$56.2 billion just for the intelligent budget last year!

1. 64

   maxoxam41posted 11 years ago

   And we don't have any money to save our country!

   replyreport
   1. 54

      Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      56.2 billion dollars in borrowed money, to be exact.

      replyreport
      1. 64

         maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Worst!

         replyreport
   2. 71

      Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hello Max.
      
      You can not possibly be suggesting that the US eliminate spending for intelligence gathering operations. This $56.2 billion is not unreasonable and it accounts for less than 1.5% of the $3.8 trillion in government outlays during 2012. {1}
      
      Using the scale of an average employee in NY State working in the private sector, this amount is equivalent to spending $14 of her $933 weekly salary for reading and learning materials that keep her informed about local and world events. {2}
      
      Education Answer also contributed the following…
      “56.2 billion dollars in borrowed money, to be exact.”
      (Greetings EA. Howzit goin’?)
      
      To be exact, EA, $56.2 billion is less than 5% of the $1.3 trillion added to the total national public debt outstanding during 2012. {3}
      
      In September, 2012, the Treasury Department was paying 00.1 percent interest on a 3 month T-bill. {4}
      
      The cost of borrowing $56.2 billion for one year increases the annual expenditures by 00.006% per year. 
      
      Therefore, if we are practical, rational, and realistic, we should know that we could not catch up on past due mortgage payments by slashing the tip we slip to our barber.
      
      Maxoxam41 also wrote…
      “And we don't have any money to save our country.”
      
      The $716 B spent for national defense was all about saving our country. Some knowledge about how the government spends is clearly missing. Other expenditures in fiscal year 2012 included…
      
      Transportation $102 B
      
      Education, Training, Employment
      and Social Services $139 B
      
      Health $361 B
      
      Veterans Benefits and Services $130 B
      
      Administration of Justice  $62.0 B
      {5}
      
      “We can’t be in an ideological battle to redeem the soul of the country if we don’t have the facts.” ~ Tavis Smiley
      
      We need to carefully examine the facts, Max, because we already have a glut of opinions.
      
      {1} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Unite … ral_budget
      {2} http://www.bls.gov/ro2/aeearnny.htm
      {3} http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/s … dYear=2012
      {4} http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/busin … .html?_r=0
      {5} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Unite … ral_budget

      replyreport
      1. 64

         maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I know exactly what our government is spending. Any idiot has access to this information so spare me your pseudo knowledge. I want a constructive debate not a glorification of grand larceny!

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Hi there Max.
            
            I am so sorry my facts upset you.
            
            I offered you a constructive debate in my first two paragraphs. You ignored them.
            
            “This $56.2 billion is not unreasonable and it accounts for less than 1.5% of the $3.8 trillion in government outlays during 2012.
            
            Using the scale of an average employee in NY State working in the private sector, this amount is equivalent to spending $14 of her $933 weekly salary for reading and learning materials that keep her informed about local and world events.”
            
            I offered you facts and supporting references to indicate US expenditures for intelligence gathering is not unreasonable. Surely, you have facts to prove me wrong.
            
            I also see a claim that “we don't have any money to save our country!” If this is not just bravado on your part then you must have some facts to back up this assertion also.
            
            I would welcome a constructive debate, one that consists of more than anemic USA bashing. I am happy to exchange ideas that include verifiable facts and traceable citations. I am looking forward to seeing if you are too.
            
            Thank you, Max, for sharing. I am sure your pseudo knowledge will be superior to mine.
            

            replyreport
         2. 54

            Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            That's the problem.  Everybody in Washington tries to justify expenses by saying they are a drop in the bucket.  When the bucket is overflowing, every drop counts.  A billion dollars isn't much to a politician.  They throw it around like nothing.  Spend a billion here and a billion there, and we just go further and further into debt.  The point is that all our spending is bloated, so a sliver of a bloated budget is too much to spend.

            replyreport
            1. 71

               Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Hi EA. Your opinion is coming across loud and clear. I thank you for sharing with us.
               
               Both you and the OP implied that spending $56.2B for intelligence gathering in 2013 was too much even though it is $2B less than 2011. {1} I thought it was a reasonable request for the flimsy reasons I gave. However, “the point is that all our spending is bloated,” you say, “so a sliver of a bloated budget is too much to spend.” You did say “too much to spend,” right?
               
               “The budget request lists five major missions for the intelligence agencies: warning American leaders about threats and instability; battling terrorism; countering weapons proliferation; cyberoperations; and counterespionage.” {2}
               
               Based upon your experience in this area, which of these goals would you cut back? If it is your opinion $56.2B is too high, please tell us the right amount and how you arrived at it.
               
               Having enough knowledge about this subject to criticize this spending must mean you also know enough about this subject to offer a solution. I would love to hear it.
               
               Please forgive me if this seems obtuse. With all due respect, I truly mean no offense, EA. Clearly, you object to spending deficits and the national debt. I think most Americans do. However, you joined in with the OP to target a highly complex subject without offering an iota of justification to support your conclusions. Having a high regard for one’s own opinions is not a good reason to criticize the government without doing adequate research and gathering an arsenal of facts. Neither you nor I can pretend to have all the answers unless we first take the time to research all the questions. 
               
               I am always grateful to you for all of your valuable contributions, EA. Thank you again.
               
               {1} http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us … gence.html
               {2} Ibid.

               replyreport
               1. 54

                  Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  You have a nice way of giving backhanded compliments. 
                  
                  You state, "Having a high regard for one’s own opinions is not a good reason to criticize the government without doing adequate research and gathering an arsenal of facts." There are two sides to each coin.  You seem to do your research but also seem to be all too willing to support objectives that, by design, are intended to sound worthy of government funding.  Of course the goals of this program sound great.  That's how government works.  If you don't make your goals/objectives sound worthy, you won't acquire the kind of funding you desire.
                  
                  Look at the goals of our military, and you'll find that they, too, sound great.  As a conservative who believes in a strong military, I also support budgetary cuts in our military.  Look at the goals of our Federal Department of Education, and you'll find that they, too, sound great.  As a teacher who believes that a strong education is the future of America, I also support budgetary cuts in the Federal Department of Education.  You see, I believe that we will go broke, and that the spending has to be slowed down.  That doesn't mean I do not support spending for worthy programs like this; I just don't support a hemorrhaging of our budget. Virtually all government programs sound great on the surface.  That's how they got funded in the first place!  One has to look beyond the stated goals to see if they are actually being met and if they can be met for less money.  Don't politicians have a responsibility to provide the greatest services for the least money, or do they just justify spending based on great goals?
                  
                  How is that 56 billion dollars being spent?  Do you support the Patriot Act in its entirety?  Do you support drones flying over your home?  Does that seem American?  Do you support your own government infecting your computer with spyware?  Does that seem American?  Do you support your own government watching your phone calls or even listening to them?  How about satellites watching you?  How about massive computers intended to store information about you?  Perhaps you like the fact that Google and other companies have been "encouraged" to provide information about customers to the government.  Yes, I believe that 56 billion dollars is too much to spend on this.  I believe that our government is spending money targeting not only the terrorists but its own American citizens. I don't want to fully fund a program that targets its own people in addition to terrorists.  Further, if you do a little research, you'll find that there is plenty of waste and room for budgetary cuts:
                  
                  Homeland Security under fire for wasteful spending
                  
                  http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/ … 095154.php
                  
                  Abolish the Department of Homeland Security
                  
                  http://www.cato.org/publications/commen … d-security
                  
                  Best wishes.

                  replyreport
                  1. 71

                     Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Good Evening, EA.
                     
                     I do not give backhanded compliments. I do try to be honest about what I see and read. This sometimes leads to remarks that contain both sincere compliments and disserved criticism too. I am sorry that you can not tell the difference and have decided to call them backhanded. 
                     
                     Regarding intelligence gathering, I glean from your comments that you think less is better. Your rationale seems to favor slashing no matter what the consequences to national security. While I too share your concerns about budget deficits, waste in government, and the national debt, I favor targeting and eliminating specific examples of waste. I do not believe indiscriminate, imprudent, or poorly considered cutting is in the best interest of national security. You have made it clear that you do and you are entitled to your opinion.
                     
                     I thank you again for your extensive reply. I am grateful for the time and effort you invested.
                     

                     replyreport
                     1. 64

                        maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Which consequences? Let's see how far you will go in your argumentation! He couldn't careless about people in Detroit, homelessness... What happens in other countries doesn't concern any US citizen! America is bleeding and Quiligrapher wants to increase our debt. What else?

                        replyreport
                        1. 71

                           Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Hello, Max. Good to see you back.
                           
                           I do not want to increase our debt and I never said I do. So let’s really focus on your own OP statement:
                           
                           You wrote:
                           “$56.2 billion just for the intelligent [sic] budget last year!
                           And we don't have any money to save our country!”
                           
                           While I never said this amount should be increased, you started this thread by implying $56.2B for intelligence gathering was too much to spend in 2013 even though it is $2B less than 2011. {1} I thought it was a reasonable request for the flimsy reasons I gave. You gave no reasons. If it is your opinion $56.2B is too high, please tell us the right amount and why.
                           
                           When I suggested there would be consequences to national security from slashing funds for gathering intelligence, you replied, “Which consequences?”
                           
                           I agree with you, the USA is hurting. I also agree that Detroit is hurting. And, yes, there are too many unemployed and homeless. I do not make light of any of these problems but there are other issues too.
                           
                           You ask "Which consequences?"
                           
                           Foreign enemies penetrated our borders and killed more than 3,000 Americans on American soil.
                           
                           I have not forgotten that America is under attack. I believe it would be imprudent to slash funding for gathering intelligence about our enemies without considering any of the consequences.
                           
                           You ask "Which consequences?"
                           
                           “The fact that the United States has not suffered a large-scale attack since 9/11 speaks to the country’s counterterrorism successes.”  “Indeed since bin Laden’s death, at least nine publicly known Islamist-inspired terror plots against the United States have been foiled, bringing the total number of foiled plots since 9/11 to at least 50.” “47 were thwarted due to the concerted efforts of intelligence and law enforcement.” {2} [Emphasis added.]
                           
                           You ask "Which consequences?"
                           
                           “There still were 207 terrorist attacks recorded inside the US in the decade after 9/11 – about 20 per year on average, according to the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) maintained at the University of Maryland, widely regarded as the nation’s most complete tally.” {3}
                           
                           You ask "Which consequences?"
                           
                           “September 2009, the feds arrested Naji-bullah Zazi and at least four others. They were arrested for purchasing chemical explosive materials allegedly to bomb the New York subway system.” Wire taps authorized under the Patriot Act contributed to their apprehension. {4}
                           
                           You ask "Which consequences?"
                           
                           “Bomb plots targeting the New York Stock Exchange and the city's subway were among more than 50 terrorist acts worldwide thwarted by top-secret surveillance programs since the 2001 al Qaeda attacks on the United States, security officials said Tuesday.” {5} [Emphasis added.]
                           
                           
                           You ask "Which consequences?"
                           
                           Our national security represents the consequences. What is the security of the United States worth? Do you have a number in mind? I have no doubt that pro-terrorist supporters around the world would celebrate the US slashing its intelligence programs.
                           
                           All of that aside, I truly hope you have a great night, Max.
                           
                           {1} http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us … gence.html
                           {2} http://www.heritage.org/research/report … -terrorism
                           {3} http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0427/ … iled-plots
                           {4} http://www.fox19.com/story/16214431/rea … or-attacks
                           {5} http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/18/politics/ … index.html

                           replyreport
                           1. 64

                              maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              You are embellishing the reality. Whatever our government does it's to our benefits could be your motto but the reality speaks for itself. This so-called intelligence service has no purpose on our soil. This intelligence service aims at spying, destabilizing, overthrowing legitimate governments. Every coterie has its agenda. The intelligence service responds to the elite's needs to exploit smaller, weaker countries. We never were targeted by any country. Every attack perpetrated against us were homemade attacks giving us the right to start any offensive in any fronts.
                              Enmity doesn't come naturally, it is triggered. If Iran burnt our flag it is not because it didn't like its colors, it is because we violated their sovereignty as we are currently financing those Al-Qaeda pigs that are butchering Syrian civilians. What is the difference between what we did in Iran in 1953 and what we've been doing in Syria since 2011, what we did in Libya, Iraq?
                              "Our" intelligence doesn't work for us otherwise how come one of the best intelligence service couldn't stop the Saudis that so-called crashed in the towers. Were they the equivalent of our navy seals? No.  We couldn't do more ordinary. How come we weren't capable of avoiding the Boston marathon attack? You're telling me that kids beat our intelligence experts? If you answer yes then is our tax dollar well invested? I am saying NO. How can they lamentably slack that badly? They don't protect us or the country but private interests. When an agenda needs priority in both assemblies a terrorist act here and there unites our nation and gives a green light to war.
                              We create our terrorists for YOU to be afraid and justify the spending. The intelligence service is paying them to terrorize us as they are paying those "rebels" to terrorize the Syrian civilians. If you don't see that why are you wasting my time. I think forward and by myself. Many former CIA members denounced the lack of ethics within the walls of this criminal organization.
                              The world doesn't give a damn about us. It is our problem that we believe that we are the center of their world as if their daily wasn't enough to handle to add more problems. You don't care about how X, Y, Z live why would they care about you, us?
                              Honestly, given our military supremacy which idiot will dare attack us?

                              replyreport
                              1. 71

                                 Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 Hello Max. I hope you are feeling well this evening.
                                 
                                 "You are embellishing the reality."
                                 
                                 I am embellishing the reality? One's reality is nothing more than one's perception; and, a trustworthy perception needs to be built with facts and an open mind. Those who forever bemoan their distrust of government are immersed in their own negativity. They often will not acknowledge, even to themselves, that personal opinions are of little value unless supported by reliable facts. Without the support of verifiable facts, rants about one's personal opinions are nothing more than rants about one's personal opinions.
                                 
                                 "This so-called intelligence service has no purpose on our soil."
                                 
                                 To the contrary, US intelligence services have good reasons to be on our soil. Terrorist attacks from within the USA numbered 207 in the decade following 9/11. An average of 20 per year were added to the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) maintained at the University of Maryland." {1}
                                 
                                 We should not forget that Faisal Shahzad pleaded guilty to 10 charges in connection with his attempt to place a bomb in Times Square in 2010.
                                 
                                 "This intelligence service aims at spying, destabilizing, overthrowing legitimate governments."
                                 
                                 Since many of our enemies are legitimate governments, I have to agree that the roles of US intelligence services are both defensive and offensive. 
                                 
                                 "Every attack perpetrated against us were homemade attacks giving us the right to start any offensive in any fronts."
                                 
                                 This appears to be another false claim refuted over and over again by facts. Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility for the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks in a videotape message delivered to Al-Jazeera in October 2004. The English translation is available online for all to read. {2}
                                 
                                 Also of interest, Al-Jazeera lists "9/11/01 attack (2001)" as one of "12 al-Qaeda Core controlled operations." [Emphasis added] {3}
                                 
                                 It is sad to think some Americans are trying to make us all believe the US is targeting itself to justify aggression. Meanwhile, the evidence that we have enemies bent on killing Americans in the US is undeniable…
                                 Richard Reid  December 2001
                                 Lackawanna Six-September 2002.
                                 Ahmed Omar Abu Ali-June 2003.
                                 Virginia Jihad Network-June 2003
                                 Nuradin M. Abdi-November 2003
                                 Etc. etc. etc. {4}
                                 
                                 "Al-Qaeda pigs that are butchering Syrian civilians."
                                 
                                 I wonder what reasons are behind one's pointing to the killing of Syrian civilians by rebel factions but not mentioning the killing of Syrian civilians by the Syrian army.
                                 
                                 McClatchy Newspapers 2 April 2012~
                                 DOMZIN, Iraq - Former Syrian soldiers who've escaped to northern Iraq are telling grisly stories of how their units executed unarmed civilians for demonstrating against the Assad regime and staged mass reprisals when residents shot back, on one occasion lining up and shooting 30 defenseless civilians. {5}
                                 
                                 "'Our' intelligence doesn't work for us otherwise how come one of the best intelligence service couldn't stop the Saudis that so-called crashed in the towers …How come we weren't capable of avoiding the Boston marathon attack? "
                                 
                                 I am amazed that someone would suggest our intelligence services do not work for us because they are not 100% successful. In June of this year, the NSA provided classified details to the House and Senate intelligence committees concerning at least 50 potential terrorist events prevented by our intelligence agencies since 9/11. At least 10 of those plots involved US targets or suspects in the United States." {6}
                                 
                                 One can not claim to have a truly open mind if they only point to the failures like the Boston Marathon bombers. It hardly seems rational to ignore the successes. Successes like foiling the New York Stock Exchange plot, or disrupting the plot to bomb a Danish newspaper office because they published cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, or capturing Najibullah Zazi before he attacked the New York City Subway system. One could argue that a person with a closed mind will benefit by ignoring the successes and by advocating less funding for the government's intelligence programs so there will be more failures to tout in the future.
                                 
                                 "I think forward and by myself."
                                 
                                 If that works for you, then by all means follow your bliss. However, I'm sticking with the crowd that is willing to examine all and not just some of the facts.
                                 
                                 {1} http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0427/ … iled-plots
                                 {2} http://rense.com/general59/full.htm
                                 {3}http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/empire/2009/10/200910281070568960.html
                                 {4} http://www.heritage.org/research/report … rterrorism
                                 {5} http://www.genocidewatch.org/images/Syr … ilians.pdf
                                 {6} http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world … 64552.html

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 64

                                    maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    You are vomiting what the media told you to swallow, you should learn to think for yourself! I know it's a big step that not everybody can take. Is it too hard for you? I understand but DON'T WASTE MY TIME!

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 71

                                       Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       Good evening, Max.
                                       
                                       “You are vomiting what the media told you to swallow”
                                       
                                       Once again, I thank you for voicing your opinions in response to the facts I provided. You do not provide any evidence that my statements are false. I was hoping you would share some facts with us, if you have any, to support your claims.
                                       
                                       “You should learn to think for yourself! I know it's a big step that not everybody can take. Is it too hard for you? I understand but DON'T WASTE MY TIME!”
                                       
                                       A personal attack is a poor substitute for verifiable facts. Assuming that others are irrational or misinformed if they do not agree with your thinking is also a failure of logic called a Mind Projection Fallacy. {1} It is also illogical for me to assume you would provide evidence to support your claims if you had any. However, I accept the implication in your post that a discussion containing hard facts is a waste of your time.                
                                       
                                       My perception of the world tells me opinions are abundant but opinions supported by meaningful facts and rational thinking are much harder to find. 
                                       
                                       Thank you again, Max, for sharing your ideas with us. I think your posts say a lot.
                                       
                                       {1} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy

                                       report
                        2. 0

                           mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Do you really believe that global events have no affect on America and on the lives of Americans?
                           
                           Do the words "global economy" mean anything to you?

                           replyreport
                           1. 64

                              maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Then cite one and argue your case!

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 You are obviously aware of the fact that America and Americans do not live in isolation from the rest of the world; obviously aware that America and Americans are impacted by global events whether those events are political, economic, social, or even the result of natural, geological events.
                                 
                                 And as for Detroit, you are obviously aware of the fact---or at least you should be, that the economic problems of Michigan (including Detroit) are a direct result of the loss of manufacturing jobs in the US to places like China; you are obviously aware of the fact that the global economy---particularly as it relates to industrial manufacturing, has affected the lives of millions of people whether in Michigan or any other state in the US whose economy relied on industrial manufacturing.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 64

                                    maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    Yes they do. We are the champion of isolationism if you want to know. We think that we are the center of the world already. Isolationism, protectionism, expansionism aren't they words that we created reflecting our personality? Why do you think we had to provoke the 7th of December 1941 if it was not because of our isolationism? Why the WTO/GATT, Bretton Woods... if not for protectionism? Why Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Syria from a strategic and military standpoint if not because of expansionism? Where do you get your culture, your education? Foreign Policy, still?
                                    What happens to Detroit is part and parcel linked to it. But can I underline the fact that it is part of the competition, the value of our sweet capitalism that we cherish so much? You can't punish China for developing its country as we did in the 80's. We did enjoy those years, didn't you? Now it's their turn.
                                    However it belongs to our government to find solutions to limit manufacturers to offshore their productions and reconquer our national production.
                                    Solutions exist but can't be applied because they oppose the elite's agenda. Capitalism says reduction of cost and maximization of the capital, it is exactly what corporations do! Is it what Foreign Policy tells you, or is it more convoluted?

                                    replyreport
                     2. 54

                        Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        I can most certainly tell the difference between "disserved [sic] criticism" and backhanded compliments.  I can also tell when the "deserved criticism" is total opinion.  Let's be honest, there's no way to prove either one of us right on this issue.  Thus, your "deserved criticism" is total opinion.
                        
                        I believe that less intelligence gathering on American citizens is better; I believe that we need to continue gathering intelligence on terrorists.  Targeting the majority of American citizens IS wasteful, and it runs contrary to everything America should stand for.  It's reminiscent McCarthyism, and I am opposed to funding such a program. 
                        
                        I, too, thank you for your reply.  While we disagree, I am not going to pretend that I am right and criticize you because you disagree.  Instead, I will merely say that I respect your opinion, because I believe it comes from a good and just place, the desire to keep Americans safe.
                        
                        Best wishes.

                        replyreport
                        1. 71

                           Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           
                           Thank you, EA, for sharing. I am grateful to you for your comments.
                           

                           replyreport
                  2. 64

                     maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Thank you for acknowledging the realities of our government. It is exactly what I am reproaching Quilligrapher, at first sight he seems liberal but as you dig deeper he is a newt gingrinch!

                     replyreport
   3. 0

      mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Define "save our country".

      replyreport
      1. 64

         maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Do I look like a toy for you to play with? Don't insult my intelligence! If you didn't understand what I meant then you don't belong to this debate! Didn't you just refer to Detroit? Do you really think that Detroit will be the only one?

         replyreport
2. 0

   mbuggiehposted 11 years ago

   Facts or data or documentary evidence matter little to those whose automated response to any facts or data or documentary evidence that have the potential to undermine their agenda---whatever it may be, is to claim that anyone who disagrees with them is unable to read or to reason and is equally unable to find and process information independently of "the media". If we disagree with them, we are subject to the most patently personal of attacks. If we disagree with them we are media puppets and fools.

   replyreport
   1. 64

      maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      When the media won't be biased then I will listen. When our government that lies to us (weapon of mass destruction...), that acknowledges their crime after the statute of limitations (CIA...), that allows grand larceny by the white collars of Wall-Street... will act in the name of the people and not in the name of the elite, if it ever happens in this country, then I will support my government but, to do it blindly, I refuse.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         mbuggiehposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         And where do you get your data? Webpages? Blogs? Print? Radio?
         
         Are these not media?

         replyreport
         1. 64

            maxoxam41posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            No. Not mainstream, guaranteeing thereto its independence!

            replyreport