July 7, 200520 yr Bush Crashes Probe Into Defenseless Comet Bored with flying planes into buildings, Bush has now taken up crashing spacecraft into heavenly bodies. There goes another $333 million down the poop chute, on top of the billions he's already wasted on tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of Americans. Fearful of losing their cut, the neocons at NASA are desperately trying to spin this fiasco into a "great scientific achievement", insisting with straight faces that the whole thing was "intentional". But frankly, the thought of Bush launching a 1/2 ton chunk of metal into a speeding comet on purpose even more terrifying than if it were simply another one of his colossal pooch screwings. The chimp can't eat a pretzel without hospitalizing himself, let alone tinker with the natural balance of the universe. This whole thing reeks of Karl Rove. Could it be a plot to alter the trajectory of a comet so it will collide with Earth and eradicate the Blue States ahead of the 2008 elections and guaranteeing Bush an uncontested third term? Don't invest in any California real estate, that's for sure. Bush has apparently fled the country as well, which is never a good sign. Beginning with 9/11, Bush has a history of being conveniently away from the capitol in the event of a national catastrophe. Last year alone, he found an excuse for taking a sudden leave of absence in the wake of three bizarre, yet obviously staged celestial events. March 2004. Astronomers record the closest asteroid to ever pass by the earth. Bush flees to Crawford. June 2004. A meteor roars through the Seattle night sky. Bush flees to Europe. December 22, 2004. An asteroid passes between earth and orbiting satellites. Bush flees to Mexico. And the list goes on and on and on. As scientists sift through the rubble and try to piece together what went wrong with the Deep Impact probe, Bush just happens to be in Europe again, under the pretense of attending a G-8 meeting where I'm sure he'll be the life of the party. Dick Cheney, however, has been moved to a secure, undisclosed location. Most likely a Red State Thanks to...
July 7, 200520 yr I thought you were a supporter of Bush. I agree though, here in Blighty it was hyped up a little that NASA has sucessfully put a washing machine in the path of a flying rock. Now we can study the dust and discover the meaning of life or something. The U.S. really does have money to burn - give it to a good cause for goodness sake.
July 8, 200520 yr Of course this would have no military value...crashing pieces of metal into things is nothing the military would be interested in....and I've always said that if the military isn't interested in something then its a total waste of money.
July 8, 200520 yr Of course it is almost a certainty that someday a huge asteroid will strike the earth and destroy half of the living things on the planet...it has happened before at least a couple of times according to the scientists. I guess we shouldn't try to learn about how to change their trajectories...we should just wait for the big one to get really close and then blame it on the gov't that they never did anything to study this before.
July 8, 200520 yr Great sense of humour, never mind what side you are standing, left or right, up of down. Just loved it.
July 8, 200520 yr Some thoughts Could be that the Bush wants to know how the universe began so he can build a new one...... I cant see why we need to know how the world began when we are so intent on destroying the one we have got.... the idea from NASA that creating an explosion equivalent to 5 nuclear bombs or what ever it was is not going to change the path of the said asteroid does not fill me with confidence......Have we not learnt yet that upsetting the balance of nature is a dangerous thing to do....
July 8, 200520 yr Some thoughtsCould be that the Bush wants to know how the universe began so he can build a new one...... I cant see why we need to know how the world began when we are so intent on destroying the one we have got.... AMEN thrice. the idea from NASA that creating an explosion equivalent to 5 nuclear bombs or what ever it was is not going to change the path of the said asteroid does not fill me with confidence......Have we not learnt yet that upsetting the balance of nature is a dangerous thing to do.... No, we haven't. The ones that really learned that lesson and fully took it in are, in most cases, not among us anymore.
July 9, 200520 yr The main goal of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Deep Impact mission was to knock free primordial materials from the nucleus of comet Tempel 1 that could unlock the secret of how life formed on Earth.China’s mission would instead be mainly aimed at protecting the planet from being hit by a comet or asteroid, Mr Zhao said, referring to the kind of doomsday scenario shown in the 1998 film “Deep Impact”, for which the US spacecraft was named. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1163067.cms
July 12, 200520 yr Some thoughtsCould be that the Bush wants to know how the universe began so he can build a new one...... I cant see why we need to know how the world began when we are so intent on destroying the one we have got.... the idea from NASA that creating an explosion equivalent to 5 nuclear bombs or what ever it was is not going to change the path of the said asteroid does not fill me with confidence......Have we not learnt yet that upsetting the balance of nature is a dangerous thing to do.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Darned right... Prime Directive and all that. (not to put anybody off, but one of the wiser elements out of Star trek was the protagonists "Prime Directive"... Never interfere in the balance of the universe. more or less.)
August 2, 200520 yr Author Slightly off topic but the protagonist in the story is the same so had to share this with y'all! Perhaps Dubya is as smart as some people say. Just read this report from the non-Bush-suck-up New York Times: "Now that he is finally going to the United Nations as ambassador, John R. Bolton is supposed to "provide clear American leadership for reform" there, President Bush said Monday. But American officials say much of their reform agenda at the United Nations has been accomplished during the months while Mr. Bolton's nomination languished. Most of the reforms sought by the United States are well on their way to completion," said a senior administration official, speaking anonymously to avoid undercutting the rationale for the Bolton appointment. Another said that because so much had been achieved, there was little concern that Mr. Bolton's combative personality would jeopardize the agenda." It's as if there was some sort of cunning plan all along. Nah, couldn't be...
August 2, 200520 yr It was supposed to happen. The project was two fold, one: to learn more about the inner center of comets, two: to gain data that might aid in preventing a comet, or asteriod from hitting earth, i.e., can the comet be destroyed or pushed away. Saw a bit on this on Discovery Times about a month before the probe was sent to space.
August 2, 200520 yr Bush Crashes Probe Into Defenseless Comet Well Boon, normally I like where you're coming from, but this is really off the deep end. Did you know that this project, and the entire group of satellite projects of which it is a part, were funded back in the 90's while Billy-boy was specializing in getting oval office fellatio from local interns? Methinks you have a bit of "kai" on your face! Bash Bush if you want to, but at least try to have your facts straight beforehand. Jeez!
August 2, 200520 yr Author Bush Crashes Probe Into Defenseless Comet Methinks you have a bit of "kai" on your face! Spee~ Is that "kai" or "kee" we're talking about?
August 2, 200520 yr Bush Crashes Probe Into Defenseless Comet Well Boon, normally I like where you're coming from, but this is really off the deep end. Did you know that this project, and the entire group of satellite projects of which it is a part, were funded back in the 90's while Billy-boy was specializing in getting oval office fellatio from local interns? Methinks you have a bit of "kai" on your face! Bash Bush if you want to, but at least try to have your facts straight beforehand. Jeez! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh no, I was waiting for some "Bush Droid" to blame all this on Cinton and his blowjob and bingo we have one !!!
August 3, 200520 yr Oh no, I was waiting for some "Bush Droid" to blame all this on Cinton and his blowjob and bingo we have one !!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hardly a Bush droid, but if push comes to shove, yeah sure, I prefer his style to that of the capo di tutti capi of the Little Rock hillbilly mafia and his multiple-faced ice queen sidekick. Again, you should check your facts. This project was one of a more than a dozen from the Discovery Program, which was an initiative planned and funded during the previous administration. Don't wave that left hand so fast and furious that it obstructs your vision, eh!
August 3, 200520 yr Oh no, I was waiting for some "Bush Droid" to blame all this on Cinton and his blowjob and bingo we have one !!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hardly a Bush droid, but if push comes to shove, yeah sure, I prefer his style to that of the capo di tutti capi of the Little Rock hillbilly mafia and his multiple-faced ice queen sidekick. Again, you should check your facts. This project was one of a more than a dozen from the Discovery Program, which was an initiative planned and funded during the previous administration. Don't wave that left hand so fast and furious that it obstructs your vision, eh! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And one more thing .....http://discovery.nasa.gov/images/missionschedule.gif In a former life, I was actually involved in technical reviews and evaluations of the initial group of proposals for this program back in the mid-1990's. I don't claim to have that many memory neurons alive and kicking in the old brain box, but this bit is pretty clear.
August 4, 200520 yr Hardly a Bush droid, but if push comes to shove, yeah sure, I prefer his style to that of the capo di tutti capi of the Little Rock hillbilly mafia and his multiple-faced ice queen sidekick. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I will never really understand the hate of the "conservatives" for Clinton. He was a great president and he was so much more than a redneck Texan yankee. Ok, his wife is a little bit ambitious and scary but if this is only what it would take to have him back in the White House, I would vote for her in a NY minute
August 4, 200520 yr I will never really understand the hate of the "conservatives" for Clinton. He was a great president and he was so much more than a redneck Texan yankee. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is such a huge urban myth. Clinton was a horrible president, not quite as bad as Carter but much closer to him than one of the greats. He rode the coat-tails of the boom created by the Reagan years. He did not implement a strategy to sustain it and it was clearly fading fast at his exit. His foreign policy was a complete disaster, the equivalent of Nero fiddling while Rome was burning. Bush got stuck with the Clinton legacy and is dealing with it quite admirably. Clinton clearly abused the office with all the philandering, drug taking, ruthless eliminations of people, and other abuses. The abuses aren't anything new of course, the Kennedy's and the Carter's did much of the same. Ok, his wife is a little bit ambitious and scary but if this is only what it would take to have him back in the White House, I would vote for her in a NY minute <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A little bit ambitious and scary??? That's like calling Hitler or Stalin a little bit of a bad guy. The thought of her as head of the oval office sends cold chills up my spine. It would be one of the worst things to ever happen to the US. The scariest thought of all is that it is a distinct possibility because of people like you who will vote for her because of what she is rather than who she is and what she represents. She is the worst kind of politician, someone who wants all the trappings of wealth, power and prosperity, but wants to rule everything like a communist.
August 4, 200520 yr And Bush is an uncorruptable altruist who has done wonders for your budget deficit? HC is suggesting more government control, sure, but calling her a communist bears as much resemblance to the truth as calling Bubba Bush a Nazi puppet. You would be amazed at what would happen to your crime rate and internal safety if the anti-abortion crusade was stopped, the access to handguns more regulated, and the taxes redirected from military spendings to civil projects. Not saying Clinton was all that great, but he earned a lot more respect out in the world than GWB, because he represented some hope for change in what the majority of the world, rightly or wrongly, views as arrogance, ignorance, self-sufficiency and disrespect for other nations and peoples.
August 4, 200520 yr I will never really understand the hate of the "conservatives" for Clinton. He was a great president and he was so much more than a redneck Texan yankee. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is such a huge urban myth. Clinton was a horrible president, not quite as bad as Carter but much closer to him than one of the greats. He rode the coat-tails of the boom created by the Reagan years. He did not implement a strategy to sustain it and it was clearly fading fast at his exit. His foreign policy was a complete disaster, the equivalent of Nero fiddling while Rome was burning. Bush got stuck with the Clinton legacy and is dealing with it quite admirably. Clinton clearly abused the office with all the philandering, drug taking, ruthless eliminations of people, and other abuses. The abuses aren't anything new of course, the Kennedy's and the Carter's did much of the same. You surely sound like a "Bush droid" for someone who doesn't think of himself as a Bush supporter. Clinton was an excellent president. That's not urban legend (where do you get your news link ?) and no Carter wasn't the worst. However Bush Jr certainly is. He should stay at the bar with his NASCAR friends instead of being at the Oval Office. So let me guess, thanks to Reagan (under whom things started to go downhill for America), Clinton reaped the benefit of a disastrous "reaganomics" ? but under Bush 1, what's your excuse ? didn't you forget the 1991 recession under Bush 1 ? was it also because of Clinton fault or because of Reagan legacy (yeah I know you forgot about that little History detail) ? You are quite funny !!!
August 4, 200520 yr but calling her a communist .... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I didn't call her one. What she is, is a major league hypocrite. She wants all the wealth and trappings that a capitalist society brings to her. But she wants all of her subjects and peons to be ruled by an all poweful government filled with obtrusive and big-brother-like government programs. She is a strong advocate of nationlized health care. But tell me, is there any nationalized health care systems that actually work for the greater good? You would be amazed at what would happen to your crime rate and internal safety if the anti-abortion crusade was stopped, the access to handguns more regulated, and the taxes redirected from military spendings to civil projects. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Anti-abortionists are a small minority, of which a smaller minority within actually perform criminal acts. It is a minute fraction in the grand scheme of things. Your handgun argument is a complete joke. There are more <deleted>' handgun laws in the US than the rest of the world combined. What is lacking is strict enforcement of the existing laws and harsh penalties for those who break them. Left-leaning policies of the 60's and 70's have made the criminal courts a joke. Your military spending argument is also a joke. Do you how many countries around the world have spent a significantly larger percentage of their GNP on the military and are significantly more worse off in terms of caring for their people? Well ..... gee .... let's start with lovely garden spots like North Korea and Iraq in the Saddam years. The true fact is that the US spends more in overseas aid than a large percentage of the world's countries have total GNP. Some people just don't like that. Why? I don't know. Not saying Clinton was all that great, but he earned a lot more respect out in the world than GWB, because he represented some hope for change in what the majority of the world, rightly or wrongly, views as arrogance, ignorance, self-sufficiency and disrespect for other nations and peoples. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Clinton didn't earn respect in the world community. He lost respect and he degraded the office of the president because of the way he behaved. He was a big p*ssy when it came to using US military power to react to anti-US attacks both at home and abroad. What happened when the WTC was attacked the first time. Nothing! What happened when a US Embassy (same as US soil) was destroyed. Nothing! What happened as a result? Clinton was viewed as a spineless laughing stock and the anti-US violence escalated. The US was put under attack less than a year into Bush's administration. He did and has reacted precisely as he should have, which is to use the military to protect the US. He took the fight from US soil to someplace other than US soil. What US citizen in their right mind can say that is a bad thing? Bush was put into a no-win situation by the nine-eleven attacks. If he does nothing, then he is a bigger p*ssy than Clinton. If he over-reacts, then he is a baby-killer and a war monger. He did what he should have done, react immediately and directly to the main problem (the rogue Taliban government) and then took proactive steps to further destablize the vast terrorist footpath which runs from Syria to Pakistan. Frankly, if the ruling governments in Syria and Iran don't get their stray dogs under control, then they should be a little nervous as well.
August 4, 200520 yr Author but calling her a communist .... I didn't call her one. What she is, is a major league hypocrite. She wants all the wealth and trappings that a capitalist society brings to her. But she wants all of her subjects and peons to be ruled by an all poweful government filled with obtrusive and big-brother-like government programs. She is a strong advocate of nationlized health care. But tell me, is there any nationalized health care systems that actually work for the greater good? You would be amazed at what would happen to your crime rate and internal safety if the anti-abortion crusade was stopped, the access to handguns more regulated, and the taxes redirected from military spendings to civil projects. Anti-abortionists are a small minority, of which a smaller minority within actually perform criminal acts. It is a minute fraction in the grand scheme of things. Your handgun argument is a complete joke. There are more <deleted>' handgun laws in the US than the rest of the world combined. What is lacking is strict enforcement of the existing laws and harsh penalties for those who break them. Left-leaning policies of the 60's and 70's have made the criminal courts a joke. Your military spending argument is also a joke. Do you how many countries around the world have spent a significantly larger percentage of their GNP on the military and are significantly more worse off in terms of caring for their people? Well ..... gee .... let's start with lovely garden spots like North Korea and Iraq in the Saddam years. The true fact is that the US spends more in overseas aid than a large percentage of the world's countries have total GNP. Some people just don't like that. Why? I don't know. Not saying Clinton was all that great, but he earned a lot more respect out in the world than GWB, because he represented some hope for change in what the majority of the world, rightly or wrongly, views as arrogance, ignorance, self-sufficiency and disrespect for other nations and peoples. Clinton didn't earn respect in the world community. He lost respect and he degraded the office of the president because of the way he behaved. He was a big p*ssy when it came to using US military power to react to anti-US attacks both at home and abroad. What happened when the WTC was attacked the first time. Nothing! What happened when a US Embassy (same as US soil) was destroyed. Nothing! What happened as a result? Clinton was viewed as a spineless laughing stock and the anti-US violence escalated. The US was put under attack less than a year into Bush's administration. He did and has reacted precisely as he should have, which is to use the military to protect the US. He took the fight from US soil to someplace other than US soil. What US citizen in their right mind can say that is a bad thing? Bush was put into a no-win situation by the nine-eleven attacks. If he does nothing, then he is a bigger p*ssy than Clinton. If he over-reacts, then he is a baby-killer and a war monger. He did what he should have done, react immediately and directly to the main problem (the rogue Taliban government) and then took proactive steps to further destablize the vast terrorist footpath which runs from Syria to Pakistan. Frankly, if the ruling governments in Syria and Iran don't get their stray dogs under control, then they should be a little nervous as well. Spee~ And to think I was the only one 'round here who considered the Clintons dangerous. Good work - well articulated.
August 4, 200520 yr I will never really understand the hate of the "conservatives" for Clinton. He was a great president and he was so much more than a redneck Texan yankee. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is such a huge urban myth. Clinton was a horrible president, not quite as bad as Carter but much closer to him than one of the greats. He rode the coat-tails of the boom created by the Reagan years. He did not implement a strategy to sustain it and it was clearly fading fast at his exit. His foreign policy was a complete disaster, the equivalent of Nero fiddling while Rome was burning. Bush got stuck with the Clinton legacy and is dealing with it quite admirably. Clinton clearly abused the office with all the philandering, drug taking, ruthless eliminations of people, and other abuses. The abuses aren't anything new of course, the Kennedy's and the Carter's did much of the same. You surely sound like a "Bush droid" for someone who doesn't think of himself as a Bush supporter. Clinton was an excellent president. That's not urban legend (where do you get your news link ?) and no Carter wasn't the worst. However Bush Jr certainly is. He should stay at the bar with his NASCAR friends instead of being at the Oval Office. So let me guess, thanks to Reagan (under whom things started to go downhill for America), Clinton reaped the benefit of a disastrous "reaganomics" ? but under Bush 1, what's your excuse ? didn't you forget the 1991 recession under Bush 1 ? was it also because of Clinton fault or because of Reagan legacy (yeah I know you forgot about that little History detail) ? You are quite funny !!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I really don't wanna start a fight here but wasn't there a major recession in the late '70s under Carter's watch which was worse than the 1991 one? I could wrong, I am not sure.
August 4, 200520 yr Author I will never really understand the hate of the "conservatives" for Clinton. He was a great president and he was so much more than a redneck Texan yankee. This is such a huge urban myth. Clinton was a horrible president, not quite as bad as Carter but much closer to him than one of the greats. He rode the coat-tails of the boom created by the Reagan years. He did not implement a strategy to sustain it and it was clearly fading fast at his exit. His foreign policy was a complete disaster, the equivalent of Nero fiddling while Rome was burning. Bush got stuck with the Clinton legacy and is dealing with it quite admirably. Clinton clearly abused the office with all the philandering, drug taking, ruthless eliminations of people, and other abuses. The abuses aren't anything new of course, the Kennedy's and the Carter's did much of the same. You surely sound like a "Bush droid" for someone who doesn't think of himself as a Bush supporter. Clinton was an excellent president. That's not urban legend (where do you get your news link ?) and no Carter wasn't the worst. However Bush Jr certainly is. He should stay at the bar with his NASCAR friends instead of being at the Oval Office. So let me guess, thanks to Reagan (under whom things started to go downhill for America), Clinton reaped the benefit of a disastrous "reaganomics" ? but under Bush 1, what's your excuse ? didn't you forget the 1991 recession under Bush 1 ? was it also because of Clinton fault or because of Reagan legacy (yeah I know you forgot about that little History detail) ? You are quite funny !!! I really don't wanna start a fight here but wasn't there a major recession in the late '70s under Carter's watch which was worse than the 1991 one? I could wrong, I am not sure. You're right - bad inflation and high interest rates. Like 18 to 20 %. The economy only got back on its feet when Ronald Reagan became President.
August 5, 200520 yr I will never really understand the hate of the "conservatives" for Clinton. He was a great president and he was so much more than a redneck Texan yankee. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is such a huge urban myth. Clinton was a horrible president, not quite as bad as Carter but much closer to him than one of the greats. He rode the coat-tails of the boom created by the Reagan years. He did not implement a strategy to sustain it and it was clearly fading fast at his exit. His foreign policy was a complete disaster, the equivalent of Nero fiddling while Rome was burning. Bush got stuck with the Clinton legacy and is dealing with it quite admirably. Clinton clearly abused the office with all the philandering, drug taking, ruthless eliminations of people, and other abuses. The abuses aren't anything new of course, the Kennedy's and the Carter's did much of the same. You surely sound like a "Bush droid" for someone who doesn't think of himself as a Bush supporter. Clinton was an excellent president. That's not urban legend (where do you get your news link ?) and no Carter wasn't the worst. However Bush Jr certainly is. He should stay at the bar with his NASCAR friends instead of being at the Oval Office. So let me guess, thanks to Reagan (under whom things started to go downhill for America), Clinton reaped the benefit of a disastrous "reaganomics" ? but under Bush 1, what's your excuse ? didn't you forget the 1991 recession under Bush 1 ? was it also because of Clinton fault or because of Reagan legacy (yeah I know you forgot about that little History detail) ? You are quite funny !!! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I really don't wanna start a fight here but wasn't there a major recession in the late '70s under Carter's watch which was worse than the 1991 one? I could wrong, I am not sure. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, it was caused by OPEC. They realized that they could control the price of oil so they did and it skyrocketed because they reduced the availability. Gas stations were running out of gas in the US and long lines of cars waited at those stations that did have any and often you were limited as to how much you could buy. This type of oil price fixing was a new thing and it caused economic mayhem everywhere in the world....the US being no exception. Some people blame Carter for this....he clearly didin't have a solution for this problem but then neither did anyone else. Eventually people in the US started driving more fuel efficient cars and the problem went away...for awhile...now its back.
August 5, 200520 yr I really don't wanna start a fight here but wasn't there a major recession in the late '70s under Carter's watch which was worse than the 1991 one? I could wrong, I am not sure. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Interesting question. Not a recession. Stagflation. A rare situation where a country is hit by inflation and a recession. It was mainly caused by the Federal Reserve trying to play with interests rates to stabilize the oil shock of the 70s. They failed and we got instead that terrible situation. Carter wasn't responsible and there was nothing he could do to fix it. Carter was a decent human being, always trying to do his best to help others. The Iran hostage situation just made his bad reputation of a weak leader because he didn't want to pay a ramson. Of course, "republican patriots" forget to mention that Raygun paid those fukers to free the hostages. Yeah, very heroic and "courageous". Carter wasn't a cowboy and the American public hated him for that. He didn't fit the "myth". The 1991 recession was one of the worst. Mainly caused by Greenspan undecisive actions to take more serious measures against slow growth. Of course the expensive Gulf War had also a significant impact. Everytime your government spend money on worthless things like a foreigner war (not national defense), it takes valuable resources away from the private sector and cause a supply crash. The "incidental" switch to a Money Supply system was sync with Reagan new "Reaganomics" policies. Fortunately, Reagan inneffective "fiscal" policies were mainly offset and "rebalanced" by the actions of the Fed Reserve board. The Money Supply Theory mechanism cut down inflation while putting the country into a heavy recession. This lasted for about 3 or 4 years before the country could rise up again thanks to the Fed money supply decisions. Of course, Reagan "fiscal" terms had nothing to do with the recovery (only slowed it down) but "Republican partiots" like to think otherwise.
August 5, 200520 yr And to think I was the only one 'round here who considered the Clintons dangerous. Good work - well articulated. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have many downright spooky stories about the whole Arkansas mafia. Here's an oldie but a goodie. In a former life, I knew a secret service agent. He was on the presidential squad, but primariily did advance work as opposed to being in and around the president daily. On occasion he would have white house duties. His stories were something. He said the secret service could deal with all the philandering and other covert activities there. That has gone on in many presidencies going back many generations. But what they really couldn't stand was the president's continual pot smoking. It just flat out stunk up the joint. That's one smell you just can't hide, and it was a continual embarrassment. I don't partake and am personally not against it for personal use. But the president? In the white house? Constantly? It would be hilarious if it weren't so downright embarassing.
Create an account or sign in to comment