter. I very much appreciate his perspective on the neo-cons, Iraq invasion/occupation and the other connecting issues he speaks about.

I have great respect for him as he has continued to sound the alarm in spite of all attempts to smear him.

Again, thanks RAW STORY!

(I am hoping we can get back to discussing the content of the article and ignore the egregious 'red herring' that was inserted into the thread.)

I'll stop fanning the flames of obvious bullshit. Couldn't help it, I was up all night and this third-rate Frummery made my blood boil.

Frummery?

That isn't really a word, is it. Oh well.

He was one of the few guys in that pre-war period to forcefully stand up and correct these fuckers. Amazing that they pretty much stopped putting him on teevee after all his predictions came to pass. You'd think a meek "ooo i'm sorry" would be in order. You'd think he'd appear as a talking head once in a while to talk about Iraq instead of Tony fucking Blankley, Andrew Sullivan, etc.

to their propaganda agenda. I admire his persistence in getting the truth out in whatever way he can. He is very respected here in Canada, he has spoken here and received a very warm reception. I wish I had been able to hear him in person.

WOW.

I guess this put your Scott is a Nazi posts in a whole
new light now he has been on FOX.

Never mind that he was speaking against the war at the time.

someone to do that?

when was his contract terminated?

how did you know they hired him to speak against the war?

do you a have a shred of evidence or a link for that assertation, or are you just making stuff up and will respond with a one line "NT"?

Hackworth was also an analyst for Fox until he started telling the truth and was soon shitcanned - he's another highly respected veteran who's been on the right side of things more often than not. Are you going to smear him too?

David Corn?

the guy from FAIR that was on Newswatch?

are they also secret big oil nazis?

Don't bother responding if you're not going to answer the questions. In fact, don't bother responding... i've been goaded back into this little web twice now. Three times, and i'm out. Sorry for wasting everyone's time.

http://www.answers.com/topic/scott-ritter

You were the one who said it was to speak against the war. Were you wrong?

and when he worked at FOX and when he spoke against
the war are not concurrent.

Your point?

I thought your whole Nazi thing was pretty low so will
have that to filter your further sliming of Scott with.

Sorry to the other person. I just went on what this person said and I should not have.

unfortunately. I suspect the intent is to get the thread locked, I hope that doesn't happen but will if we keep allowing red herrings to take the place of debate on the content.

:yourock: I love our lala! :hug: