Rove heckled at college speech

Apr 10, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Politico

Protesters repeatedly interrupted a speech by Karl Rove on Tuesday, calling the former White House adviser a "murderer" and "terrorist" for his role in the invasion of Iraq.

Comments (Page 24)

Showing posts 461 - 480 of885
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#479
Apr 18, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>I need a link? i have a memory. remember the provisional gov't we had that set up the elections that brought him in? seriously?
should you really be talking about this subject either?
my links..

march 23, 2003, saddam was taken out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

In his book At the Center of the Storm, George Tenet writes:
... by the spring and summer of 2002, more than a dozen al-Qa'ida-affiliated extremists converged on Baghdad, with apparently no harassment on the part of the Iraqi government. They found a comfortable and secure envirnonment in which they moved people and supplies to support Zarqawi's operations in northern Iraq.[58]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zar...
bottlecap

Orlando, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#480
Apr 18, 2013
 
Asian Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
my links..
march 23, 2003, saddam was taken out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein
In his book At the Center of the Storm, George Tenet writes:
... by the spring and summer of 2002, more than a dozen al-Qa'ida-affiliated extremists converged on Baghdad, with apparently no harassment on the part of the Iraqi government. They found a comfortable and secure envirnonment in which they moved people and supplies to support Zarqawi's operations in northern Iraq.[58]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zar...
From your 2nd link:

"The Bush Administration used the possibility of Zarqawi's presence in Iraq before March 2003 to justify the invasion of Iraq; recently declassified Pentagon documents reveal that there was no substantial link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.[17]"
==========
Even the evidence that Al Quada had ease of movement, condems the Bush Administration:

1) "W" weakened the Iraqi government Dramatically, it struggling to survive, and making it unable to defend against the terrorists.
2) Why wasn't Zarqawis operation attacked by US Troops there----after all, Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11?
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#481
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

bottlecap wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct here----Saddam was a big foe of Osama as well as Islamic Fundamentalism, especially Wahhabism.
Correct.

So how that asian guy can tied Saddam to al Qaeada is something of a wonderment.

Even bushie didn't do that.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#482
Apr 18, 2013
 
Asian Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
let me provide you an analogy..
you have some drug dealers. you got the boss. you got a few punks. the boss supports the punks. he pays them for being his punks. the boss tells the punks to go kill some guy for him. so, the punks kill the guy.
so, who is to blame for the murder? the boss or the punks?
the same relationship exists here between bin laden, Afghanistan, Iraq, and my guess is - several other muslim countries.
I believe Pakistan is one of these other muslim countries.
we know that during the Benghazi incident, there was interaction between muslims in yemen, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Pakistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benghazi_inciden...
bin Ladin was the dog the US wanted. al Zarqawi was what? Number two? Three?

But that's sufficient reasoning for you for the president of the United States to invade a sovereign country and expend capital and lives in the process?!?!?!

Bin Ladin was a Saudi. By your logic, shouldn't bushie have invaded Saudi Arabia instead??????

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#483
Apr 18, 2013
 
bottlecap wrote:
<quoted text>
From your 2nd link:
"The Bush Administration used the possibility of Zarqawi's presence in Iraq before March 2003 to justify the invasion of Iraq; recently declassified Pentagon documents reveal that there was no substantial link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.[17]"
==========
Even the evidence that Al Quada had ease of movement, condems the Bush Administration:
1) "W" weakened the Iraqi government Dramatically, it struggling to survive, and making it unable to defend against the terrorists.
2) Why wasn't Zarqawis operation attacked by US Troops there----after all, Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11?
first off, a disclaimer... remember that I base my POV from sources that I read. from these sources, I try to use commonsense to feel out what happened.

with that said..

the obvious.. al Zarqawi was in Iraq. and he was allowed free movement. that says it all. saddam supported the al Qaeda.

an analogy..

let's say you have a house. you live there.. one day, a perfect stranger walks in. helps himself to one of your rooms. he comes and goes as he pleases.

what do you think a normal person would do in this case?

as I see it, a normal person would tell the stranger to leave. if it was me, I would shoot the guy if he refused.

saddam did not tell al Zarqawi and his al Qaeda punks to leave.

says it all. obviously, saddam SUPPORTS al Qaeda. literally.

commonsense.

only a muslim or a cocaine using, marijuana smoking, brain dead, stupid liberal would say otherwise.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#484
Apr 18, 2013
 
Asian Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Wikipedia is a summary based on a slew of other sources. granted, some of these other sources may be not entirely true. but I believe not all are the case.
it is up to the individual to screen out the nonsense.
bottomline, it is a source of valuable information that cannot be neglected.
only those who do not want to find the truth deny it's place in the pursuit of the truth.
in regards to al Zarqawi, in Wikipedia they point to articles written by the Washington post, a book by the cia director tenet, cbs news, bbc, and a slew of other sources to substantiate their findings.
one only needs to extrapolate the information to realize that muslims from many muslim countries supported al Zarqawi in Iraq.
my take on the relationship between al Qaeda and all these other muslim countries..
essentially, al Qaeda is the "mission impossible" alternative for all the muslim countries. remember the starting introduction? "if you decide to embark on this mission, and get caught, killed. the secretary will disavowed any knowledge of your actions."
Let me repeat from Wikipedia (regardless of your claims about them....)

"WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY

Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia; that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.

That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. Note that most other encyclopedias and reference works also have similar disclaimers...."

And... the disclaimers....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-Wi...
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#485
Apr 18, 2013
 
Asian Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
believe it or not. that is what I do.
I don't always provide the links for everything I write right away because I want to see what is the reaction of others.
part of the fun in debating.
So far you haven't show much in the debating arena.

You have shown your personal beliefs very, very well.

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#486
Apr 18, 2013
 
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Correct.
So how that asian guy can tied Saddam to al Qaeada is something of a wonderment.
Even bushie didn't do that.
so, who told you that? saddam? al Qaeda? perhaps some other muslim?

yeah. like I believe anything a muslims says. the Koran says they can lie to non-muslims anytime, anywhere.

only someone who is brain dead, stupid believes anything a muslim says.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#487
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Asian Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
my links..
march 23, 2003, saddam was taken out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein
In his book At the Center of the Storm, George Tenet writes:
... by the spring and summer of 2002, more than a dozen al-Qa'ida-affiliated extremists converged on Baghdad, with apparently no harassment on the part of the Iraqi government. They found a comfortable and secure envirnonment in which they moved people and supplies to support Zarqawi's operations in northern Iraq.[58]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zar...
From your source.

Seems it disagrees with your "assessment"....

"...US officials' view of the alliance

In June 2004, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld conceded that Zarqawi’s ties to Al Qaeda may have been much more ambiguous—and that he may have been more of a rival than a lieutenant to bin Laden. Zarqawi "may very well not have sworn allegiance to [bin Laden]," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon briefing. "Maybe he disagrees with him on something, maybe because he wants to be ‘The Man’ himself and maybe for a reason that’s not known to me." Rumsfeld added that, "someone could legitimately say he’s not Al Qaeda."[69]

According to the Senate Report on Prewar Intelligence released in September 2006, "in April 2003 the CIA learned from a senior al-Qa'ida detainee that al-Zarqawi had rebuffed several efforts by bin Ladin to recruit him. The detainee claimed that al-Zarqawi had religious differences with bin Ladin and disagreed with bin Laden's singular focus against the United States. The CIA assessed in April 2003 that al-Zarqawi planned and directed independent terrorist operations without al Qaeda direction, but assessed that he 'most likely contracts out his network's services to al Qaeda in return for material and financial assistance from key al Qaeda facilitators.'"(page 90)..."

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#488
Apr 18, 2013
 
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>So far you haven't show much in the debating arena.
You have shown your personal beliefs very, very well.
it really hurts, doesn't it?

knowing that you follow a religion that is totally evil.

I understand your shock. here you are.. told all your life that islam is the religion of peace. you muslims are superior to all others.

and then.. you find out you are evil. the sick man of asia. the lowest of the low.

yeah. I know. hard to digest.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#489
Apr 18, 2013
 
Asian Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
it really hurts, doesn't it?
knowing that you follow a religion that is totally evil.
I understand your shock. here you are.. told all your life that islam is the religion of peace. you muslims are superior to all others.
and then.. you find out you are evil. the sick man of asia. the lowest of the low.
yeah. I know. hard to digest.
Really? I do? And what religion would that be?

I know the Catholic Church has been having problems with pedophilia. Are you claiming something like this is acceptable doctrine?

curious......
Yeah

Mililani, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#490
Apr 18, 2013
 
Asian Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
so, who told you that? saddam? al Qaeda? perhaps some other muslim?
yeah. like I believe anything a muslims says. the Koran says they can lie to non-muslims anytime, anywhere.
only someone who is brain dead, stupid believes anything a muslim says.
I'd suggest you start defending your source that you got your opinion from son.

Seems it's going against you as well since some of us can read and digest it.

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#491
Apr 19, 2013
 
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>I'd suggest you start defending your source that you got your opinion from son.
Seems it's going against you as well since some of us can read and digest it.
Part 1 of 2.

Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are:

Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true.

Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."

Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.

Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.

At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad's "emissaries" went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, belying the probability that they were mostly unarmed, having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981).

Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who "accepted Islam" did not feel entirely safe. The fate of the Jadhima is tragic evidence for this. When Muslim "missionaries" approached their tribe one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already "converted" to Islam to avoid just such a demise. However, the others were convinced that they could trust the Muslim leader's promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance.(After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded - Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).

Today's Muslims often try to justify Muhammad's murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by saying that they broke a treaty by their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.

Leaders in the Arab world routinely say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic. Yassir Arafat was famous for telling Western newspapers about his desire for peace with Israel, then turning right around and whipping Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews.

The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well, in fact, that even weeks after 9/11, John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, said that their bar trips were evidence of 'hypocrisy.'

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#492
Apr 19, 2013
 
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>I'd suggest you start defending your source that you got your opinion from son.
Seems it's going against you as well since some of us can read and digest it.
Part 1 of 2

Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are:

Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true.

Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."

Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.

Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.

At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad's "emissaries" went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, belying the probability that they were mostly unarmed, having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981).

Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who "accepted Islam" did not feel entirely safe. The fate of the Jadhima is tragic evidence for this. When Muslim "missionaries" approached their tribe one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already "converted" to Islam to avoid just such a demise. However, the others were convinced that they could trust the Muslim leader's promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance.(After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded - Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).

Today's Muslims often try to justify Muhammad's murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by saying that they broke a treaty by their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.

Leaders in the Arab world routinely say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic. Yassir Arafat was famous for telling Western newspapers about his desire for peace with Israel, then turning right around and whipping Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews.

The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well, in fact, that even weeks after 9/11, John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, said that their bar trips were evidence of 'hypocrisy.'

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#493
Apr 19, 2013
 
Part 2 of 2

The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is "a bomb on board" but that everyone will "be safe" as long as "their demands are met." Obviously none of these things were true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to "slay and be slain for the cause of Allah" (as the Qur'an puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing Taqiyya in order to facilitate their mission of mass murder.

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) insists that it "has not now or ever been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, or supported any covert, illegal, or terrorist activity or organization." In fact, it was created by the Muslim Brotherhood and has bankrolled Hamas. At least nine founders or board members of ISNA have been accused by prosecutors of supporting terrorism.

Prior to engineering several deadly terror plots, such as the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was regularly sought out by NPR, PBS and even government leaders to expound on the peaceful nature of Islam.

The near absence of Qur'anic verse and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced that their religion teaches honesty. In fact, it is because of this ingrained belief that many Muslims are quite honest. When lying is addressed in the Qur'an, it is nearly always in reference to the "lies against Allah" - referring to the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad's claim to being a prophet.

Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran's nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.
bottlecap

Orlando, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#494
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Asian Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
first off, a disclaimer... remember that I base my POV from sources that I read. from these sources, I try to use commonsense to feel out what happened.
with that said..
the obvious.. al Zarqawi was in Iraq. and he was allowed free movement. that says it all. saddam supported the al Qaeda.
an analogy..
let's say you have a house. you live there.. one day, a perfect stranger walks in. helps himself to one of your rooms. he comes and goes as he pleases.
what do you think a normal person would do in this case?
as I see it, a normal person would tell the stranger to leave. if it was me, I would shoot the guy if he refused.
saddam did not tell al Zarqawi and his al Qaeda punks to leave.
says it all. obviously, saddam SUPPORTS al Qaeda. literally.
commonsense.
only a muslim or a cocaine using, marijuana smoking, brain dead, stupid liberal would say otherwise.
Your reasoning is FLAWED. What you left out with your analogy is that an armed intrusion,(Allied Forces), first took place in that house and forced the owner,(Saddam), of the house to live and hide in the basement.

When a stranger,(Al Qaeda), then comes in and helps himself to the houses goodies, he owner of the house is incapacited by the armed intruders, and cannot respnd.
==========
Now, if you could show proof that Al Qaeda had free rein PRIOR to the US Invasion then your claim of an Al Qaeda/Saddam relationship would have merit.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#495
Apr 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Brad wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you ever run out of air?
do you ever have a point?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#496
Apr 19, 2013
 
Asian Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
my links..
march 23, 2003, saddam was taken out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein
In his book At the Center of the Storm, George Tenet writes:
... by the spring and summer of 2002, more than a dozen al-Qa'ida-affiliated extremists converged on Baghdad, with apparently no harassment on the part of the Iraqi government. They found a comfortable and secure envirnonment in which they moved people and supplies to support Zarqawi's operations in northern Iraq.[58]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zar...
so the part about them moving in from other countries didn't catch your attention?

Since: Oct 08

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#497
Apr 19, 2013
 
libs can certainly be relieved to learn that it was not Bill Ayers who bombed the Boston Marathon...turns out it was a couple of brothers from Chechnya, hmmmm....and all the while you libs thought it was some NRA people.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#498
Apr 19, 2013
 
Asian Guy wrote:
Part 2 of 2
The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is "a bomb on board" but that everyone will "be safe" as long as "their demands are met." Obviously none of these things were true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to "slay and be slain for the cause of Allah" (as the Qur'an puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing Taqiyya in order to facilitate their mission of mass murder.
The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) insists that it "has not now or ever been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, or supported any covert, illegal, or terrorist activity or organization." In fact, it was created by the Muslim Brotherhood and has bankrolled Hamas. At least nine founders or board members of ISNA have been accused by prosecutors of supporting terrorism.
Prior to engineering several deadly terror plots, such as the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was regularly sought out by NPR, PBS and even government leaders to expound on the peaceful nature of Islam.
The near absence of Qur'anic verse and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced that their religion teaches honesty. In fact, it is because of this ingrained belief that many Muslims are quite honest. When lying is addressed in the Qur'an, it is nearly always in reference to the "lies against Allah" - referring to the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad's claim to being a prophet.
Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran's nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.
Again, what is your point? we know that all religions are inherently divisive and all their writings say it is Ok to kill non-believer. is this new knowledge to you?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 461 - 480 of885
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••