friday. you have to watch thursday as well. medical list sd "money" is next. melissa: i'm melissa francis and here's what's "money" tonight. it won't be a pinprick. top obama officials make their case on capitol hill for attacking the assad regime. >> this would be a significant stke that would in fact declared his capability. melissa: but not all lawmakers are buying it. we are going to talk to one congresswoman who is saying no to any type of strike. plus, your summer holiday is over. did you snd the time returning emails from your hotel room? you won't believe how many americans did. and how manylaim it is relaxing. what? an all-star panel tells us why. "who made money today." after hitting rock bottom, they just saw their best month in years. keep watching to find out who it

is. even when th say it is not, it is always about money. melissa: all eyes still on syria and possible strikes led by the u.s. in the wake of the assad's regime chemical weapons attack on its own people killing thousands. neighboring lebanon is opening its doors to hundred of thousands of refugees fleeing syria. fox news's greg palkot live on the ground in lebanon with the very latest. and, greg, what are you hearing from the people there? >> hey, melissa, people here in the region are getting more and more nervous as the likelihood of a u.s. military strike against syria looks more and more like a reality. here in beirut we're just about 60 miles away from damascus. that is the nerve center of bashar assad regime. we went up to the border of syria to test the mood.

take a look. just up the road from where we are the border crossing between syria and lebanon. we're told last week when the u.s. first indicated it could hit syria with a military strike, this road was packed. something like 10,000 people coming over in one day from syria. now as you can see the traffic has swed down. but we're also told, with that threat still remaining, the number of people going back into syria is small as well. refugee flow is really picking up. already 700,000 here in lebanon. more and more coming every day. all it takes is words from syrian official like deputy foreign minister to get people even more on edge. he spoke with the "wall street journal" today. he said that syria would strike back against its neighbors, israel, jordan and turkey if it went along with the u.s. military strikes. lebanon is already seen its share of violence. and syria also said it was knot behind that chemical weapon

attack last month. now we talked to a syrian on the border with lebanon to get his opinion. he certainly feels that the regime was responsible for the attack and he knows what should be done. take a listen. >> translator: there must be a military hit. he killed people with chemical weapons, bashar assad did. it was on tv. women and children were killed. there must be a military response by the americans or the european union. they have to make a move. >> melissa, we're also getting more indications of a possible major blow to the assad regime. a good source of mine in the free syrian army, that is the opposition force against bashar assad, claims that a former syrian defense minister, a real assad insider, has defected last night. has gone into turkey. syria is denying it. we don't have independent confirmation but if that is true, it could be the highest level secession yet from a very

troubled regime. melissa? melissa: greg, thank you so much for that report, wow. the debate whether or not to attack syria is still raging in washington. secretary of state john kerry, defense secretary chuck hagel, and chairman of the joint chiefs martin dempsey all testified in front of the house foreign affairs committee to argue for action but many in congress still disagree. congresswoman anne wagner does not think we should strike syria. she joins me now in a fox business exclusive to explain why. welcome. thank you for joining us and let's get to it. why do you think this would be a mistake. >> thanks, melissa. i don't think the president or the administration has made the case to either congress or more importantly, the american people for military action at this time. there is no clear or achievable security objective that i'm seeing from our national standpoint. melissa: is it just about the plan or do you think that syria does need to be punished? you just think that we need a

clearer path to what exactly it is we're doing? are you against a reaction all together? >> well, i'm taking a wait-and-see approach here. i certainly am looking at information, briefings, talking to my colleagues. i will be back in washington on monday for some of the classified information and we'll attempt to keep an open mind but assad has been killing his people, the atrocities we've seen in syria have been going on for over two years and the president of the united states and this administration has exercised no leadership, no action, and only weakness in the region and i just don't see our objectives being clear or achievable. we talk about the president's credibility. we talk about a shot across the bow, about a deterrent factor. and i don't know that any military action at this point in time and what the administration has laid out would in fact deter assad from, from the continuing these atrocities against his own

people. melissa: that's true but people on both side of the aisle with military experience make the argument about chemical weapons saying that since world war i, powers around the world have done everything that they can to keep chemical weapons off the battlefield because what it would mean for everyone's troops. so that is what makes this different. do you buy that argument we should step out to do something about the chemical weapons here specifically? >> truly an atrocity and the images that we've seen have been horrific but we've been seeing these images, melissa, for well over two years. there are 100 to 120,000 men, women children, that have been killed, murdered, raped, pillaged, by assad and the rebels over the last two years and, you know, there is even evidence, i would tell you, melissa, that chemical weapons have been used in the region prior to this. so i just don't see what, at this point in time our real

national security objectives will be. melissa: one of the responses it is about sending a message to our other ennis in the area. listen to what defense secretary chuck hagel had to say about that and i'll t your response on the other side. >> weakening this norm could embolden other regimes to acquire or use chemical weapons. for example, north korea maintains a massive stockpile of chemical weapons that threaten our treaty ally, the republic of south korea. and the 28,000 u.s. troops stationed on the border. melissa: is there nothing to that argument? >> well, sure there is, and i take this very, very seriously. i'm a former united states ambassador. i'm an army mom with a son that just returned three weeks ago from afghanistan. we have to look at all of this information but i would maintain that this administration and president obama have been weak and frankly exercising its foreign diplomacy and foreign affairs from the back seat for

years now and i am concerned about this on multiple levels. about the fomenting in the region. about how we're telegraphing this entire potenal military action. we've already told assad and our others in the region that we're on your way and, it is probably dispersin his assets. melissa: sure. >> we've got at least five destroyers in the mediterranean along with two aircraft carriers. the russians are there also. the russians have huge interests in syria and in lifting up the assad regime. that their only military base left for russia is left in the syria. they sell a lot of their military equipment to russia. so we've got our own carriers and destroyers there we have the russians there. we see people as you all have reported, fleeing into refugee camps whether it necessary lebanon or jordan or turkey all

around the region. i am very concerned and we have to be very, very careful about what we may be fomenting in the region and for what objective. again, this isn't about, about credibility. this isn't about a red line that frankly this president has moved multiple times. melissa: sure. >> i don't see a deterrent force here for the assad regime. melissa: we hear you. we've got to go. congresswoman, thank you so much for your time. we appreciate. >> my pleasure, melissa. melissa: next on "money," how much will it cost to degrade assad's army and chemical weapons program? that is supposed to be one of our goals. is it even possible? two top military experts are here to debate the option. more "money" coming up.

>> i didn't set a red line. the world set a red line. my credibility's not on thethe s credibility is on the line. >> we have been very clear to the assad regime but also to other players on the ground that a red line for us is, we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being

utilized. melissa: so what is the cost of credibility here? the president ramping up political pressure across the globe today arguing that he didn't set the red line. but as d.c. continues to debate options for military intervention in syria, are the goals like taking out assad's chemical weapons even feasible? here now are chris harmon, senior navy analyst at institute for study of war and kt mcfarland, fox news national security analyst and former assistant secretary of defense. great to have you both. chris, let me start with you. on the show yesterday you said there are bad options, worse options and horrible options. which one of those should we pursue here do you think? >> we should pursue the least bad option which is a significant attack against the assad regime, combined with significant support for their moderate rebels of the free syrian army. i understand that the american public is skeptical about this. i understand that the administration has not done a good job of explaining why america's national security interests are at stake here.

that doesn't detract from the fact we do have strategic interests in syria and the worst possible outcome is exactly where this conflict is headed. with syria as a failed state being divided equally between hezbollah and al qaeda with access to a thousand tons of chemical weapons. that is in nobody's best interests. >> kt, we want to stick to the technical what is actually physically possible here. this is what this segment is about. kt, chris, started with what sounds technically like a lot of action. that starts with boots on the ground. >> there is only one thing worse than doing nothing is doing something that fails. what happens if all this stuff about taking out assad, what if it doesn't work? what if assad ramps up? what if his retaliatory response to whatever our attack is going to be that he doubles down? all of sudden we're in escalating war. the obama is left with choice of escalating himself like lyndon johnson had to do in vietnam or pulling back which is even worse.

melissa: chris, that is why some are opting for pushing for a limited action where we go in and degrade or diminish the chemical weapons. is that possible by the way? how do you something like that? >> you can not diminish the chemical weapons capability with limited strike. it is technically possible. requires a two stage attack. first stage to breach the chemical weapons. second stage to incinerate them. requires manned aircraft with massive air explosives. any discussion of chemical weapons in limited strike is nonstarter in my opinion simply from a technical position. to kt's point. assad has been using chemical weapons all along. this is the first large-scale use against civilian population f there is not snificant response he will continue using them. escalation is already in place. we're past the point where there is escalation. melissa: from a technical point

of view can you blow up chemical weapons without impacting the whole population around it and making it worse? i don't know the scientific option. >> there is to not an option that doesn't have a significant collateral damage. you have to breach the chemical weapons and incinerate them. when the u.s. destroyed the chemical weapons stockpile it did so over several years using extremely high temperatures. we don't have the laboratory facilities on battlefield. we have the option destroying chemical weapons in place with collateral damage and or let them be used by assad an proliferating out to al qaeda and hezbollah. melissa: you have diametrically opposed ideas and something limited isn't possible. >> nobody is talking about destroying the chemical weapons in these strikes, right. the only people whohink we can destroy the chemical weapons are only people hoe think we have to put boots on the ground. we've already lost the syrian war. melissa: why have which already

lost? >> once he layed down the red line h invited assad to call his b say he has a limited attack which is all the united states will allow him to do. what happens then? assad will call the bluff another time. we'll be in the situation where the war has gotten bigger. unfortunately we'll be in a far weaker position to do anything because we already done something that failed. follow the money. your show is all about money. why are we even having a war in syria? it is because both sides are, three sides are all being supported by arab oil countries. with a lot of money. so let's go after the money. if, united states, if president obama declared america's energy independence and said, our goal is to be energy independent one four years and the world's major energy exporter within the decade it would send shivers into the fines of all the leaders of the countries with are now supporting this. even one of savviest investors, saudi prince, has said if america goes along and develops its shale oil and shale natural gas, saudi arabia and the revenues that they have gotten

from all of that oil that they have had for the last 40 years, are going to greatly dim american. i say follow the money. cut the money off and let the middle east to the middle east. melissa: prince walid bin talal. that was good. i hope you both come back. i wish we had more time. we'll do this again for sure. >> thank you. melissa: next on "money," unfortunately it's a problem not going away, right? next on "money," they walked away from their mortgages. now banks don't want to lend to them. so naturally the government is stepping in with taxpayer money. seriously. plus you're on vacation. so why aren't you working? a stunning number of americans do and they say they like it. we have an all-star panel to tell us why. "piles of money" coming right up. ♪

♪ melissa: word out this week of a new government program to help people who walked away with their mortgages get back in the game quicker. it's a about a rule change that would repair the credit within a year. folks who didn't pay the last loan, can get a new loan here to weigh in, former fannie mae executive vp ed pinto and real estate expert alex chapin. thank for being on the show. "wall street journal" focused on a woman. candy alvarado. a school teacher in colorado. in 2006 she got a mortgage for a condo no norwalk. she put nothing down. to me that is important. that is like renting. when the house went underwater she walked away and left the bank on the hook for $168,000. now she wants to get out there

and buy another house more quickly. alex, is that a good idea? >> so, melissa when you look at this situation we're dealing with here, really much ado about nothing. i don't think that people who walked away from homes should be able to walk into another home and really what this rule change they're not going to be able to, because what happens is, somebody has to have good credit for twelve months in order to requalify for an fha loan and that is near impossible if you've just had a foreclosure. so people do have to rebuild their credit somewhat. it is not going to give them good credit. they actually have to take the effort. build the credit score back and requalify. we're not returning to subprime lending. i agree with you no money down is just like renting. melissa: ed, i'm not sure what alex said is the woman in the article with the exact situation who is ging to get a house now. to me these are people who want to participate in the uide. so they're getting back in the game but they don't want anything to do with the

downside. we're supposed to be on the other side as taxpaer backing their loan. i don't want to take the risk of someone who didn't pay so recently in the past. >> that's a great point, melissa. i'm not so sure where fha is going to go with this in terms of exactly how good of a credit do you need. fha's definition of good credit is not what you and i would call good credit. i'm not even sure what alex would call good credit. fha's allows people with 620 ficos which is really horrible credit, to get loans today. and so that's problem number one. problem number two, this is just another one of the government's quick fixes that, you know, you've had a litany of them on your program and you forget that fha is the one that really of started foreclosure crisis in the united states 30 or 40 years ago. it is entity that made foreclosures okay. they have had three million foreclosures. one out of every eight people

who have gotten a fha loan in the last 37 years end up in foreclosure. that is not a great record. fha is the last entity that should be trying stuff like this. melissa: alex, why get the taxpayer involved in this? if this person was a good loan risk the bank would give them a loan. why make me as taxpayer back the loan rather than having this person rent until they can qualify to buy a new home after they already had at least one bite at the apple where they walked away and left the bank on the hook? >> melissa, that is a much bigger question. if we look at fha in general and take a step back why are we funding it? the reality without the fla in the secondary mortgage market the loans wouldn't be written t would slow down the economy. when we look at a lot of growth in the economy. it is coming from housing. >> so what? what if it slows down the economy? this bubble you blew up the economy. a slower economy that doesn't explode into sleds because of people taking -- shreds taking

huge risks on houses would be better, no? >> i totally agree. we want to be mineful we don't take small steps into the craziness of subprime lending. tough verify income. you have to verify something. when we went back 10 years we were verifying nothing. could you buy a home with a signature with no money down. we're not necessarily going there. i totally agree we need to be mindful and cavecareful but we still have standards here. melissa: ed, sounds like, go ahead. >> one out of eight failures at fha had over 37 years, everyone of those loans was verified. i mean that is the, that is what fh does. everyone of them virtually was a 30-year fixed-rate loan. there were virtually no arms. fha has a horrible experience with the defaults. the other problem is, it hits people whoav lower incomes and minorities much harder than anybody else. i just redid a study that had been done about 10 or 12 years ago, by community group in out

of chicago, back in 2000 two that showed that in 22 cities, virtually all the cities had much higher foreclosure rates for people that were either lower income, compared to middle income or minority compared to non-minority. i redid the study. got the exact same results but moved it forward to 2009, 2010. same results for fha. melissa: okay we've got to go. thanks to both of you. good discussion. appreciate your time. >> thanks, melissa. melissa: next on "money," should you be expected to work on your vacation? you won't believe how many americans say yes? is this healthy? this is a money talk ir. they're zooming across a road that made as well be paved with it. we have the answer coming up. do i ever have too much money?

♪ melissa: no matter what time it

is, money is alwayon the move. blackberry shares adding. doug jones reported that blackberry is trying to complete its auction process by november, also narrowing down its list of potential suitors. investors clearly looking happy with the news in the stock is up 6% since today's opening bell. now that we are all back from the holiday weekend, be honest, did you work on your time off? nowadays it seems everyone is glued to their mobile device. as convenient as it can become a puts us in a position to feel compelled to check in, even when we are on a well-deserved vacation. it is a topic we have to address. some people claim that this is really relaxing. with us now to break down the staggering stats. fox news legal analyst, mercedes kaelin. thank you for joining us.

>> thanks for having as. melissa: let me start with you. 56 percent of americans regularly do work on vacation. my husband schedules conference calls in the morning. on vacation. i'm like, were on vacation. he's like, get out of the way in and i'm relaxed. i think it's not. is the normal? am crazy? be careful how you answer. >> i don't think you're crazy because i -- but i can relate to your husband. i check e-mail in the morning. "check it again, except maybe at the end ofhe day. but it helps me know -- it keeps me to live and what is going o so it also helps me readjust when i get back as well. it's not so shocking. melissa: so you don't walk into a firestorm. 47 percent of people say staying in touch on vacation makes them more relaxed and lesstressed. the you think that they're crazy? >> at think these are people who enjoy the work.

they do not see it as work. i know that they see it as a little bit of penance in the morning before their relax in the afternoon. if it keeps them healthy emotionally and spiritually and does not get in the way of the time with their families, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. melissa: but, mercedes, we are on a well-deserved vacation. do we really need to do put penance? fifty-one weeks per year. you still have to do penance, as the good doctor said, when you get up before you go enjoy your children? >> i'm completely relaxed. some vacation is a working vacation. try navigating disney world. right tre. wait, kids. white, kids. they are going ahe of me. something that everyone expects. the worst of it is, not only you expected to return e-mails immediately. if you don't serve your clients, someone else will.

it's something that is just a reality of life. melissa: that is the problem, right, veronica? so many people do it now. it is pretty much expected. the people who do we have forced it on to the rest of us. >> there is a fear of losing yourompetitive edge if all of your competitors and co-workers are doing it, and you don't, you are sort of the oddball. there is that pier pressure, as you said. melissa: let me ask you, as at therapists, interpret this mess -- message. the automatic out of office replied that goes out, those things are so irritating. there are some that are really bad. for example, one of the comments, if you want to reach me, resend your e-mail after september 3rd was one that we were looking at. it is sort of like, what message does that send? i'm so cool and popular that i am going to have such a mountain of e-mails, not only am i not going to look, but i'm not calling to sort through them when i get back.

you need to resend after. >> it sends a message. this person has checked out and they don't want to be bothered. in a ball that we live and we need to relate to each other and emergencies happen and you need to speak to someone , it's just not being human. so i think they should change the message and say, i will get back to you as soon as i can. by the way, this thing about pennants, i am lking about mental health. some people, i exercise at 5:00 in the morning, do a little work for two or three hours. come noon is martini time. that is what i mean my penance. melissa: you're justifying your martini at noon. another common one that i think it's terrible is or it basically says i'm going to be checking my e-mail sporadically because that is like, you are either in or out. where are you?

you either have your phone and see it and ignore it and say that i will reply to the people i want to come all but a flood of kidder response from someone who says sporadically it is like a screened me out. >> the clients will sit back and say, you obviously have way too much work. i will contact the other billion lawyers. you just go enjoy your vacation. melissa: we have to leave it there. that was fine. >> thanks, melissa. melissa: crowd funding is a hugely pop to cut popular way to get cash. in fact, over two and a half billion dollars raised through a crowd funding last year. i don't get it. here to make me see the light in a fox business exclusive, co-founder of the world's largest crowd funding platform,

in the go-go. very popular to raise money and your site can and i cannot figure out why people do it. you're making a donation to someone who could be wildly wealthy as a result of the things you are donating money to. aren't you an investor? why would you donate money? >> thanks, melissa, for having me. one is a donation and the other is an investment. to nation would mean it is a tax-deductible. and many are not for profit. some of them are tax deductible. the jobs that has not yet gone into implementation. melissa: let me give you an example. there was a summer intern for senate majority leader harry reid who launched a francis@foxbusiness.com campaign. she calls it the latino find. that sounds like a donation to me. >> mccourt the campaign.

a very interesting. it is not actually a tax deductible into the. melissa: to me that is a donation. >> there are four reasons. they care about the person, the cause, the idea. the second is, they want the product, service, or experience. we call that a perk. a lot of things get stuff in return. ey want to participate. and th want profit. give one and get $5 back. number four, it is not illegal yet. early next year. melissa: there were other really interesting ones. the first crowd funded baby. someone raised $8,000 for treatment. what category does that fall into? >> great question. we had no idea what would happen in terms of what would be funded because we are open to anything in out of nowhere this couple from florida wanted to be able

to get in vitro because there were turned dow by insurance companies. so we called them the ultimate entrepreneur. it put the story up on indiegogo. they then had the in vitro and had the baby. and, no, they did not call the baby in the. melissa: canary is one that we had here on the show which was very popular. a home security device controlled through your smart phone, folks that went on and you and best and get the device. that makes a little more sense because you are pre ordering the device. if they raise enough money to go into production, you will be one of the first people to get the device. >> let me be clear, they did not invest. it did not get any money in return. melissa: bought your product in advance, but there are cases, the one where you raised th most money but i would not call it successful. it was one where $12 million was

raised by people who bought the product in advance. they did not get to the goal, and never went into production. what happens to the money and excitement? >> to great examples. there were able to raise nearly $2 million. trying to decide if they would invest and at what valuation. now investors are coming in at much higher valuations. they want to raise $302 million. get a lot of market delegation that there is a market out there, not the 40,000 units there were looking for. an incredible example. melissa: but it did not happen. and never made the product. >> with an example the money gets returned fully. the beauty of indiegogo is you have flexible and fixed spawned -- spending. melissa: but it is not market validation f and never made the money. >> they said their own validation level.

he will tell you it is a good example. melissa: thank you for coming on. very interesting and popular. so many people doing it. thank you. next on "money," revenge is a station best served with twitter. one man buys promoted tweed's ted shred british airways over lost luggage. terrible customer service. favorite marketing perot joins us. at the end of the day is all about "money." ♪

melissa: in the most public way possible. and not talking about just weeks. he spent a thousand dollars on promoted ads like this to be sure that thousands of followers would see if it was worth the money. is this the start of something new? my favorite marketing group -- guru joins me now. it seems like it is opening a can of worms. not that expensive. he cringes promote tweeds or you aren't directlyargeting people who follow british airways'. blasting with how much he was trying to get a response. what do you think? >> if someone posts a tweet about loss light is the rest of us are going to go, oh, my goodness. an airline loses luggage. i believe there are only two kinds of luggage, carry-on and lost.

it does seem like it is the leading into that situation where people go on and trash businesses. if you start tweeting that there was a bug in your food or harry your food or, you know, car service and a never show up on time, all kinds of other businesses. you could really run. is that the money-making opportunity? does it destroyed the business? >> any time people sponsor something, twitter is making money. and when you talk about it on national news, people like thinking, let me try that. the problem is, look at what you just said. you are driving somewhere, looking for restaurant. you see to refuse this a thi is the big -- greatest place ever been to and then won a says this is the worst police had never been to. you just throw your phone down in frustration. melissa: that is not how it

works. when you look at those things, there is a majority. so if you can start going on and trashing peopleein a way that is more effective you really could do damage. >> have you ever seen the united brace guitars video? that is a damaging social media revolution. united airlines would not do anything about a broken guitar, so he wrote a song, obviously a musician. he did and music video and got 13 million views. then other people covered the song, talked about it which aggregated another 2 million views. that is the way to do it. creative, something people pay attention to. but some guy, who cares? melissa: people did respond. and for example, they want to apologize for the inconvenience caused. we have been in contact.

today blow this? they had an opportunity to do something. they have someone on mine blasting them. there is something they could have done better. >> they completely blew it. you are absolutely correct. all companies, everyone watching this to pay attention. you need to monitor your social media 247365. because it is every time zone. the minute someone put something negative -- and you can find this. you need to be responding. umphed - melissa: you're right. >> i'm going to promote your book right now. i read it. i gave as christmas presents. people should do it this way.

melissa: thank you so much. next on "money," like homer simpson's dream come true. the s in the country, and he is opening up a restaurant that only serves -- wait for it -- bacon sandwiches. he is joining us for a speci tasting in a "spare change". yes, we have cardiologists standing by off camera. you can never have too much "money." you can obviously have to much bacon. ♪

♪ melissa: it's time for a little fun with "spare change." we have celebrity chef david burke who just opened the first practically all bacon restaurant. specializing in what he calls ham-which is. they fit in the palm of your hand. this is our own little salute to russia shot up. how edgy cop with this idea? >> a small space adjacent to my sick as in chicago, trying to figure out what to do. small spot, take up, delivery. bacon is not going to go on a style. melissa: is a place down and speak to vestry that serves only charros.

>> well, especially when you have nine variety of sandwiches. we have a patent on dry aging beef. like an old-fashioned delhi. if you have nine varieties, $4 each, 3-for-11. your menu can be wild. this band sam which took a lot. it's really spam. making a comeback. making a comeback.

it fits into that. pineapple coleslaw. the peking duck. sausages another one. and in the chicago hot dog. bake in hot dog added with the bacon jalapeno marmalade. green relish. it goes on a chicago hot dog. see to it doesn't work. melissa: last one. >> the play on the lobster roll. a total. melissa: we have to go. standing behind the cameras. thank you so much for doing this. manila will be a huge success. up next, who made "money" today. we will have the answer right after this. you can never have too much bacon. i'm going to eat this right now. see you in a second. ♪

melissa: whether it is on wall street or main street, here who made money today. anyone ford and gm. their best month this year. a turbo the stocks today. also making money, anyone who owns jcpenney. the two hedge fund giants are in. a 5.2% stake in the retailer. glenview doubled it to 6.9%. stock something more than 6%. breaking surprisingly small amount of money, today it is surprisingly jay-z. his ownership has gotten plenty of fanfare. but he reportedly sold the brooklyn nets to jason kidd for

$500,000. it's not like he needs the money. well, that's all we have to you today. i hope you made money today. we will see you back here. i have to go, they are eating all t the following is a paid advertisement for starvista entertainment and time life's music collection. >> ♪ wouldn't it be nice if we were older ♪ ♪ then we wouldn't have to wait so long ♪ >> ♪ pretty woman ♪ walkin' down the street ♪ pretty woman ♪ the kind i like to meet >> ♪ i've got sunshine ♪ on a cloudy day >> the '60s was a decade of change, of new hopes and dreams, of new attitudes, and a decade where love and romance was expressed in many new and different ways. >> ♪ cherish is the word i use to describe ♪