not just a one clemson time but for centuries and remains exceptionally diverse and nine -- dynamic where soldiers are serving. >> >> there is a lot of four books. toward the end, it was intents. great job. >> thank you very much. it took a lot of hard work again. the biggest challenge is because of the security requirements what they actually did an accomplished it is nothing short of phenomenal. people buy it because they want to know what the soldiers are doing that was a very consistent question how much do they contribute? there relates directly to the units that we saw all are that you read about in the book or that we helped to build so they truly considered us almost afghans in brothers and would operate and execute like professional soldiers. that is what is missing in the national understanding of what is going on in afghanistan. >> in the battle in the vietnam, i felt it was on par with that. >> but in all honesty the hard part is knowing what i saw with my own eyes knowing that anybody could replicate. listening to the men on the radio and doing things that people see on movie

might have been able to distinguish between telephones and internet access, but that distinction is clemson -- is collapsing. we now have to deal with the fact we can do both in the palm of your hand. host: brooklyn, good morning to john, you're on the air. caller: i would like to ask you something about some basic philosophy that goes back to 1789, and that is that the first and second amendments both, but it we're talking principally about the first, but regarding the first and second amendments, technology has gone so far beyond what the constitutional formers ever envisioned, so i'm wondering whether the amendments in of -- in and of themselves are not anachronistic in that the legal protection has to sit around for money as since then debating what is constitutional and what is not constitutional regarding such things as freedom of speech? if you want to take the second amendment to its limit, i should be able to drive around in a tank because i might have to protect myself again something the federal government might want to do. i do not think anyone would consider the ownership of a

a clemson university project asked undergrads to dip a chip, bite, redip and then bite again.e double dip the chip test find? is it a, more germs in the mouth than the dip, b, more germs in the dip than the mouth, c, equal amount of germs in the mouth and the dip, or, d, the quote costanzo, where double dipping the chip was, quote, like putting your whole mouth right in the dip. >> okay, definitely not d, richard and it's got to be a or b. what do you think? >> i'm going to go for b, incorrect. >> a. >> that is correct. more germs are found in the mouth than in the dip. >> victory. >> huh. where does one go g from there, richard? >> that makes it a tie, which is probably the best way to finish this edition of "q&a." that's it for this week. we're here each thursday, quest means business, and in the cnn newsroom at 2:00 p.m. eastern keep the topics running on our blogs at cnn.com/qnb and cnn.com/aly. tell us each week what you want to talk about. we'll be covering this downturn all day, so see you later, richard. >> see you later, ali. have a good one. [ vending man ] hi there!

might have been able to distinguish between telephones and internet access, but that distinction is clemson -- is collapsing. we now have to deal with the fact we can do both in the palm of your hand. host: brooklyn, good morning to john, you're on the air. caller: i would like to ask you something about some basic philosophy that goes back to 1789, and th is that the first and second amendments both, but it we're talking principally about the first, but regarding the first and second amendments, technology has gone so far beyond what the constitutional formers ever envisioned, so i'm wondering whether the amendments in of -- in and of themselves are not anachronistic inhat the legal protection has to sit around for money as since then debating what is constitutional and what is not constitutional regarding such things as freedom of speech? if you want to take the second amendment to its limit, i should be able to drive around in a tank because i might have to protect myself againomething the federal government might want to do. i do not think anyone would consider the ownership of a tank i