The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,898544,00.html
Is it any surprise when they elect utter morons who are beholden only to big business and who have absolutely no interest in representing the people of the country they preside over?
There's only a limited amount of time that other nations can be kept poor and dependant before trouble kicks off...
Is it any surprise when they elect utter morons who are beholden only to big business and who have absolutely no interest in representing the people of the country they preside over?
There's only a limited amount of time that other nations can be kept poor and dependant before trouble kicks off...
Page:
Jonman, I can't speak for anyone else but I have absolutely no problem at all with the American people.
It's the government I find odious. It is one of the most offensively aggressive, corrupt and insidious things I've seen - and the more I read about it the less I see Bush Jr & Sr as anything other than bigoted hatemongers that believe they have the god-given right to dictate to other countries how to act.
My relatives in the States and my cousin currently serving in Iraq disagree strongly with Bush and his "We will kill" hardon they have for Iraq.
It's a lot to do with the US AND UK interventions over there that have caused a lot of these problems. The US trained and funded the Taliban to oppose Russian rule, then walked away. They destabilised Iran because, in the words of the then-CIA director (currently narrating a series on Radio 4 about this situation) "We would rather have a friendly tyrant than risk democracy we have no control over"
The American people are, mostly, intelligent, friendly and warm. Their leader, however, is a simpleton with guns.
It's the government I find odious. It is one of the most offensively aggressive, corrupt and insidious things I've seen - and the more I read about it the less I see Bush Jr & Sr as anything other than bigoted hatemongers that believe they have the god-given right to dictate to other countries how to act.
My relatives in the States and my cousin currently serving in Iraq disagree strongly with Bush and his "We will kill" hardon they have for Iraq.
It's a lot to do with the US AND UK interventions over there that have caused a lot of these problems. The US trained and funded the Taliban to oppose Russian rule, then walked away. They destabilised Iran because, in the words of the then-CIA director (currently narrating a series on Radio 4 about this situation) "We would rather have a friendly tyrant than risk democracy we have no control over"
The American people are, mostly, intelligent, friendly and warm. Their leader, however, is a simpleton with guns.
Setting the record straight...
Got bored halfway through as it decended into another Light vs Belldandy argue-off. However, I feel obliged to defend the people of America. I'm an Englishman who's been living in the States for the best part of a year now. There's no getting away from the fact that the US government is the biggest bunch of international terrorists and war criminals in the world, the truth is that the US government has been that way for the last 50 years. Guatamala, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cuba, Panama, Columbia - the list goes on. Read your history, kids, and not the version published by the US government. However, what we have to realise is that out government is not a whole lot better.
The point is that the people of America are pretty much the same as the people back home. They fall into two (very stereotyped) broad categories. Those who aren't aware of the world beyond their own shores, and believe the governmental propoganda, and those who make an effort to stay in touch a bit more. In roughly the same proportions as at home. Yes, that's right, America is not all hicksville populated by gap-toothed six fingered hicks married to their sister. I'm sure there are parts of it that are like that, but only as much as there are in the UK too (you ever visited rural parts of the south-west, for instance). I've met all sorts of people out here, and actually, people tend to be a hell of a lot MORE civilised than back home. Take a look at your local townies, and ask yourself, are we any better? I think not.
Anyway, I'm done now. I'm getting sick of hearing closed-minded idiots from back home badmouthing people that they know nothing about, and whose only crime is living in a country that doesn't allow them the degree of democratic freedom it purports to.
Got bored halfway through as it decended into another Light vs Belldandy argue-off. However, I feel obliged to defend the people of America. I'm an Englishman who's been living in the States for the best part of a year now. There's no getting away from the fact that the US government is the biggest bunch of international terrorists and war criminals in the world, the truth is that the US government has been that way for the last 50 years. Guatamala, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cuba, Panama, Columbia - the list goes on. Read your history, kids, and not the version published by the US government. However, what we have to realise is that out government is not a whole lot better.
The point is that the people of America are pretty much the same as the people back home. They fall into two (very stereotyped) broad categories. Those who aren't aware of the world beyond their own shores, and believe the governmental propoganda, and those who make an effort to stay in touch a bit more. In roughly the same proportions as at home. Yes, that's right, America is not all hicksville populated by gap-toothed six fingered hicks married to their sister. I'm sure there are parts of it that are like that, but only as much as there are in the UK too (you ever visited rural parts of the south-west, for instance). I've met all sorts of people out here, and actually, people tend to be a hell of a lot MORE civilised than back home. Take a look at your local townies, and ask yourself, are we any better? I think not.
Anyway, I'm done now. I'm getting sick of hearing closed-minded idiots from back home badmouthing people that they know nothing about, and whose only crime is living in a country that doesn't allow them the degree of democratic freedom it purports to.
Belldandy wrote:
> Yes, I'm sure Indonesia and any of the above could resist the might of
> the US and allied military..get real. If the cells in question are
> known about then they aren't a problem because they exist in countries
> not sympathetic to them, unlike Iraq. We know where they are, who they
> are e.t.c. The threat is the unknown.
And Iraq is the unknown? It's time to get real, Belldandy, my man. We knew about the threat of Al-Qa'eda before 9/11, and yet we failed to act. If we know about them, they're going to stop being anti-Western, aren't they? Yep, that's what they'll do! Iraq will not have a hope in hell of defending itself against the American forces, so what are you suggesting, exactly? Iraq's going to lose any conflict against the over-powering Allies, so are you saying that they will?
> And don't forget the Church coming in on that as well for a bit of PR,
> when two leaders of institutions which have great difficulties dealing
> with their own members little misdemeanours - like child abuse for
> starters - I don't think they are qualified to lecture on morality
> somehow. And how come Saddam escapes all blame for civilian deaths ?
> Who is ordering his units into the civilian areas ? George Bush ? No,
> Saddam. But hey, thats okay because he's the enemy yeah ? And don't
> forget the human shield volunteers, I mean they do realise the lives
> they are endangering ? Not only our own personnel, but the Iraqi
> people as well. Why ? If you can't bomb it you have to assault it, and
> strangely guided bombs work better than unguided bullets.
How does Saddam escape all blame? You're one of those elite few, Belldandy, who refuse to see that theer are some people who are anti-war AND anti-Saddam. I hate Saddam, and would like to see him dead, for the Iraqi people. However, war will only lead to a civil war in the region, possibly producing someone even worse than Saddam. Have you seen his son? What about the rest of the Dirty Dozen, who will stand by Saddam till the end? How do we get rid of them? Randomly bombing Red Cross areas and other sanctuaries to the thousands of innocent people caught up in this pointless conflict? Yeah, that'll work - let the dictator and his chums get away while we bomb hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. I still can't see why human life is dispensible in a situation like this? Why should so many people die just so Bush can have the oil and set up a puppet government? And the bombs are only marginally safer than the bullets, has proved by the Kosovo conflict.
> Because, as anyone who knows any history of the region would tell you,
> we sold them to prop up Saddam's regime and chances of hurting Iran
> badly. Lacking the crystal ball you obviously have, no one knew how
> the future would turn out.
I realise that we were backing Saddam against the Ayatollah, and so we gave him weapons. I realise that, and that's fine, but what about the years after the Iran-Iraq war, when Western companies insisted to supply Iraq with weapons? This is backed up by facts taken away by America in the printing of the UN's documents detailing the history of this problem.
> Ah yes, the usual "its all a big conspiracy by the evil
> capitalist mega corps" theory. Where is the proof ? Oh, in yours
> and others heads.
A big conspiracy? What's a conspiracy about it? It's plain and simple, the companies supplied a nation that the government officially hated with weapons and agents used to make these weapons. Unfortunately, the proof now lies somewhere in the White House or Capitol Hill, as the Americans decided to omit the 8000 pages of companies who gave these weapons to Iraq.
> Well if you even knew any of the history it might help explain the
> weapons selling things yknow ? As far as I see it you're basically
> defending the Iraqi regime, who has pursued military expansion and
> development at the cost of it's own people. If you seriously think a
> country with Iraq's probems really needs WMDs then I'm speechless.
The whole point is that Iraq doesn't need these weapons, and yet American and British companies continue to supply Iraq with them. However, if you can remove the leader peacefully, then you eliminate the threat of them using the weapons, don't you? I'm not defending the Iraqi regime, as I said eariler, but I'm attacking the American regime.
> Oh get real, have you seen the size of one of those ? Do you know
> anything at all about how they are launched ? You cannot just sell one
> to a group and it will go unnoticed, and I don't see why Goatboy wants
> this answering because its just plain daft ! The heat bloom from
> prelaunch would give them away anyway, and any country with them in
> could not hide it and would swiftly be a dead nation, as every country
> on this earth knows.
Sadly Belldandy, you have that common misconception that terrorists are only small bands of people in a network. Terrorists can easily be the government of a country, or just a big group. Terrorists of this nature couldn't care less about giving themselves away, so the heat wouldn't be of concern to them. They're willing to sacrifice themselves, so we'd do best to concentrate on getting rid of the ones we know about rather than go after Saddam, who only cares about himself staying in power. Even so, North Korea is more of a target than Iraq should be. They live in a bizarre world, where the public have no knowledge of what really goes on. North Koreans are in a far worse state than Iraqis as far as actual freedom goes - people from N Korea have to escape the country, but it's far easier for Iraqis to flee their country, so in terms of morality we should help the N Koreans.
> Pure fantasy and rubbish, the reason they are starving is because the
> cash is going into the military, as well as overpopulation and other
> things. The cash from one missile would not even dent the problem,
> plus the missile itself would trace right back to N.Korea, which
> cannot withstand the response that would bring.
Do you think the North Korean leaders care about the people? No, the leaders want the money for thenmselves, so the money from one missile would actually go some lengths to helping them financially. And if America is so worried about Iraq getting their hands on other weapons like this, why not go after the source? Oh no, we can't do that, it breaks tradition, doesn't it? Let's attack a Muslim country pre-emptively to stamp out that nasty Islamic terrorism, shall we? Yes, we'll automatically get rid of all those evil groups hell-bent on destroying America if we attack them with no actual provocation! Idiotic proposals, really.
> I stand by my original comments.
Oh really?
--bWo--
> Yes, I'm sure Indonesia and any of the above could resist the might of
> the US and allied military..get real. If the cells in question are
> known about then they aren't a problem because they exist in countries
> not sympathetic to them, unlike Iraq. We know where they are, who they
> are e.t.c. The threat is the unknown.
And Iraq is the unknown? It's time to get real, Belldandy, my man. We knew about the threat of Al-Qa'eda before 9/11, and yet we failed to act. If we know about them, they're going to stop being anti-Western, aren't they? Yep, that's what they'll do! Iraq will not have a hope in hell of defending itself against the American forces, so what are you suggesting, exactly? Iraq's going to lose any conflict against the over-powering Allies, so are you saying that they will?
> And don't forget the Church coming in on that as well for a bit of PR,
> when two leaders of institutions which have great difficulties dealing
> with their own members little misdemeanours - like child abuse for
> starters - I don't think they are qualified to lecture on morality
> somehow. And how come Saddam escapes all blame for civilian deaths ?
> Who is ordering his units into the civilian areas ? George Bush ? No,
> Saddam. But hey, thats okay because he's the enemy yeah ? And don't
> forget the human shield volunteers, I mean they do realise the lives
> they are endangering ? Not only our own personnel, but the Iraqi
> people as well. Why ? If you can't bomb it you have to assault it, and
> strangely guided bombs work better than unguided bullets.
How does Saddam escape all blame? You're one of those elite few, Belldandy, who refuse to see that theer are some people who are anti-war AND anti-Saddam. I hate Saddam, and would like to see him dead, for the Iraqi people. However, war will only lead to a civil war in the region, possibly producing someone even worse than Saddam. Have you seen his son? What about the rest of the Dirty Dozen, who will stand by Saddam till the end? How do we get rid of them? Randomly bombing Red Cross areas and other sanctuaries to the thousands of innocent people caught up in this pointless conflict? Yeah, that'll work - let the dictator and his chums get away while we bomb hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. I still can't see why human life is dispensible in a situation like this? Why should so many people die just so Bush can have the oil and set up a puppet government? And the bombs are only marginally safer than the bullets, has proved by the Kosovo conflict.
> Because, as anyone who knows any history of the region would tell you,
> we sold them to prop up Saddam's regime and chances of hurting Iran
> badly. Lacking the crystal ball you obviously have, no one knew how
> the future would turn out.
I realise that we were backing Saddam against the Ayatollah, and so we gave him weapons. I realise that, and that's fine, but what about the years after the Iran-Iraq war, when Western companies insisted to supply Iraq with weapons? This is backed up by facts taken away by America in the printing of the UN's documents detailing the history of this problem.
> Ah yes, the usual "its all a big conspiracy by the evil
> capitalist mega corps" theory. Where is the proof ? Oh, in yours
> and others heads.
A big conspiracy? What's a conspiracy about it? It's plain and simple, the companies supplied a nation that the government officially hated with weapons and agents used to make these weapons. Unfortunately, the proof now lies somewhere in the White House or Capitol Hill, as the Americans decided to omit the 8000 pages of companies who gave these weapons to Iraq.
> Well if you even knew any of the history it might help explain the
> weapons selling things yknow ? As far as I see it you're basically
> defending the Iraqi regime, who has pursued military expansion and
> development at the cost of it's own people. If you seriously think a
> country with Iraq's probems really needs WMDs then I'm speechless.
The whole point is that Iraq doesn't need these weapons, and yet American and British companies continue to supply Iraq with them. However, if you can remove the leader peacefully, then you eliminate the threat of them using the weapons, don't you? I'm not defending the Iraqi regime, as I said eariler, but I'm attacking the American regime.
> Oh get real, have you seen the size of one of those ? Do you know
> anything at all about how they are launched ? You cannot just sell one
> to a group and it will go unnoticed, and I don't see why Goatboy wants
> this answering because its just plain daft ! The heat bloom from
> prelaunch would give them away anyway, and any country with them in
> could not hide it and would swiftly be a dead nation, as every country
> on this earth knows.
Sadly Belldandy, you have that common misconception that terrorists are only small bands of people in a network. Terrorists can easily be the government of a country, or just a big group. Terrorists of this nature couldn't care less about giving themselves away, so the heat wouldn't be of concern to them. They're willing to sacrifice themselves, so we'd do best to concentrate on getting rid of the ones we know about rather than go after Saddam, who only cares about himself staying in power. Even so, North Korea is more of a target than Iraq should be. They live in a bizarre world, where the public have no knowledge of what really goes on. North Koreans are in a far worse state than Iraqis as far as actual freedom goes - people from N Korea have to escape the country, but it's far easier for Iraqis to flee their country, so in terms of morality we should help the N Koreans.
> Pure fantasy and rubbish, the reason they are starving is because the
> cash is going into the military, as well as overpopulation and other
> things. The cash from one missile would not even dent the problem,
> plus the missile itself would trace right back to N.Korea, which
> cannot withstand the response that would bring.
Do you think the North Korean leaders care about the people? No, the leaders want the money for thenmselves, so the money from one missile would actually go some lengths to helping them financially. And if America is so worried about Iraq getting their hands on other weapons like this, why not go after the source? Oh no, we can't do that, it breaks tradition, doesn't it? Let's attack a Muslim country pre-emptively to stamp out that nasty Islamic terrorism, shall we? Yes, we'll automatically get rid of all those evil groups hell-bent on destroying America if we attack them with no actual provocation! Idiotic proposals, really.
> I stand by my original comments.
Oh really?
--bWo--
LL Cọ́L †† wrote:
> Wait a second, what about those camps in Indonesia? What about the
> cells stationed in Hamburg, Rome, Florence and even those on Britain
> and America? The cells which various intelligence agencies have
> information on and could easily be shut down? You only seem to be
> concentrating on the easiest target, Iraq, which knows that it cannot
> really defend itself. Pick on the little guy while ignoring all the
> other problems in the world, is that it?
Yes, I'm sure Indonesia and any of the above could resist the might of the US and allied military..get real. If the cells in question are known about then they aren't a problem because they exist in countries not sympathetic to them, unlike Iraq. We know where they are, who they are e.t.c. The threat is the unknown.
> Of course it is. Everyone
> knows how evil Saddam is, so don't think that you're the greatest
> because you know what Saddam's like. But that doesn't seem to be on
> the American's agenda lately. The American stance has changed over
> the weeks leading up to the inevitable first strike by America on Iraq
> - it's only recently that they've decided it's a moral decision to
> kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to try and establish a puppet
> governemnt in Iraq, which they have already admitted that they will.
And don't forget the Church coming in on that as well for a bit of PR, when two leaders of institutions which have great difficulties dealing with their own members little misdemeanours - like child abuse for starters - I don't think they are qualified to lecture on morality somehow. And how come Saddam escapes all blame for civilian deaths ? Who is ordering his units into the civilian areas ? George Bush ? No, Saddam. But hey, thats okay because he's the enemy yeah ? And don't forget the human shield volunteers, I mean they do realise the lives they are endangering ? Not only our own personnel, but the Iraqi people as well. Why ? If you can't bomb it you have to assault it, and strangely guided bombs work better than unguided bullets.
> I've got to give it to you Belldandy, that's one hell of a way of
> defending all the Western companies who sold these weapons and agents
> to Iraq! Sell them these weapons so we can destroy them later! What
> a FANTASTIC idea, and think of all the benefits for all concerned!
> (Note to Belldandy: SARCASM) Explain for us all, Belldandy, exactly
> why we would sell these weapons to Iraq if we were only going to
> destroy them at a later date? Are you trying to take the Iraqis for
> fools?
Because, as anyone who knows any history of the region would tell you, we sold them to prop up Saddam's regime and chances of hurting Iran badly. Lacking the crystal ball you obviously have, no one knew how the future would turn out.
>I doubt it, but if they were, this would come back to the
> issue of respect for others. However, a far more likely reason is
> that the governments of both Britain and America were shown up as
> being incumbent in trying to control their corporations, and so they
> sent out a message rather similar to yours to make it seem as though
> they knew all the time.
Ah yes, the usual "its all a big conspiracy by the evil capitalist mega corps" theory. Where is the proof ? Oh, in yours and others heads.
> Why would we let this alleged rogue nation
> have weapons of any kind? Is it because every nation has the right to
> defend itself? But America wants to take this right away from Iraq so
> they can control the oil there, or whatever they say it is. Iraq is
> dangerous, and so shouldn't have any WOMDs, but this method of
> defending our companies selling these weapons to Iraq is woeful in
> every sense.
Well if you even knew any of the history it might help explain the weapons selling things yknow ? As far as I see it you're basically defending the Iraqi regime, who has pursued military expansion and development at the cost of it's own people. If you seriously think a country with Iraq's probems really needs WMDs then I'm speechless.
> Earlier you said that I was a moron for believing that North Korea
> could sell its Taepondong II missile. Why do you say this? Yet
> another pre-emptive strike really, wasn't it? North Korea's more than
> willing to sell, and there are terrorists who definitely want to buy.
Oh get real, have you seen the size of one of those ? Do you know anything at all about how they are launched ? You cannot just sell one to a group and it will go unnoticed, and I don't see why Goatboy wants this answering because its just plain daft ! The heat bloom from prelaunch would give them away anyway, and any country with them in could not hide it and would swiftly be a dead nation, as every country on this earth knows.
> North Korea is starving, and will do anything it can for money of some
> sort. There are definitely some groups who would sacrifice entire
> squads of their 'troops' to get their hands on this long-range
> missile, so the threat is there. And yet you call me a moron? Relate
> that to the last quoted paragraph of yours, and try to learn
> something, mate.
Pure fantasy and rubbish, the reason they are starving is because the cash is going into the military, as well as overpopulation and other things. The cash from one missile would not even dent the problem, plus the missile itself would trace right back to N.Korea, which cannot withstand the response that would bring.
I stand by my original comments.
~~Belldandy~~
> Wait a second, what about those camps in Indonesia? What about the
> cells stationed in Hamburg, Rome, Florence and even those on Britain
> and America? The cells which various intelligence agencies have
> information on and could easily be shut down? You only seem to be
> concentrating on the easiest target, Iraq, which knows that it cannot
> really defend itself. Pick on the little guy while ignoring all the
> other problems in the world, is that it?
Yes, I'm sure Indonesia and any of the above could resist the might of the US and allied military..get real. If the cells in question are known about then they aren't a problem because they exist in countries not sympathetic to them, unlike Iraq. We know where they are, who they are e.t.c. The threat is the unknown.
> Of course it is. Everyone
> knows how evil Saddam is, so don't think that you're the greatest
> because you know what Saddam's like. But that doesn't seem to be on
> the American's agenda lately. The American stance has changed over
> the weeks leading up to the inevitable first strike by America on Iraq
> - it's only recently that they've decided it's a moral decision to
> kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to try and establish a puppet
> governemnt in Iraq, which they have already admitted that they will.
And don't forget the Church coming in on that as well for a bit of PR, when two leaders of institutions which have great difficulties dealing with their own members little misdemeanours - like child abuse for starters - I don't think they are qualified to lecture on morality somehow. And how come Saddam escapes all blame for civilian deaths ? Who is ordering his units into the civilian areas ? George Bush ? No, Saddam. But hey, thats okay because he's the enemy yeah ? And don't forget the human shield volunteers, I mean they do realise the lives they are endangering ? Not only our own personnel, but the Iraqi people as well. Why ? If you can't bomb it you have to assault it, and strangely guided bombs work better than unguided bullets.
> I've got to give it to you Belldandy, that's one hell of a way of
> defending all the Western companies who sold these weapons and agents
> to Iraq! Sell them these weapons so we can destroy them later! What
> a FANTASTIC idea, and think of all the benefits for all concerned!
> (Note to Belldandy: SARCASM) Explain for us all, Belldandy, exactly
> why we would sell these weapons to Iraq if we were only going to
> destroy them at a later date? Are you trying to take the Iraqis for
> fools?
Because, as anyone who knows any history of the region would tell you, we sold them to prop up Saddam's regime and chances of hurting Iran badly. Lacking the crystal ball you obviously have, no one knew how the future would turn out.
>I doubt it, but if they were, this would come back to the
> issue of respect for others. However, a far more likely reason is
> that the governments of both Britain and America were shown up as
> being incumbent in trying to control their corporations, and so they
> sent out a message rather similar to yours to make it seem as though
> they knew all the time.
Ah yes, the usual "its all a big conspiracy by the evil capitalist mega corps" theory. Where is the proof ? Oh, in yours and others heads.
> Why would we let this alleged rogue nation
> have weapons of any kind? Is it because every nation has the right to
> defend itself? But America wants to take this right away from Iraq so
> they can control the oil there, or whatever they say it is. Iraq is
> dangerous, and so shouldn't have any WOMDs, but this method of
> defending our companies selling these weapons to Iraq is woeful in
> every sense.
Well if you even knew any of the history it might help explain the weapons selling things yknow ? As far as I see it you're basically defending the Iraqi regime, who has pursued military expansion and development at the cost of it's own people. If you seriously think a country with Iraq's probems really needs WMDs then I'm speechless.
> Earlier you said that I was a moron for believing that North Korea
> could sell its Taepondong II missile. Why do you say this? Yet
> another pre-emptive strike really, wasn't it? North Korea's more than
> willing to sell, and there are terrorists who definitely want to buy.
Oh get real, have you seen the size of one of those ? Do you know anything at all about how they are launched ? You cannot just sell one to a group and it will go unnoticed, and I don't see why Goatboy wants this answering because its just plain daft ! The heat bloom from prelaunch would give them away anyway, and any country with them in could not hide it and would swiftly be a dead nation, as every country on this earth knows.
> North Korea is starving, and will do anything it can for money of some
> sort. There are definitely some groups who would sacrifice entire
> squads of their 'troops' to get their hands on this long-range
> missile, so the threat is there. And yet you call me a moron? Relate
> that to the last quoted paragraph of yours, and try to learn
> something, mate.
Pure fantasy and rubbish, the reason they are starving is because the cash is going into the military, as well as overpopulation and other things. The cash from one missile would not even dent the problem, plus the missile itself would trace right back to N.Korea, which cannot withstand the response that would bring.
I stand by my original comments.
~~Belldandy~~
But we knew it would be that way, though, didn't we, Goatboy?
Nice to see that Mr Dandy has sidestepped LL and Unknown's questions.
Oh good you're arguing again!
½pint wrote:
> Blank wrote:
> If we can't have marijuana I don't see why they should be allowed
> it....
>
> *medicine*
That's what is known as in the industry as "a joke". Granted, not a very good one, but it appeared and I shared it.
> Blank wrote:
> If we can't have marijuana I don't see why they should be allowed
> it....
>
> *medicine*
That's what is known as in the industry as "a joke". Granted, not a very good one, but it appeared and I shared it.
Light wrote:
> So then Bell; any chance of a response to my original question, or are
> you going to post a few more insults and hope that I'll be so put off
> by them that I'll drop the subject or forget what the original topic
> was?
What on earth was your original question oh pedantic one ?
Though if it relates to Iraq I think it rather pointless because certain things have been set in motion...
~~Belldandy~~
> So then Bell; any chance of a response to my original question, or are
> you going to post a few more insults and hope that I'll be so put off
> by them that I'll drop the subject or forget what the original topic
> was?
What on earth was your original question oh pedantic one ?
Though if it relates to Iraq I think it rather pointless because certain things have been set in motion...
~~Belldandy~~
The thing is Bell...oh, hang on a minute...
~reads posts in response to your little tirade~
Oh. Looks like everything I was going to say has been said.
So then Bell; any chance of a response to my original question, or are you going to post a few more insults and hope that I'll be so put off by them that I'll drop the subject or forget what the original topic was?
~reads posts in response to your little tirade~
Oh. Looks like everything I was going to say has been said.
So then Bell; any chance of a response to my original question, or are you going to post a few more insults and hope that I'll be so put off by them that I'll drop the subject or forget what the original topic was?
Page: