The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Apart from it being crap, Am i the only one who things its not a very contraversial song, due to only 3 or 4 words in the whole ong. Its a lame attempt to keep sales high.
Page:
True. The fact is, the songs just sucks beyond belief - totally devoid of any hooks, melody or anything of merit at all.
I find it amusing that you're debating a George Michael song like it has any merit whatsoever - controversial or not.
He could drape himself in the Stars & Stripes and defecate on an Osama lookalike, it doesn't change the fact he doesn't matter on any level.
He could drape himself in the Stars & Stripes and defecate on an Osama lookalike, it doesn't change the fact he doesn't matter on any level.
Why is it any thread with me and you in always turns in to an argument over America?
:D
:D
Belldandy wrote:
> Small Frog wrote:
> >If they are so concerned about the planet then
> maybe they could agree to issues like the Kyoto agreement, instead
> of
> protecting their own economy.
>
> Er, signing Kyoto would be stupid, anyone in the Western hemisphrere
> who signed it is also stupid. Pollution is an effect of industry,
> somethig the West is rather flipping good at and the foundation of our
> wealth, though less so in recent years. Who wants to sign a treaty
> that says you have to limit that industry because of the pollution,
> when the same treaty allows other less developed countries to pollute
> more ? Madness. As for protecting their economy...good for them !
> Whether you are a PM, a president, dictator or whatever, you're
> priority is to protect you're country in all ways possible, Bush is
> doing that, everyone else knows he's doing that too...and were saying
> that its wrong ?? Bit stupid that...
So protecting your country comes before protecting the world? Whether Bush believes it or not, pollution is damaging our world, and that's going to effect the whole planet. And why shouldn't we limit pollution when we have technological advances to help do so. In the West we can limit pollution, there is more technology to help us do this, and if the US signed that agreement then companies would be forced to advance the technology to aid reducing pollution even further. And of course third world countries shouldn't have such tight regulations on pollution, one they don't have the technology to be cleaner, and two they can't afford to be, while in the West we certainly can afford it, but we're just too bloody apathetic to do anything, and too worried that businesses already making huge profits will have to take a slight cut in their profit margins. It all comes down to what is valued higher, the economy of a country, or the cleanliness of the planet we all have to live in. And if our pollution gets too much we're all gonna know about it in a bad way...
> Small Frog wrote:
> >If they are so concerned about the planet then
> maybe they could agree to issues like the Kyoto agreement, instead
> of
> protecting their own economy.
>
> Er, signing Kyoto would be stupid, anyone in the Western hemisphrere
> who signed it is also stupid. Pollution is an effect of industry,
> somethig the West is rather flipping good at and the foundation of our
> wealth, though less so in recent years. Who wants to sign a treaty
> that says you have to limit that industry because of the pollution,
> when the same treaty allows other less developed countries to pollute
> more ? Madness. As for protecting their economy...good for them !
> Whether you are a PM, a president, dictator or whatever, you're
> priority is to protect you're country in all ways possible, Bush is
> doing that, everyone else knows he's doing that too...and were saying
> that its wrong ?? Bit stupid that...
So protecting your country comes before protecting the world? Whether Bush believes it or not, pollution is damaging our world, and that's going to effect the whole planet. And why shouldn't we limit pollution when we have technological advances to help do so. In the West we can limit pollution, there is more technology to help us do this, and if the US signed that agreement then companies would be forced to advance the technology to aid reducing pollution even further. And of course third world countries shouldn't have such tight regulations on pollution, one they don't have the technology to be cleaner, and two they can't afford to be, while in the West we certainly can afford it, but we're just too bloody apathetic to do anything, and too worried that businesses already making huge profits will have to take a slight cut in their profit margins. It all comes down to what is valued higher, the economy of a country, or the cleanliness of the planet we all have to live in. And if our pollution gets too much we're all gonna know about it in a bad way...
Skarra wrote:
>Remember that little scrap World War
> 1, the US didn't get involved until they lost enough ship's. Oh, and
> World War 2, 2 years late again. Sure, thier President gave us aid,
> but the people didn't want to get involved in a "European
> Conflict".
One of the problems of democracy is that the people who vote you in can vote you out...you're saying that an elected official should go against massive opposition and do something ? The result would be his political destruction. New evidence now shows that Pearl Harbour "could" have been prevented by intel from a norweigian vessel, however the vessel was destroyed in port as it docked by UK intel agents, and the attack was allowed to hit Pearl Harbour, and the USA came into the war under Roosevelt with massive public support. Even in the early days, once France fell America supplied ammunition, vehicles, and men to help us, not forgetting ships as well.
>In Korea, US arrogance and over confidence almost took
> the west against China and Russia, remember.
Er no, wrong history. Korea was a UN action but the US had to supply most of the manpower as everyone else was still badly hit by WW2 aftermath....
> And Vietnam, their heart
> was in the right place, but dropping Agent Orange in civilian rice
> fields, yeah, real good idea.
In Vietnam the line between Civilian and enemy was blurred, a civilian could work the fields by day and take up a weapon at night and attack US forces....
>
> But most of all, remember the other week, W. Bush Jn. said he would
> pullout the huge, massive, 40 man peacekeeping force in the Balkans
> because they would be put on trial for breaking the law. Thats fair,
> sure. How many troops do we have there, and else where.
Ah, another one of my pet ideas here, the UK should have pushed to make its troops exempt from prosecution too !
>If there the
> biggest army, which they are, can't they take up some of the jobs our
> over stretched army deals with.
The US is currently guaranteeing security across the middle east, is conducting known operations in Afghanistan, india, Pakistan, Kosovoe and the Balkans, Georgia, Indonesia, homeland security.....need I go on, not to mention patrolling no fly zones in Iraq, Korea and providing security for Taiwan....
>If they do the jobs nobody else wants,
> i say look at who was funding the IRA for 40 years, US firms. Look at
> Sierra Lione, who's there, us. Look all over, the US only rattle the
> Sabre if it suits them.
So the US government funded the IRA ? Don't think so, US citizens did, its called freedom, and if our security services could actually do something they'd have proven it and the US would have tkaen action, we couldn't prove it, ever, so the US cannot take action - what do you want them to do ? Sieera Leone.....yay for us....read my other post below this one to see why were there....
~~Belldandy~~
>Remember that little scrap World War
> 1, the US didn't get involved until they lost enough ship's. Oh, and
> World War 2, 2 years late again. Sure, thier President gave us aid,
> but the people didn't want to get involved in a "European
> Conflict".
One of the problems of democracy is that the people who vote you in can vote you out...you're saying that an elected official should go against massive opposition and do something ? The result would be his political destruction. New evidence now shows that Pearl Harbour "could" have been prevented by intel from a norweigian vessel, however the vessel was destroyed in port as it docked by UK intel agents, and the attack was allowed to hit Pearl Harbour, and the USA came into the war under Roosevelt with massive public support. Even in the early days, once France fell America supplied ammunition, vehicles, and men to help us, not forgetting ships as well.
>In Korea, US arrogance and over confidence almost took
> the west against China and Russia, remember.
Er no, wrong history. Korea was a UN action but the US had to supply most of the manpower as everyone else was still badly hit by WW2 aftermath....
> And Vietnam, their heart
> was in the right place, but dropping Agent Orange in civilian rice
> fields, yeah, real good idea.
In Vietnam the line between Civilian and enemy was blurred, a civilian could work the fields by day and take up a weapon at night and attack US forces....
>
> But most of all, remember the other week, W. Bush Jn. said he would
> pullout the huge, massive, 40 man peacekeeping force in the Balkans
> because they would be put on trial for breaking the law. Thats fair,
> sure. How many troops do we have there, and else where.
Ah, another one of my pet ideas here, the UK should have pushed to make its troops exempt from prosecution too !
>If there the
> biggest army, which they are, can't they take up some of the jobs our
> over stretched army deals with.
The US is currently guaranteeing security across the middle east, is conducting known operations in Afghanistan, india, Pakistan, Kosovoe and the Balkans, Georgia, Indonesia, homeland security.....need I go on, not to mention patrolling no fly zones in Iraq, Korea and providing security for Taiwan....
>If they do the jobs nobody else wants,
> i say look at who was funding the IRA for 40 years, US firms. Look at
> Sierra Lione, who's there, us. Look all over, the US only rattle the
> Sabre if it suits them.
So the US government funded the IRA ? Don't think so, US citizens did, its called freedom, and if our security services could actually do something they'd have proven it and the US would have tkaen action, we couldn't prove it, ever, so the US cannot take action - what do you want them to do ? Sieera Leone.....yay for us....read my other post below this one to see why were there....
~~Belldandy~~
Small Frog wrote:
>If they are so concerned about the planet then
> maybe they could agree to issues like the Kyoto agreement, instead of
> protecting their own economy.
Er, signing Kyoto would be stupid, anyone in the Western hemisphrere who signed it is also stupid. Pollution is an effect of industry, somethig the West is rather flipping good at and the foundation of our wealth, though less so in recent years. Who wants to sign a treaty that says you have to limit that industry because of the pollution, when the same treaty allows other less developed countries to pollute more ? Madness. As for protecting their economy...good for them ! Whether you are a PM, a president, dictator or whatever, you're priority is to protect you're country in all ways possible, Bush is doing that, everyone else knows he's doing that too...and were saying that its wrong ?? Bit stupid that...
>
> Many of America's military actions are focused on their own
> personal/financial gain.
Any country only engages in military action when it's own interests are at stake, America is just the more obvious one. Why did we go to war in the Falklands....oil and the Antarctic.....Sierra Leone ? Possible oil, Diamonds, plus it's a nice staging area for the rest of Africa..... SAS and the iranian embassy in London ? Pretty good demonstration of the unit... My point is that underlying the moral reasons of a conflict it is nearly always for gain of some kind that a country goes to war or conflict. America isn't perfect.....but neither is she the only one !
>While I support their actions in the Middle
> East, I don't agree with some of their other interests. Know what I
> mean?
Kinda....bit of a dancing with the devil thing going on eh ?
~~Belldandy~~
>If they are so concerned about the planet then
> maybe they could agree to issues like the Kyoto agreement, instead of
> protecting their own economy.
Er, signing Kyoto would be stupid, anyone in the Western hemisphrere who signed it is also stupid. Pollution is an effect of industry, somethig the West is rather flipping good at and the foundation of our wealth, though less so in recent years. Who wants to sign a treaty that says you have to limit that industry because of the pollution, when the same treaty allows other less developed countries to pollute more ? Madness. As for protecting their economy...good for them ! Whether you are a PM, a president, dictator or whatever, you're priority is to protect you're country in all ways possible, Bush is doing that, everyone else knows he's doing that too...and were saying that its wrong ?? Bit stupid that...
>
> Many of America's military actions are focused on their own
> personal/financial gain.
Any country only engages in military action when it's own interests are at stake, America is just the more obvious one. Why did we go to war in the Falklands....oil and the Antarctic.....Sierra Leone ? Possible oil, Diamonds, plus it's a nice staging area for the rest of Africa..... SAS and the iranian embassy in London ? Pretty good demonstration of the unit... My point is that underlying the moral reasons of a conflict it is nearly always for gain of some kind that a country goes to war or conflict. America isn't perfect.....but neither is she the only one !
>While I support their actions in the Middle
> East, I don't agree with some of their other interests. Know what I
> mean?
Kinda....bit of a dancing with the devil thing going on eh ?
~~Belldandy~~
I'm with small frog on this one. Remember that little scrap World War 1, the US didn't get involved until they lost enough ship's. Oh, and World War 2, 2 years late again. Sure, thier President gave us aid, but the people didn't want to get involved in a "European Conflict". In Korea, US arrogance and over confidence almost took the west against China and Russia, remember. And Vietnam, their heart was in the right place, but dropping Agent Orange in civilian rice fields, yeah, real good idea.
But most of all, remember the other week, W. Bush Jn. said he would pullout the huge, massive, 40 man peacekeeping force in the Balkans because they would be put on trial for breaking the law. Thats fair, sure. How many troops do we have there, and else where. If there the biggest army, which they are, can't they take up some of the jobs our over stretched army deals with. If they do the jobs nobody else wants, i say look at who was funding the IRA for 40 years, US firms. Look at Sierra Lione, who's there, us. Look all over, the US only rattle the Sabre if it suits them.
But most of all, remember the other week, W. Bush Jn. said he would pullout the huge, massive, 40 man peacekeeping force in the Balkans because they would be put on trial for breaking the law. Thats fair, sure. How many troops do we have there, and else where. If there the biggest army, which they are, can't they take up some of the jobs our over stretched army deals with. If they do the jobs nobody else wants, i say look at who was funding the IRA for 40 years, US firms. Look at Sierra Lione, who's there, us. Look all over, the US only rattle the Sabre if it suits them.
I know what you're saying - I don't hate America as a country. I simply dislike the way that the government has proclaimed themselves worldwide peacekeepers. If they are so concerned about the planet then maybe they could agree to issues like the Kyoto agreement, instead of protecting their own economy.
Many of America's military actions are focused on their own personal/financial gain. While I support their actions in the Middle East, I don't agree with some of their other interests. Know what I mean?
It's nice to be back :D
Many of America's military actions are focused on their own personal/financial gain. While I support their actions in the Middle East, I don't agree with some of their other interests. Know what I mean?
It's nice to be back :D
Small Frog wrote:
>Maybe George doesn't like America. Neither do lots
> of people. It doesn't mean we want to go to the Middle East and get
> shot. I dislike America without having to go out blowing things up. I
> know we don't see eye to eye on this but that last point was kinda
> irrelevant.
Thats the point though isn't it, loads of people hate America for no real - exist on paper actual fact - reasons. Without America wave goodbye to the UN, heck wave goodbye to about 1/3 of the globe. People hate America, but they don't want to do the jobs America does either...you can't have both. There are Americans in the Middle East, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Africa, Asia..everywhere, and I'm proud to say that UK forces are backing them up in many of those places too - about flipping time we got on board with them. America commits to dangerous situations...sure it takes fire, and it fires back...because it's in the line of fire whilst everyone else sits on their collective behind and criticises.
This century is already seeing warfare change. Conflicts over land and traditional engagements are a thing of the past....we're going to see increasingly small scale low intensity wars being fought, the only way to preserve standards of living and what the Western societies enjoy will be by military force. The biggest force in the West is America, and that's why they should be out new best friends.....
BTW Nice to see you're still here Small Frog :)
~~Belldandy~~
>Maybe George doesn't like America. Neither do lots
> of people. It doesn't mean we want to go to the Middle East and get
> shot. I dislike America without having to go out blowing things up. I
> know we don't see eye to eye on this but that last point was kinda
> irrelevant.
Thats the point though isn't it, loads of people hate America for no real - exist on paper actual fact - reasons. Without America wave goodbye to the UN, heck wave goodbye to about 1/3 of the globe. People hate America, but they don't want to do the jobs America does either...you can't have both. There are Americans in the Middle East, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Africa, Asia..everywhere, and I'm proud to say that UK forces are backing them up in many of those places too - about flipping time we got on board with them. America commits to dangerous situations...sure it takes fire, and it fires back...because it's in the line of fire whilst everyone else sits on their collective behind and criticises.
This century is already seeing warfare change. Conflicts over land and traditional engagements are a thing of the past....we're going to see increasingly small scale low intensity wars being fought, the only way to preserve standards of living and what the Western societies enjoy will be by military force. The biggest force in the West is America, and that's why they should be out new best friends.....
BTW Nice to see you're still here Small Frog :)
~~Belldandy~~
I think it is a crappy video. Sure it's funny, and not so young Mr. Michael is free to say what he wants, but it isn't right. Just because El Presidenta Bust and Heir Blair get on, doesn't mean he can take a pop at them. Especially as they only get on due to 9/11. Shame on him is all i can say. Remember we lost people that day to. At least now he fears going over to the US, now at least their public loo's will be a safer place.
Page: