The definition says that, but for most, the word ambivalence means more of an "I don't really know enough to say yes or no, good or bad" about someone.
In other words... "I don't care".
Re: Ron Paul
The definition says that, but for most, the word ambivalence means more of an "I don't really know enough to say yes or no, good or bad" about someone.
In other words... "I don't care".
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Re: Ron Paul
Trolling is constantly taking a thread off the original topic and inserting your own topics.
The TOPIC is the anti-Jewish sentiments that Paul has put out in the past, it's about the people he hangs with (Alex Jones), it's about his Conspiracy Beliefs, it's about his ability to be President of the United States.
Given that Obama made it, apparently ANYONE can be President though.
It's just this... is Ron Paul someone we want representing CONSERVATIVE AMERICA?
The answer, of course, is NO.
THAT is trolling, Michael.You keep chest-thumping about your patriotism and motives, and impugning the patriotism and motive of those who disagree with you, and all you'll end up with is an 'Echo Chamber', little more than the sound of your own voice.
What did I say about MY patriotism? I said I am an AMERICAN. If you have a problem with that, go fuck yourself.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Re: Ron Paul
I didn't paint YOU that way. I painted Ron Paul that way.And again you paint me as some kind of isolationist, and Ron Paul, well, it isn't isolationism to not want America try to be the World's Savior, that's someone else's job description...Nor the World's Policeman. If we had stayed out of WWI, none of the World's current crop of ills would've happened, and we repeat the same mistakes over and over. And my goodness! You talk like Israel is helpless-are they? I'm sure that any country would love to have the World's Superpower to fight for them to the last American dollar and the last American soldier, and who could blame them if we're that stupid? Ron Paul is the only one of this crop who isn't willing to do that.
It is isolationism when you want to pull ALL the troops out of ALL countries. He wants to cut bases in Europe, Japan, etc. THAT is isolationism.
If we stayed out of WW I we would have let the Germans TAKE most of Europe. We would have let all those people on the Lusitania die for nothing. ALL of the worlds "crop of ills" WOULD have happened, perhaps in a different way, by different people.
I never said Israel was helpless, I think that was you stating over and over they "don't have the bomb"... no? Maybe that was someone else, at this point I forget. You've said so much against Israel for whatever your reasons are it's irrelevant now.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Re: Ron Paul
Let's call it "Anti-Israel"... like yourself. You've stated over and over how they won't survive.Originally Posted by michael2
ok....
Monday, December 26, 2011
Ron Paul: U.S. Shouldn't Have Fought Hitler Just to Save Jews From Holocaust
Anti-Israel is anti-Jewish. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that is a fact, and a critical one at that. Dondero says that Ron Paul is not an antisemite, but then he says that Paul thinks that the Jewish State should not exist at all.
Think about that for a minute. Paul "sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs." How does Ron Paul think that should be accomplished? The "Palestinian" jihadists clearly want to kill all the Jews in Israel; they say so again and again on Palestinian Authority TV. They teach this poison to their children. Islamic Jew-hatred is in the quran. If Israel were turned over to the Palestinians, the jihadi savages would indulge in an orgy of Jewish blood on a scale the world hasn't seen since the Holocaust.
Is Paul ok with that? Is that the way he envisions bringing "peace" to the Middle East if he becomes president (G-d forbid)?
And look at how he berated and yelled at the Houston Jewish Young Republicans. He obviously feels very, very strongly about this: his hatred for Israel is very important to him.
Paul's position on Hitler only confirms his antisemitism. The U.S. shouldn't have fought Hitler to save the Jews? Paul here again seems to be just fine with genocide of the Jews. And notice here again: he repeated this to Dondero "countless times."
Paul also sides with Iran in its annihilationist aspirations for a nuclear weapon.
This man must never, ever become president of the United States.
Statement from fmr. Ron Paul staffer on Newsletters, Anti-Semitism by Eric Dondero, Right Wing News
Fmr. Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997 – 2003
Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for Congress, 1995/96
National Organizer, Draft Ron Paul for President, 1991/92
Travel Aide/Personal Asst. Ron Paul, Libertarian for President
1987/88
...Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite? Absolutely No. As a Jew, (half on my mother’s side), I can categorically say that I never heard anything out of his mouth, in hundreds of speeches I listened too over the years, or in my personal presence that could be called, “Anti-Semite.” No slurs. No derogatory remarks.
He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.
Again, American Jews, Ron Paul has no problem with. In fact, there were a few Jews in our congressional district, and Ron befriended them with the specific intent of winning their support for our campaign. (One synagogue in Victoria, and tiny one in Wharton headed by a well-known Jewish lawyer).
On the incident that’s being talked about in some blog media about the campaign manager directing me to a press conference of our opponent Lefty Morris in Victoria to push back on Anti-Jewish charges from the Morris campaign, yes, that did happen. The Victoria Advocate described the press conference very accurately. Yes, I was asked (not forced), to attend the conference dressed in a Jewish yarlmuke, and other Jewish adornments.
There was another incident when Ron finally agreed to a meeting with Houston Jewish Young Republicans at the Freeport office. He berated them, and even shouted at one point, over their un-flinching support for Israel. So, much so, that the 6 of them walked out of the office. I was left chasing them down the hallway apologizing for my boss....
Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.
I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Re: Ron Paul
On Paul. One cannot say he is anti Jew with any firm fact. Yes, he had a newsletter in his name that was sent out that had such rhetoric, but he has said he did not read every thing that went into the newsletter. I believe that and my reason is when I worked in Beverly Hills with a prominent firm, we did a daily newsletter. I was the one who wrote it in my bosses name. Yes, he had occasional input, but not every single day. He would send me a few tidbits to include and I would create the newsletter and add material I had. At that time the daily went out to over 40,000 influential people. Now, to further show the similarity, I once did a breaking news message in the newsletter and did a slight op-ed with it. It was my thoughts and they were not representative of my boss. We had a severe backlash of angry emails and calls. All claiming my boss was this or that. I took these calls and explained it was not his opinion and I had actually sent that, taking some heat off my boss. Some. Others simply figured he was not who they thought he was. btw, the op-ed I sent was about that retiree who plowed his car through the Santa Monica Promenade about 11 years ago and killed a few people and injured others. MY op-ed questioned age as a factor. That was construed as my boss being an ageist. Then to some, me as a ageist. In fact, neither of us were, but I made a grave error in my approach and did not report, but opined and did not get my opinion correctly understood. Anyway, my point is, I know a newsletter can be in a name but not written by that person and that person can even benefit financially. That is Paul's claim and because I know it can happen he has a pass from me on those newsletters. What he has said is he wants to let them run their own country and not impose our will upon them. That sounds fair enough to me.
Last edited by Phil Fiord; December 29th, 2011 at 20:27.
Re: Ron Paul
The Ron Paul Jewish question—what it boils down to
By Ron Kampeas · December 29, 2011
Are Ron Paul's departures from GOP dogma on Israel and Iran enough to disqualify him as a candidate?
Put it this way: Is the GOP's commitment to assistance to Israel and to confronting Iran deep enough to reject a candidate who unequivocally opposes both postures?
We've written in the last week about Jewish conservative pushback against Paul's candidacy -- and also how candidates who are well liked by Jewish conservatives say they would cast a vote for Paul if he won the nomination.
The question, I think, boils down to foreign policy because it presents an unambiguous conflict for the candidates.
Paul's past association with newsletters that peddled in bigotry against blacks, Jews and gays still deserve scrutiny, of course. But his disavowal of the newsletters, however satisfying or not, allows other candidates some wiggle room in whether to endorse him should he emerge as the candidate.
I grant this is unlikely, but the fact is Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have already come forward to say what they would do. (Romney and Santorum said they would hold their noses and vote for him; Gingrich not so much.)
Another wrinkle: The man Michele Bachmann chose to run her Iowa campaign, Kent Sorenson, just jumped ship to Paul's campaign.
This doesn't say anything about Bachmann's commitment to Israel or against Iran; she and Sorenson might never have discussed the Middle East, and if they did, they might have agreed. (Or maybe it does say something: As I'm writing this, Sorenson is on CNN saying his past associations with Paul are well known, and were known to Bachmann.)
The question is how a twice-elected GOP state lawmaker could find Paul's views palatable. Sorenson might emerge as an opportunist (that's what Bachmann is saying), but this switch goes at least a little way to undercutting arguments -- cited in my story -- that Paul's projected strong performance in Iowa is solely a function of how that state's loose caucus rules allowing outsiders to participate.
And that undercutting, I think, is reinforced to a degree by the willingness of Romney and Santorum to unequivocally say they would vote for Paul. In the past, candidates have artfully shucked off such questions with ellisions (remember John Edwards repeatedly answering "I will be the candidate," and nothing else, right until he conceded, 2004 and 2008? And there's always the tried and true "I will support the candidate selected by the voters," no names named.)
Why would Santorum and Romney dip right into a "yes, I'll vote for him," if Paul's threat was confined only to Paulites registering last minute as Republicans? Are they nodding to what they see as a genuine pro-Paul GOP constituency?
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Re: Ron Paul
Well put, Phil, and I agree entirely.
Re: Ron Paul
I dont really think the guy is a racist, not all all. I do however have a problem with his newsletters (which, yes, I have in the past read). That problem is simple and it applies to him being President.
He has disavowed these things, yes. But he has continually claimed "I didn't know what was being said".
That's utter bullshit. If MY name is going on a newsletter, you can damned sure bet your ass I'm going to approve or disapprove what is being said. If I disapprove, I won't let it go out like that and demand the editor takes it off.
But to claim "he didn't know" is too much for me. His RESPONSIBILITY starts with himself and his "words" - whether he wrote them or not, but "approved" their appearance in the newsletter!
I have my doubts he's any sort of "racist' as the blacks might claim him to be.... but I have issues with RESPONSIBILITY!
Old newsletters stirring scrutiny of Paul’s views
By Tracy Jan Globe Staff / December 29, 2011
NEWTON, Iowa - Less than a week before the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, rising GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul is finding himself under intense scrutiny for inflammatory statements published by his newsletters decades ago about blacks, homosexuals, and America’s “disappearing white majority.’’
While most of the remarks were publicized during his presidential bid four years ago, they are getting more attention now that polls have him close to the top in the Iowa contest. Paul dismisses the criticism, and he stalked out of a recent CNN interview when pressed on his responsibility for the newsletters’ content.
So far, the revelations give little sign of undercutting his backers’ support of his candidacy.
The controversial statements are in political and investment newsletters Paul published in the 1980s and ’90s. A 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report said order was restored in Los Angeles following the Rodney King race riots “when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks,’’ according to documents published by The New Republic. Another issue linked the AIDS epidemic to “hyper-promiscuous sodomy’’ practiced by homosexuals, saying gays were “far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.’’
An issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report worries about America’s “disappearing white majority.’’ Another defends the late chess champion and Holocaust-denier Bobby Fischer.
Paul, the libertarian-leaning congressman from Texas, has denied penning the treatises, which were published without a byline, or even having read them. But he stood silent yesterday while reporters asked about the newsletters as he entered and left a campaign forum.
While campaigning in New Hampshire last week Paul brushed the controversy aside and characterized the attacks on him as “politics as usual.’’ He has also refused to disavow the support he receives from extremists, including white supremacist and antigovernment groups.
“Nobody talked about it for 20 years until they found out the message of liberty is making progress,’’ Paul said. “Everybody knows I didn’t write them and they’re not my sentiments.’’
The revelations and criticisms from other GOP candidates - Newt Gingrich has said he would not vote for Paul if he becomes the GOP nominee - have done little to diminish Paul’s large crowd of ardent followers. At a Newton town hall yesterday, hundreds, as usual, packed the media center at the Iowa Speedway. Many of Paul’s fans, even his younger, more mainstream supporters who have grown up in a more diverse society, seem to brush aside his ties to extremists and hate groups.
“For someone who doesn’t know much about Ron Paul all they hear now is that he’s a racist,’’ said Tom Trettin, a 20-year-old Tulane University student who is home in Newton for the holidays and plans to caucus for Paul next week. “But if there were a man in the Republican primary you would not feel is a racist, it has to be a man of libertarian values who believes everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. The newsletters are regrettable but he wasn’t personally responsible.’’Continued...
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Re: Ron Paul
No, I am not saying that.
It's got nothing to do with "loving a foreign country" - and this is directed to both you and Michael. It has to do with "Love of Freedom".
This is something no one seems to be getting in this argument. This isn't about MY patriotism. It's about whether Ron Paul is fit to be a President if he DOESN'T CARE about what happens to other countries as well as his own.
Our country, in my mind comes first. Then all the other countries that are similar to the USA. When a country has the freedoms we enjoy, and we bloody well fight for (in other countries) then those countries deserve to remain free. At both THEIR COST and OURS.
I don't expect Americans to defend the Israelis against all comers... but I damned SURE expect America to ASSIST Israel in it's defense. Not necessarily sending troops, but certainly military aid in other ways.
Whether they PAY cash for it, or ask for assistance is neither here nor there.
It's whether or not our President has the where withal to stand up and help a country who wants our assistance in this manner to do so.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Re: Ron Paul
No, it's NOT an "attack" Michael... you sure are twisted.... I report what I report. I DO NOT MAKE THIS SHIT UP. I have posted numerous articles about this. It's not an "Attack"... it's a FACT things have been said that Paul says weren't, when they were. That's LYING. That's obfuscating (hiding). That's NOT TAKING responsibility... something that a President must be able to do.
I have not once challenged anyone's patriotism, and I defy you to show where I have. Unless they are out and out Liberal jerk wads.You always trumpet your being an American and being a Patriot, thats fine and God Bless you, but what really irks me and i'm sure a few more quiet others, is that you usually combine that with challenging other people's patriotism, motives, and Americanism. That is what gets me and makes me wonder sometimes if you aren't 'protesting too much'.
As for you, I AM a patriot, Michael. I haven't spent 35 years serving this country in ways you wouldn't even fucking understand for nothing. You can ask ANYONE that knows me personally. I didn't join the military "for a college education" or "benefits" either, like so many will tell you they did. I JOINED out of PATRIOTISM, and if you don't like that, it's too fucking bad.
It's as true TODAY as it was in 1975 when I made my decision.
And it will still be true 100 years from now.
That YOU take things (and others as well) the wrong way isn't my problem, it's yours.
it's YOU that protests too much.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Re: Ron Paul
These are tweeted quotes direct from the RP newsletters:
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Re: Ron Paul
Thanks Phil... You're right. Paul wants the government out of the people's business. He wants to cut spending. He wants to do a lot of things that are right...
And I've stated this three times now in the past, and this is the fourth time.
If Ron Paul is the Nominee, I will indeed vote for him. If however it comes down to voting for him on a primary ballot, I'll take ANYONE over him first.
When it comes down to brass tacks, Obama must be removed from office, legally. If not, you can bet your asses he'll remain in office or screw this country ILLEGALLY.
Ron Paul isn't by any means the "perfect candidate" - but then, none of them ARE and there never will be one.
No one is a saint. No one is perfect. No one is going to win the election by claiming to be either.
HONESTY is the only thing that is going to win this, and Paul is dishonest, so is Romney. So is Gingrich.
But who ever wins the nomination needs us ALL behind him or her.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Re: Ron Paul
You know, Michael, you're correct here.
I don't believe in vain expenditures of lives. You can't FORCE people to be GOOD.
But you damned sure can defend your life against a murderer. You might die trying, but you were probably going to die anyway.
And you can defend someone ELSE against a murderer. You MIGHT die trying, but if you didn't you were most CERTAINLY going to be killed by the murderer for being there to witness his first murder.
The decision is always yours to make.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Re: Ron Paul
I haven't forgotten.
It is CERTAINLY not accepting responsibility.Saying that you're not responsible for an out-of-line newsletter distributed-not by yourself but by a supporter-says something fishy...That's not lying.
I've listed several reasons. Israel is the lowest of the things on the list here.Admit it Rick, it's only over Israel that you fail to support Ron Paul. And his position on 9-11? Well, smarter men then he or I have doubts about the official story, but that doesn't matter. Reagan followed Astrology, etc...Paul's core beliefs are enough for me to want him in the White House, compared to all the others.
Mr. Reagan did NOT follow astrology. MRS. REAGAN did. I was there, Michael, I remember the story being broke by the news, and I remember Mrs. Reagan being livid about the whole thing. I remember people being fired, by Mrs., not Mr. Reagan. So again, you have your facts WRONG.
So, which men "Smarter than" you or Paul again have doubts about 9-11 again?
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Re: Ron Paul
Well... I already have Michael, read back through the thread. I've voiced my issues with the guy several times. And Israel wasn't one of them.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Re: Ron Paul
Then people stop helping the fucking "Peace Process" then shouldn't they?
Clinton, Carter, Obama....
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Re: Ron Paul
You're correct. They were however, out of his newsletter.
You know, Michael, just like you I have my opinion and it was formed from being INFORMED rather than taking the word of others.
I would expect if you're going to defend Mr. Paul, you'd be showing me all the good things he has to say about Israel.
After all, the NEWSLETTERS were written. Now they refuse to release back copies of them.
I wonder why?
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Re: Ron Paul
In other words, you can't NAME one person "smarter than" yourself or Paul about 9-11 then.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Re: Ron Paul
To help get this thread back on topic...
Ron Paul Praises Occupy Wall Street
So this is the guy that should represent the Republican Party? Someone so short sighted (or ignorant?) they can't see the Socialist influences of the OWS fools? The same OWS who has the support of Noam Chomsky (as I just posted about in the OWS thread)?December 29, 2011
While campaigning in Iowa on Wednesday, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul praised the Occupy Wall Street movement, comparing it to the Tea Party movement. "In many ways, I identify with both groups," Paul said. Both groups are fed up with problems in Washington and "the two-party-system," Paul said while speaking at an insurance company in Des Moines.
Praising the left-wing Occupy Wall Street movement is an unusual move for a Republican presidential candidate, but Ron Paul is, of course, an unusual Republican presidential candidate. He jumped to first place in the Iowa caucus polls partly because of support from people who aren't Republicans. His comments that members of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are unhappy with the "two-party system" could fuel speculation that Paul will make a third-party bid of his own--something he has not ruled out.
Although “some people like to paint Occupy left and the Tea Party people right," Paul said, "I think it makes my point. There’s a lot of people unhappy, and they’re not so happy with the two-party system because we have had people go in and out of office, congress changes, the presidency changes, they run on one thing, they do something else. Nothing ever changes."
"The Tea Party and Occupy people are just tired of it all," he said. "And they would like to see changes."
Paul praised the Occupy movement for focusing attention on the “very rich” who became wealthy because of government bailouts or contracts, but said that wealthy people who make an honest living “have to be protected. We shouldn’t be jealous or envious of those people.”
Here's a transcript of Paul's full remarks on Occupy Wall Street:
That in a way is a challenging question, because along with that question, I get a lot of times asked about the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party movement started here, gets big, a lot of different people come in. I think the same thing has happened with Occupy. I put them together—I put both groups together. Because I think both groups are unhappy about what’s happening in Washington, and around the country, and the economic conditions. But their complaints are somewhat different.
The Tea Party people basically say the debt is too big and we should shrink the size of government. Occupation seems to be more addressing the subject of the very rich, and I think that can be a mixed blessing in the sense that in my talk already I’ve criticized many people on Wall Street and the people who get rich because they get special benefits from the government, whether they get contracts or whether they benefit from the devaluation of the currencies, or whether they get their bailouts, yes, we should address that. I think the Occupy people are.
But people who are wealthy in a free market who give an honest service or an honest product and they are rewarded by the consumer, they’re quite different. They have to be protected. We shouldn’t be jealous or envious of those people. So you can’t put them all together. So in many ways, I identify with both groups. There are some things the groups have changed a little bit. The first time the tea party movement was noted was December 16th four years ago when there was a spontaneous fundraising rally for our campaign. But it’s changed a lot. A lot of people come in. But I think it’s healthy.
I think if some people like to paint Occupy left and the Tea Party people right, but I think it makes my point. There’s a lot of people unhappy, and they’re not so happy with the two party system because we have had people go in and out of office, congress changes, the presidency changes, they run on one thing, they do something else. Nothing ever changes. And I sort of like it because I make the point that if you’re a Republican or Democrat the foreign policy doesn’t really change, even though there’s a strong Republican tradition of the foreign policy I’ve been talking about where we don’t get involved in policing the world. Does the monetary policy change? Do they really care about reining in the Fed? Would the Fed bail out all these countries around the world? More and more people know that now. But monetary policy doesn’t change
Do we ever cut back? No. There’s no pretense to cutting back. They’re not even talking about cutting back. They’re talking about a token cut to proposed increases. All that talk about cutting a trillion dollars over the next 10 years, they don’t even want to start until 2013, and then they want to string it out. And it’s just cutting what’s automatically built into the budget.
But the Tea Party and Occupy people are just tired of it all. And they would like to see changes. And if the conditions get much worse, the demonstrations on the streets could get much worse, too. And that’s what we have to be aware of. But fortunately we still live in a free enough society where they can speak out. If they violate property rights, if anybody violates property rights, they do it at risk. Because that means they’re practicing civil disobedience and they might have to suffer the consequences. But there are sometimes people believe civil disobedience in order to make a point on what’s wrong with our laws that’s, they have to understand, that’s the risk they take. But basically I think it’s healthy on both sides, both the Tea Party movement and the Occupy movement.
Re: Ron Paul
I don't see his positive comments on OWS as more than saying they too are upset with how the country is going and he did defend those who earn an honest buck and get rich. He did not say he backed them beyond principals.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks