PAGES OF MOORE’S BOOK:
Pages 71, 79 in the Kill Whitey section
Page 157 in the End of Men section
Someone asked me to post these, because they were too fucking lazy to do their own damn work. Lots of people were too damn lazy to read Mein Kampf also.
[quote]FrontFaceLock wrote:
Name one thing - just one - that Gdub has done to impose fundamentalist christian views on your life.
The ban on gay marriage (ok, so it doesnt effect me…yet)
sicking the FCC on Howard Stern.
A Tax credit for married couples. He doesnt want to reward those “living in sin”. [/quote]
–Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage act
–The “tax credit” for married couples only eliminated the “marriage penalty”. Now couples get the same deduction as two single people.
–I’ll give you the Howard Stern thing.
[quote]FrontFaceLock wrote:
The ban on gay marriage (ok, so it doesnt effect me…yet)
sicking the FCC on Howard Stern.
A Tax credit for married couples. He doesnt want to reward those “living in sin”. [/quote]
First off, gay marraige has never been legal - how can their be a ban on it?
Second, the rules that Stern, as well as the other ‘shock-jocks’ broke were on the books before Bush ever thought about being president.
It’s not a tax credit for married people - he’s trying to do away with the tax penalty a couple his hit with just for getting married.
You still failed to tell me how he has imposed his religous beliefs on you.
What laws has he passed that impose religous restrictions on you, or force a religion on you.
The issues you raise are moral - not religous.
[qoute] from lumpy: NewsMax is one of the main sources for spreading this fake story!! Big surprise?[/qoute]
[qoute] from chuckmanjoe: And in another article in newsmax.com:
In a letter to Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times last year, Moore still listed his town as Flint. In fact, despite his proclamations that “capitalism is a sin” and “an evil system,” he lives in a $1.9 million apartment in Manhattan and enjoys a $1.2 million summer home on Torch Lake in Michigan [/qoute].
Doesn’t Moore say that “capitalism is a sin” and “and evil system?” I know for a fact that he does live in Manhattan in a $1.9 million dollar penthouse suite, one of my client lives in the same building and told me that he bumps into Micheal Moore at least once a week. The house on Torch Lake in Michigan I have no clue if he owns or not. But, I would think that he does. If he could afford a $1.9 mill home then he can also afford another summer home. So, lumpy are you telling my client is lying to me? He has no reason too.
Fitone,
The house on Torch Lake is confirmed.
Actually, Moore got into some trouble with local authorities when he tried to fill in some wetlands in and around that house, per a recent book on Moore.
Thunder
You seem to have confused “strategic bombing” with “regime change”. If regime change were a true priority, then we would have moved as if regime change were a priority.
I hope you remember how the GOP bitched like crazy about Clinton’s strategic bombing, by the way. They screamed their heads off.
Even George Bush Senior thinks that invading Iraq was a boondoggle, and that it was handled poorly. Bush hasn’t even convinced his own father that invading Iraq was a good move.
Fitone
I’m not sure why you are referring to me? I have no doubt that Michael Moore is rich… that’s what happens when you have best-selling books, hit movies, TV shows etc. You make a lot of money.
It’s one of the more laughable myths that conservatives trot out about Liberals… that you can’t be a “True Liberal” (“someone who cares about poor people”) if you are rich. Do you think if Michael Moore was really a liberal, he would have to live in a cardboard box?
[quote]Lumpy wrote:
…It’s one of the more laughable myths that conservatives trot out about Liberals… that you can’t be a “True Liberal” (“someone who cares about poor people”) if you are rich…[/quote]
It just enforces the fact that rich ‘True Liberals’ are in fact true hypocrites
Have you ever read Animal Farm?
Lumpy,
Instead of trying to squirm out of a corner by being pedantic, do yourself a favor and read the text:
“It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”
I didn’t confuse anything. And, just so you know, the US government followed up with the directive of this Act and toppled Saddam’s regime back in 2003.
As for the GOP hemming and hawing - you’re welcome to provide evidence, but the Senate unanimously passed the Iraq Liberation Act.
Now I’m not suggesting that the Act was an automatic trigger for invasion. What I am suggesting, or refuting rather, is the notion that President Clinton and the Congress prior to Bush’s tenure was completely uninterested in Saddam as a threat. That’s entirely a fiction. Bush was certainly more aggressive than his predecessor, but he was carrying on a priority enshrined in legislation by a bipartisan Congress and the signature of the former President.
As for George H. W. Bush’s opinion - I’d like to see your proof of his opposition. I’m not suggesting it is wrong, but given your penchant for believing everything you read on the internet, a quality source would be great. Thanks in advance.
Lumpy:
the only reason I called you out was that you claimed that NewsMax put out a fictious story on Moore when Chuckmanjoe put out the qoutes on NewMax that story was true about Moore.
[quote]peartmath wrote:
PAGES OF MOORE’S BOOK:
Pages 71, 79 in the Kill Whitey section
Page 157 in the End of Men section
Someone asked me to post these, because they were too fucking lazy to do their own damn work. Lots of people were too damn lazy to read Mein Kampf also.[/quote]
Oh shut the fuck up. I asked you to post it because I doubt that what he said is the same as what you say he said. I’ll read the sections in questions and find out…if he in fact says what you say he said and meant what you say he meant, then I’ll stand corrected. If not, I’ll call you out.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
It just enforces the fact that rich ‘True Liberals’ are in fact true hypocrites
[/quote]
Uh, uh, WHAT?! What on earth enforces what? What are you talking about!?!?
I been surfing the net (actually found 235,000 websearch pages on this topic) stating how Clinton and Bin Laden. And post after post we hear the same thing…But this one is the most revealing of them all
First Published April 2000 by The European - Sudanese Public Affairs Council
FARCE MAJEURE:
THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION?S SUDAN POLICY 1993-2000
DAVID HOILE
http://www.espac.org/usa_sudan_pages/
farce_majeure.html
Impossible is Nothing… Joe
The posting I made was too long. But I want to just give you the key things in.-this report First Published April 2000 by The European - Sudanese Public Affairs Council
Copyright 2000 David Hoile 3:…" THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION AND OSAMA BIN-LADEN …Pakistan had then begun to “expel Arab militants affiliated with various mujahedin groups and nongovernment aid organisations”. It is no secret that many of these individuals, denied entry to their own countries, took advantage of Sudan?s then non-visa policy for Arab nationals and sought refuge in Sudan. One such person was the Saudi Osama bin-Laden. Previously a CIA asset and the recipient of considerable American funding during the Afghan war, Osama bin-Laden chose not to return to his home country, and also went to Sudan. A man of considerable wealth, bin Laden became commercially involved in Sudan. One of his construction companies began building roads
The Clinton Administration brought pressure to bear on the Khartoum authorities to expel him from the Sudan. The Sudanese minister of information, Dr Ghazi Saleheddin, revealed that: We gave [U.S. officials] a piece of advice that they never followed. We told them: “Don?t send him out of Sudan because you will lose control over him?Now, the United States has ended up with war with an invisible enemy”.
In May 1996, at the insistence of the United States, Sudan expelled bin Laden and over one hundred of his followers and their dependants. They chose to leave for Afghanistan, perhaps the single most difficult place in the world from which to monitor bin Laden and his activities. The results of this relocation are sadly all too well known. While in Sudan he did not engage in any terrorist activities. It was comparatively easy for the Sudanese and American authorities to monitor his activities, and, in the case of the Sudanese authorities probably to exercise a moderating influence of sorts."
"… the Clinton Administration has not been able to point to a single act of terrorism sponsored or supported by the government of Sudan. It has admitted as much in its own reports. Neither has the Administration identified a single “terrorist training camp” in Sudan: had any such data been available it would undoubtedly been attacked at the same time as the al-Shifa factory. Senior European diplomatic sources in Khartoum have questioned whether these camps ever existed.
The hundreds of news and sensation hungry journalists who flooded into Khartoum following the attack on the al-Shifa factory, all eagerly exploring any terrorist link, were also unable to find any evidence of terrorists or terrorist camps. What the Administration did “identify” as a chemical weapons-producing facility, the al-Shifa plant, is now internationally acknowledged to have been nothing more than a medicines factory.
The Clinton Administration is also guilty of turning a blind eye to crucial intelligence opportunities in the war against terrorism. The Administration chose not to accept two offers by the Khartoum authorities for American intelligence and counterterrorist personnel to carry out whatever investigations they wished to in Sudan. An even more questionable Clinton Administration decision was to ignore repeated Sudanese requests that they interrogate two suspects in the Nairobi embassy bombing who had been arrested by the Sudanese authorities in Khartoum while renting accommodation overlooking the American embassy. The Clinton Administration would appear to have ignored this vital opportunity as it would have been inconvenient given that they intended to attack Sudan because of its alleged complicity in the Nairobi bombings.
It is evident that the Clinton Administration has barely, if at all, acknowledged Sudan?s efforts to address American concerns about its alleged support for terrorism. It is difficult to see what more Khartoum could have done in this respect. Sudan arrested and extradited Illyich Ramirez Sanchez, “Carlos the Jackal” to France, and, as requested by Washington, it expelled Osama bin Laden, and his associates, from Sudan. In September 1995 Sudan imposed strict visa requirements on visitors to Sudan, ending its no visa policy for Arab nationals. It has signed various United Nations, international and Arab anti-terrorist accords. In April 1998, for example, Sudan became a signatory to the Arab Agreement for Combating Terrorism. The Sudanese ministers of internal affairs and justice signed the agreement on behalf of Sudan. In August, 1998, the Sudanese ambassador to Egypt stated Sudan welcomed an Egyptian proposal to convene an international conference on combating terrorism. Sudan has also signed the chemical weapons convention in May 1999. On several occasions, Sudan invited the American government to send CIA and FBI counter-terrorists teams down to Sudan to investigate any concerns they may have about Sudan and terrorism. Not only did Sudan immediately condemn the embassy bombings, it actually arrested two prime suspects in the bombings and repeatedly requested that the American authorities interrogate these suspects…"
And the report, in the posting above goes on and on and so critical of Clinton …Again NOT a Newsmax.com article…or a right wing article. BUT from the Sudanese themselves. from 2000…THese are things that no one brings out. And it CANNOT be refuted!!
Joe
Right Side Up – Why would I lie about something you can read for yourself? I’ve given you the book, the sections, and the pages, and you tell me to shut the fuck up. Read his stuff and come back and apologize (if you are a man); otherwise you’re just another liberal weasel.
I’ve noticed that very few people talk about what MM has written. You gotta read the enemy to know what he is saying, not just listen to what some limosine liberal commentator says. The Left is counting on you guys NOT reading this stuff.
Well I saw F-911 last night. It was a bit sloppy and didn’t really connect a lot of the dots. It had a bit of a shotgun approach, where a bunch of stuff was trotted out, and some of it stuck, and some of it seemed like an interesting footnote to the overall story. Stuff that didn’t hang together was undeveloped… certain threads were brought out but not tied together. I was constantly engaged though, and I don’t think anyone could watch it and be bored.
After reading those long list of Moore “lies” I have to tell you that many if not all of the complaints about Moore “distorting the truth” are ridiculously petty and nit picky. For example the scene where Bush tells the joke about “the haves… and the have mores”. Okay, I went in after reading your list of “lies” and knowing that the scene occurred at a ‘roast’ type event where they tell jokes. Big friggin deal! It has zero importance to the overall story. It doesn’t matter if you know what the event was or not. Incredibly petty for someone to take an issue with that scene. Bush tells joke, crowd laughs. CUT. There is nothing to complain about there.
Or the scene where the Senator is complaining Moore cut him off… so incredibly petty and nit-picky. Moore approaches on street corner and asks the Senator if he has any relatives in Iraq. The senator shoots Moore a dirty look. CUT TO THE NEXT GUY’S SCENE. Was Moore supposed to stop the whole show to give this Senator dork a chance to bloviate? I can’t believe anybody would think crap like this is an issue or makes Michael Moore a “liar”.
Complaining about this crap is like arguing about the position of the deck chairs on the Titanic. Overall it doesn’t change the big story whatsoever! Anybody who saw the movie and then complains about this petty bullshit is a fool.
My dad is 77 years old and a lifelong Republican. Fiscally conservative and socially tolerant. He thinks Bush is a disaster. He said “If even 50% of the stuff in the movie is true, it’s a disgrace” (to us as a nation). I’ve got news for you, most of the “Fahrenheit 911” movie is news footage and unedited interviews of these clowns embarassing themselves (and our country) on live TV appearances and news footage. Also, many of you bitter Moore-haters don’t understand the amount of HUMOR sprinkled throughout the film. Michael Moore is a satirist, you boobs. If you have no sense of humor, then you probably shouldn’t read a book called STUPID WHITE MEN.
Ya know, DON’T see the movie.
Instead, put on your fuzzy pajamas. Pour yourself a glass of warm milk, and read yourself a nice bedtime story. Whatever it takes to maintain your fantasy about who George Bush actually is.
If someone can’t stand to have their beliefs questioned, that would suggest they have a pretty weak set of beliefs.
Thunder said
Invading Iraq was a prime example of Bush flip-flopping then, no? Didn’t Bush run on a platform of “humble foriegn policy” and “no nation building”?
Please, don’t give me your stock response that 911 ‘changed everything’ after amitting that Bush’s policy of deposing Saddam originated in the 90s. Do you think Americans would have agreed to attack Iraq based on a Team Bush mid-east ideology dreamed up by a bunch of guys in suits? I’m still waiting for ONE Bushie to address the issue of Ahmed Chalabi, Team Bush’s source for pre-war intelligence on Iraq (and now accused of being an Iranian agent by the FBI). Explain away how Chalabi fits into the equation?
If deposing Saddam was part of Bush’s plans before the election, then it verges on criminal not to be honest with the public about that before election time. It just reinforces peoples’ view that Bush is dishonest, that he runs dirty campaigns, and that he’ll say whatever it takes to get elected.
Oh, but I realize you don’t believe that though. You Bushies are the supreme moral relativists. ANYTHING Bush does is permissable once you convince yourself the end justifies the means. That’s how you reconcile bending over backwards to defend “Conservative” Bush even though he is a huge runaway spender, a threat to the Constitution, running up the biggest deficit in history, destroying our international alliances, growing the federal government to it’s biggest ever size, and so on. Some “conservative”.
I’m not sure but I think there is some major Cognitive Dissonance among the Bush apologists.
I feel sorry that you guys have pinned all your hopes on that chucklefuck…
Lumpy,
Wow I’m totally surprised that you would support the Moore film. HAHA.
You are nothing if not consistent. If there is a republican attack him! If there is a liberal democrat support him. Not much else matters to you.
You are a black and white sort of guy when it comes to politics.
Please post more about how President Bush is a no good liar…and how John Kerry is the perfect man for the job.
Lumpy,
Your blather notwithstanding, let’s review a few statements made in the final debate on election 2000:
BUSH: “A leader also understands that the United States must be strong to keep the peace. Saddam Hussein still is a threat in the Middle East. Our coalition against Saddam is unraveling. Sanctions are loosened. I – the man who may be developing weapons of mass destruction, we don’t know because inspectors aren’t in. So to answer your question, it requires a clear vision, a willingness to stand by our friends, and the credibility for people both friend and foe to understand when America says something, we mean it.”
BUSH: “Your question was deployment. It must be in the national interests. It must be in our vital interest whether we every send troops. The mission must be clear. Soldiers must understand why are we going. The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well-defined. I’m concerned that we’re over-deployed around the world. See, I think the mission has somewhat become fuzzy. Should I be fortunate enough to earn you confidence, the mission of the United States military will be to be prepared and ready to fight and win war, and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place.”
Well, outside of rolling out a color-coded flowchart and powerpoint presentation on exactly how and where to take out Saddam Hussein, I’d say Bush made it clear that Iraq was a concern and that his foreign policy was essentially “peace through strength”.
Now, you dismiss 9/11 as a turning point. Hogwash. It became clear on 9/11 that the terrorists were going to bring the war to domestic soil. That created an urgency to control the spigot of WMDs wherever they might be available to terror elements. Iraq, with its history of belligerence, possession of WMDs, noncompliance with international terms for disarmament, and nexus to terrorists, was an instant priority (that is, after removing the Taliban).
I’m not really into heavy labelling, but I’ve already spilled my gripes about Bush in another thread. I have issues with him, and I don’t think he is perfect - but he is the best man currently available for the job.
Lumpy, I think the point with moore twisting those scenes is that you have half a brain and can distinguish between real arguments and pointless jabs. A lot of people just aren’t that quick. They will literally take it as fact. For example the senator that shot the dirty look, right after the dirty look I think he said something like yes I have 2 nephews over there right now or something to that effect. But what you get from the movie is “oh look how corrupt these republicans are, they send Our children to war but they have no stake in it themselves, non of thier family is over there otherwise they probably wouldn’t have voted for it.”
Correct me if i’m wrong but I think that was the message moore wanted to portray and it’s flat out dishonest.
Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins
A question on the dishonesty thing… does Moore ask if they have children or if they have family?
There is a difference between the two, but I can’t recall what exactly was asked. Geez, and now I’ll get in trouble for splitting hairs, but if he is asking about family he may mean immediate family and not other relatives.
The question Moore asks is “I’m trying to get members of congress to get their kids to enlist in the army and go over to Iraq. Is there any way you could help me with that?”
Maybe it is splitting hairs for Moore to say that only one congressman has a kid over in Iraq, and ignore somebody who has a nephew in Afghanistan. But I don’t think you can say Moore is lying about anything here… The answer to the question is NO, the congressman doesn’t have a kid serving in Iraq!
I disagree. I certainly don’t think that people are stupid and will be confused by the movie.
I would ask every Bush fan here to memorize the list of alleged Moore “lies” and then go see the movie, and see how much the “lies” detract from the overall message you get… I dare ya.
I’m telling you that it isn’t going to change much, if you see Fahrenheit 911, whether you know that a congressman wasn’t allowed to mention his nephew, or that a joke was told at a comedy “roast”.
All you have to do is watch the president, to watch the other people in the movie, and listen to what they say in their own words. No prior experience necessary. Forget any conspiracy theories, just ignore anything you don’t believe… but what you DO believe is going to turn your head around, I would bet my bottom dollar.
I don’t think even the staunchest Bush supporter like Rush Limbaugh could watch this movie, and not think “Holy crap, this really looks bad for Bush” and cringe at a lot of what this movie shows.
Here’s a review of Fahrenheit 9-11 from FOX NEWS. I know you guys value their fair and balanced viewpoint! Try to skip over the crap about which celebrities were seen at the opening (if you can), and read what he says about the movie:
[quote]‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ Gets Standing Ovation
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
By Roger Friedman
The crowd that gave Michael Moore’s controversial “Fahrenheit 9/11” documentary a standing ovation last night at the Ziegfeld Theater premiere certainly didn’t have to be encouraged to show their appreciation. From liberal radio host/writer Al Franken to actor/director Tim Robbins, Moore was in his element.
But once “F9/11” gets to audiences beyond screenings, it won’t be dependent on celebrities for approbation. [b]It turns out to be a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail.
As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, “F9/11” - as we saw last night - is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty? - and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice.[/b]
Readers of this column may recall that I had a lot of problems with Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine,” particularly where I thought he took gratuitous shots at helpless targets such as Charlton Heston. “Columbine” too easily succeeded by shooting fish in a barrel, as they used to say.
Not so with “F9/11,” which instead relies on lots of film footage and actual interviews to make its case against the war in Iraq and tell the story of the intertwining histories of the Bush and bin Laden families.
First, I know you want to know who came to the Ziegfeld, so here is a partial list:
Besides Franken and Robbins, Al Sharpton, Mike Myers, Tony Bennett, Glenn Close, Gretchen Mol (newly married over the weekend to director Todd Williams), Lori Singer, Tony Kushner, “Angela’s Ashes” author Frank McCourt, Jill Krementz and Kurt Vonnegut, Lauren Bacall (chatting up a fully refurbished Lauren Hutton), Richard Gere, John McEnroe and Patti Smythe, former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke, Carson Daly, NBC’s Jeff Zucker, a very pregnant Rory Kennedy, playwright Israel Horovitz, Macaulay Culkin, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Kyra Sedgwick, Linda Evangelista, Ed Bradley, Tom and Meredith Brokaw, director Barry Levinson, NBC anchor Brian Williams, Vernon Jordan, Eva Mendes, Sandra Bernhard and the always humorous Joy Behar.
If that’s not enough, how about Yoko Ono, accompanied by her son, Sean, who’s let his hair grow out and is now sporting a bushy beard that makes him look like his late, beloved father John Lennon?
And then, just to show you how much people wanted to see this film, there was Martha Stewart, looking terrific. I mean, talk about an eclectic group!
Now, unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know that this movie has been the cause of a lot of trouble. Miramax and Disney have gone to war over it, and “The Passion of the Christ” seems like “Mary Poppins” in retrospect. Before anyone’s even seen it, there have been partisan debates over which way Moore may have spun this or that to get a desired effect.
But, really, in the end, not seeing “F9/11” would be like allowing your First Amendment rights to be abrogated, no matter whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat.
The film does Bush no favors, that’s for sure, but it also finds an unexpectedly poignant and universal groove in the story of Lila Lipscombe, a Flint, Mich., mother who sends her kids into the Army for the opportunities it can provide - just like the commercials say - and lives to regret it.
Lipscombe’s story is so powerful, and so completely middle-American, that I think it will take Moore’s critics by surprise. She will certainly move to tears everyone who encounters her.
“F9/11” isn’t perfect, and of course, there are leaps of logic sometimes. One set piece is about African-American congressmen and women presenting petitions on the Florida recount, and wondering why there are no senators to support them.
Indeed, those absent senators include John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy, among others, which Moore does not elaborate upon. At no point are liberals or Democrats taken to task for not supporting these elected officials, and I would have liked to have seen that.
On the other hand, there are more than enough moments that seemed to resonate with the huge Ziegfeld audience.
[b]The most indelible is Bush’s reaction to hearing on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, that the first plane had crashed into the World Trade Center.
Bush was reading to a grade-school class in Florida at that moment. Instead of jumping up and leaving, he instead sat in front of the class, with an unfortunate look of confusion, for nearly 11 minutes.
Moore obtained the footage from a teacher at the school who videotaped the morning program. There Bush sits, with no access to his advisers, while New York is being viciously attacked. I guarantee you that no one who sees this film forgets this episode.[/b]
More than even “The Passion of the Christ,” “F9/11” is going to be a “see it for yourself” movie when it hits theaters on June 25. It simply cannot be missed, and I predict it will be a huge moneymaker.
And that’s where Disney’s Michael Eisner comes in. Not releasing this film will turn out to be the curse of his career.
When Eisner came into Disney years ago, the studio was at a low point. He turned it around with a revived animation department and comedy hits such as “Pretty Woman” and “Down and Out in Beverly Hills.”
But Eisner’s short-sightedness on many recent matters has been his undoing. And this last misadventure is one that will follow him right out the doors of the Magic Kingdom.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%
2C122680%2C00.html[/quote]
A couple of comments about the review:
Bush was told about the first plane hitting BEFORE he went into the classroom. (the review says it shows him in the classroom when they tell him the first hit. Wrong. It was the second plane, at that point).
Also, the reason that no Senator signed the petition from House members regarding the Florida recount (as the review refers to) was because Gore wanted to end the turmoil in Florida and let the country try to move forward. The Senate was divided 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats, and the bill would have been split right down party lines. That would have forced Gore (who as VP was also acting as president of the senate) to cast the tie-breaking vote. It would have forced Gore to cast the vote which gave the election to him! Gore didn’t think that was fair, he couldn’t do it. This is what I have heard, anyway, but if you have a better explanation for that part of history I’d like to hear it.
Do you think George Bush could have played that particular situation any fairer, if the roles were reversed?
To be honest, Moore drops the ball in not fleshing things out a little more, but the movie covers so much ground that it can’t really explore much of anything too deeply. Moore could have done a whole film just on the 2000 election controversey alone! Instead he has to sum that part up in 10-15 minutes and keep moving.