AMERICAblog: McCain: "This bill is putting us on the brink of economic disaster"
sullivan
· 1 year ago
That was last night, too long ago for him to remember!
JohnInTexas
· 1 year ago
Yeah, he's just happy he's sitting down and doesn't have to find the stage door again...whew
JohnInTexas
· 1 year ago
He doesn't even look like he knows what he just said, he was just trying to get to the part where he can brag on himself and take a potshot at Obama. He looks almost as stupid as Palin. Maybe she's been prepping him.
HereinDC
· 1 year ago
Good catch. He doesn't know what he is saying. He's doing the same thing as Miss Teen South Carolina.....just blathering talking points and only to diss Obama.
He didn't realsie what he said.
Ginger_FL
· 1 year ago
I'm waiting for one of these news-models to say:
I'm confused....You are railing against a bill YOU voted FOR....
coolcatdaddy
· 1 year ago
As someone at the New Yorker observed about one of Palin's clips, this appears to have been translated to English from the Finnish through Google translate...
PeteWa
· 1 year ago
McFuddled McFool McSame.
AdrianBrowne
· 1 year ago
The Republican Party doesn't have a leader. It is in complete disarray.
PatogTX
· 1 year ago
Just a question for you all:
Has he un-suspended his campaign yet? How long can he stay suspended and still be considered a candidate for the race? ( I know he never really suspended but I'm going on just the basis of what he has said)
JohnInTexas
· 1 year ago
He probably forgot he suspended it by now.
lynchie
· 1 year ago
Rove has decided that Palin and McCain should say anything that pops into their heads. There is no need to make sense or even stay on the subject. Just start talking. Rove knows none of the media have the guts to call McCain or Palin on anything because they are all bought and paid for. Palin may be acting but, the average American who has the attention span of a fruit fly will hear one or two words and think her brilliant. McCain has never been bright. Remember his scores at the Naval Academy. The media have given him far more credit for being a maverick, whatever the hell that means. It is hard to find any interviews which consistently go back to the question and force an honest, intelligent answer. So just say any old shit cause Republicans vote Republican regardless of the asshole they are voting for, 8 years of Bush show that in detail.
Kozar
· 1 year ago
I wonder why Palin and Mac no longer need to wear US flag pins. Palin hasn't worn one that I saw since her "rollout" .Whoever has been dressing Mac lately has been forgetting it more and more. It would be interesting to see how they would jump if Obama wasn't wearing one. Just a thought.
cowboyneok
· 1 year ago
They don't have to wear them because of white priviledge. White priviledge means you are automatically "patriotic" versus that black guy who has to wear one to make up for his (gasp!) darker skin color!
maggiePA08
· 1 year ago
I believe McNasty didnt wear one to the debate specifically hoping he would be asked, and could go on his "I was a POW " rant.
houstonray
· 1 year ago
Wow, he's been hanging around Sarah too long...all that answer was missing was: "because the American people are part of a great country and we share a maritime border with other countries because health care is the reason that job creation is so important to the economy so that we can take it to the terrorists instead of them bringing it to us in order to outsource fewer jobs..."
JohnInTexas
· 1 year ago
and don't forget the part about being so blessed to serve as vice president blah blah blah
eclecticbrotha
· 1 year ago
The contradiction isn't an accident: McCain and Palin think they can have it both ways.
Now that John McCain voted FOR the bill, expect him to start running AGAINST the bill as wasteful spending by the Democrats. He'll take the talking points on the road and start preaching them to his base to fire them up against Congress, Bush and the "media elites" who keep taking his words out of context.
cowboyneok
· 1 year ago
McCrazy! Oh.My.God. I can't believe he said that!
truebluecoondog
· 1 year ago
He's hedging his bets. This way if it fails, he can say he predicted that failure, and if it works, he can say he voted for it. Idiot. And, O/T: he's doing that eye thing still.
Kelly2
· 1 year ago
And if Biden said the same thing it would have been the top story of the day. Biden makes gaffes but Palin and McCain do not - even though McCain makes 10 for every 1 Biden makes (and half the time Biden's are only gaffes when taken completely out of content). But that's the narrative the press likes.
So voting affirmative for something that puts us on the brink of disaster is "straight talk" and Iran and Iraq are interchangeable and launching attacks in Pakistan is irresponsible when a Dem says it but prudent national security with a "gotcha" twist when Republicans do it. See those are not gaffes just misstatements or something. Big, big difference when your work for the MSM.
MyVoice
· 1 year ago
Yesterday McCain made the statement that he is 100% truthful all the time. He is getting away with spewing these lies since his campaign is changing the headline every 5 minutes. The best thing to counter the crap coming out is to keep going back and making these falsehoods stay in the news, the internet is a tool for us to use as Americans to call out these lies. Look as today's big news- the debate tonight is taking up most of the space and news like this is taking a back seat after being said.
henrythefifth
· 1 year ago
I think he meant to say that the bill is taking us away FROM the brink of economic disaster, but he's too crazy/idiotic to know he screwed up.
Then again, with the way he's been acting, who knows wtf he's talking about.
We know the routine by now though. His campaign will later issue a clarification indicating that once again, John McCain does not speak for the John McCain campaign.
I mean, the way he posed it, he just voted for a bill he thinks will destroy America.
cowboyneok
· 1 year ago
Yea, I can't wait for him to tell Russia he is going to nuke them, and then after we've been nuked in retaliation have his campaign tell them he really didn't mean to say what he said.
What John McCain meant to say is that he WASN'T going to nuke you! We promise!
Jeesh - get him OFF THE STAGE! DONE! FINISHED!
Haven't we had enough of a President who can't speak properly?
cowboyneok
· 1 year ago
This latest interchange should be enough to disqualify him from being President. It should be, but the media will pretend it never happened, or some cable teevee newsreader who went to one of his barbeques with free McCain-Hensley Beer will go to bat for him.
osage
· 1 year ago
A BOLDFACED LIAR who is incoherently illogical. In answering why he didn't vote against the bill he said it was because he'd fought against OTHER bills? And then LIED about bringing Republicans together. I didn't think I could loathe anyone as much as I do George W. Bush, but John McCain is demonstrating he's equally deserving of my complete and utter disdain. The satisfaction I'll feel on election night watching John McCain congratulate Barack Obama on his landslide victory will be a once in a lifetime experience.
tigergrrldc
· 1 year ago
My head just exploded trying to follow that. That made no sense at all! Maybe he didn't hear her question clearly, but even if he didn't, he did vote for the bill. He didn't realize what he was saying? This is getting scarier and scarier. If he makes it to the second debate with Obama, I think he is going to blow big time!
bluestockton
· 1 year ago
I need some help, folks. My boss has friends on both ends of the political spectrum and they're always e-mailing each other with hit pieces from various blogs and columnists. One of her right-wing friends sent her this one (sorry for the length). She wants to answer it and gave me the job of researching her answer, as if I'm Paul Krugman's BFF.
Does anyone remember reading this piece before, or seeing a rebuttal (maybe by Krugman)? Can you give me a link? Thanks!
Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.
Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex. But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.
Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves. In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation.
As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.
The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.
Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.
It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end. Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Commission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chiefFranklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter. That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.
There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear. Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
hankt27
· 1 year ago
Opinion Paul Krugman: Fannie, Freddy are also victims of mortgage mess My opinion Paul Krugman Tucson, Arizona | Published: 07.15.2008
Mourning Jow(l) is always extra fatty and sliced thick but this morning it was particularly brimful of saturated fats. Their only show criterion--large heads, clenched fists and an entertaining mix of 2nd grade sexuality, bovine corporate docility and simmering anger.
aquarius2
· 1 year ago
I would agree on most days but today I watched a good bit of the show. Scarborough was on a rant about the pork included in the bill the Senate passed last night. On this I agree. This bill was supposed to be so critical to help our economy and it turned out that both Dems and Republicans just couldn't help themselves, they loaded it with special interests. Now the House gets to vote and god only knows what will happen there.
IF and WHEN this bill passes it will be not so much about helping the economy but more like what legislators can get cram into it for pork barrel advantages.
Rob Mule
· 1 year ago
Were the "sweeteners" presented in an unbiased fashion by good old Joe or were they, perhaps, mischaracterized for theatrical effect? These same anti-pork champions, just a few days ago, were pushing the 3-page Bush coup de économie with equal breathy, fist jabbing gusto. I question how such an endless array of firm convictions can arise from sketchy, bare bones and likely slanted corporate reporting...
aquarius2
· 1 year ago
This really should be an issue, McCain ranting and ranting across the country about pork, and then he votes for a bill laden with pork. He cannot answer the question, "why did you vote for this". This is the way Washington works, McCain knows it yet he is saying he will change Washington, well, yesterday was his big chance to show he is serious about change and he failed.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 1 year ago
there's nothing inconsistent here. mccain doesn't notice opportunities. he sees the world as a sequence of threats and calamities. his campaign is right at the top of the list.
cwzilla
· 1 year ago
I gotta admit he did vote aginst a lot of bills like ji webbs 21 centry G.I bill then tryed to take credit for it he voted against helth care for vwets he voted against troops getting the proper body armour and things that would keep them safer yeah he voted against a lot of bills unfortuantely he voted no one the wrong ones
Rob Mule
· 1 year ago
Funny how Miss McConnell hikes up her skirts and trots, heels clattering, to the microphones...She's running scared kids 'cuz tho she'd just move in with her Saudi friends burkas make her look fat.
mikeyDe
· 1 year ago
Are Bush and McCain kryptoenvironmentalists? It seems their economic and foreign policies have been designed to give planet earth an 11th-hour reprieve. If the fallout from global conflagration doesn't bring us sudden nuclear winter, a global depression might give us time to develop the technology to wean us from carbon fuels. It almost makes me wish Bush could serve a third term in order to finish off the job properly.
michaelt
· 1 year ago
i don't know karate but i do know ka-razy.....................James Brown.
then you throw palin in the mix. coo coo for coco puffs.
ANYONE who is still openly touting the nomination of sara palin is essentially telling the world that they are an idiot.
feel free to let them know.
naschkatzehussein
· 1 year ago
Much is being made of Sarah Palin being only a 72 year old heartbeat away from the presidency, but with remarks like the one McCain just made in the video, you don't even need to go there.
John McCain gives new meaning to the phrase "head up his ass"
boloboffin
· 1 year ago
As a coworker just said, John McCain is a maverick unto himself.
cmccbald
· 1 year ago
I believe I heard McCain close his interview with Morning Joe by stating that he is not a rich man.
Anyone else hear this?
If so, what happened? Did Cindy file for divorce?
winchester
· 1 year ago
I actually did hear him remark about being poor on his closing remarks. I thought it was a sad attempt at humor, but it wasn’t funny considering all the other drivel and nonsense he rambled on about during this interview. I think Joe got the ‘poor’ old man out of bed a little too early.
LisaLV711
· 1 year ago
He most certainly did. Who does he think he's kidding?
bluestockton
· 1 year ago
The Gilded Age mansions built in Newport, Rhode Island were called "cottages" by the Vanderbilts and the Astors. The rich always play down how much money they have because they think it's tacky to call themselves rich. Not to mention that there's always someone else who has still more money, and compared to that person they don't feel rich.
lost_nacf_gop
· 1 year ago
Uncharacteristically serious question for me: Can someone have a stroke which does not dramatically affect the speech center of the brain, yet nonetheless causes cerebral damage? He's not showing signs of significant speech deficit, but the content of his comments are woefully confused (and confusing).
monopole
· 1 year ago
You see. McCain is bringing change! Change on an hourly basis! Change in the Dow (-770 is a big change).
LisaLV711
· 1 year ago
I saw McAin't on Morning Joe this morning and as usual he show no shame. He acts as if he had absolutely nothing to do with the state of the economy today. How can he stand of front of all America and lie, lie, lie. John McCain is the biggest deregulator in the history of economics. And he just stands there as if he was clueless when this fiasco began and people BELIEVE him. Talk about low-informed voters. They shouldn't even be allowed to vote. Why? They can't read nor have any basic comprehensive listening skills.
EmGD
· 1 year ago
I love John McCain's instant reaction to defending himself from the charge that if he really was a maverick he would have voted against the bill, is to slam the thing he deemed necessary. It's great how you can see the gears turning in his head "She slammed my maverick credentials. I show her who is the maverick, I'll slam this bill. Mental high five!" I shudder to think what a McCain Presidency will be like.
Why doesn't anybody call McCain out on his lies? Like right as he tells them. Just say, something like, "Well Senator, let me show you some footage from the Keating 5 Hearings and maybe that will refresh your memory." I mean call this old guy out on his stuff. Show him poll data, run Sarah's interview video, you know stuff like that? I mean CNN, Larry King, Wolf Blizer, Joe Scarborough, Hannity & Colmes can start showing this stuff. Run it like they ran Rev Wright.
sukabi1
· 1 year ago
if that wasn't the most convoluted bullshit non-answer I don't know what is... not only did he condemn the bill, he took credit for bringing Repubs to the table with him to vote FOR it and slammed Obama for "phoning it in" ...
The man thinks we are all as stupid as he and his campaign ARE.
LinusToo
· 1 year ago
Perhaps it's even scarier to think that McCain might just have let the truth slip out this time: He voted FOR the bill BECAUSE it "is putting us on the brink of economic disaster." Did McCain just admit that he IS the Manchurian Candidate? Naw!! I'm beginning to think the truth is that McCain doesn't KNOW what he's saying any more - the man is sicker than the campaign wants us to know. McCain ought to be compelled to release his medical records, in full.
kh7463
· 1 year ago
Not that I've listened all that closely before, but since reading the doctor's post and the information about McCain's blinking - I'm finding myself watching his stupid eyelids instead of even trying to listen.
All Comments
He didn't realsie what he said.
I'm confused....You are railing against a bill YOU voted FOR....
Has he un-suspended his campaign yet? How long can he stay suspended and still be considered a candidate for the race? ( I know he never really suspended but I'm going on just the basis of what he has said)
Now that John McCain voted FOR the bill, expect him to start running AGAINST the bill as wasteful spending by the Democrats. He'll take the talking points on the road and start preaching them to his base to fire them up against Congress, Bush and the "media elites" who keep taking his words out of context.
So voting affirmative for something that puts us on the brink of disaster is "straight talk" and Iran and Iraq are interchangeable and launching attacks in Pakistan is irresponsible when a Dem says it but prudent national security with a "gotcha" twist when Republicans do it. See those are not gaffes just misstatements or something. Big, big difference when your work for the MSM.
Then again, with the way he's been acting, who knows wtf he's talking about.
We know the routine by now though. His campaign will later issue a clarification indicating that once again, John McCain does not speak for the John McCain campaign.
I mean, the way he posed it, he just voted for a bill he thinks will destroy America.
What John McCain meant to say is that he WASN'T going to nuke you! We promise!
Jeesh - get him OFF THE STAGE! DONE! FINISHED!
Haven't we had enough of a President who can't speak properly?
Does anyone remember reading this piece before, or seeing a rebuttal (maybe by Krugman)? Can you give me a link? Thanks!
Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.
Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex. But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.
Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves. In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation.
As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.
The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.
Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.
It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end. Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Commission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chiefFranklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter. That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and
Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.
There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear. Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
Paul Krugman: Fannie, Freddy are also victims of mortgage mess
My opinion Paul Krugman
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 07.15.2008
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/byauthor/248222
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hale-stewart/whos...
Their only show criterion--large heads, clenched fists and an entertaining mix of 2nd grade sexuality, bovine corporate docility and simmering anger.
IF and WHEN this bill passes it will be not so much about helping the economy but more like what legislators can get cram into it for pork barrel advantages.
then you throw palin in the mix. coo coo for coco puffs.
ANYONE who is still openly touting the nomination of sara palin is essentially telling the world that they are an idiot.
feel free to let them know.
Genetics or Environment: Why Rich White Men Steal
Anyone else hear this?
If so, what happened? Did Cindy file for divorce?
http://thesebastards.blogspot.com/
The man thinks we are all as stupid as he and his campaign ARE.