The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Who'd be Dubya's enemy?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/ 0,12271,1082149,00.html
Just so we can all have a taste of how Dubya will treat any nation, ANY nation, that is not the US.
Coupled with yesterday's story about how he is trying to block compensation for his own army, we can start to see how Dubya is nothing more than a corrupt thief, interested only in keeping the profits for his business buddies as high as possible.
I'm sure there is an alternate explaination, and I'd like to hear it from someone; Bell's only response to this accusations seems to be "No he isn't doing that" before changing the subject.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/ 0,12271,1082149,00.html
Just so we can all have a taste of how Dubya will treat any nation, ANY nation, that is not the US.
Coupled with yesterday's story about how he is trying to block compensation for his own army, we can start to see how Dubya is nothing more than a corrupt thief, interested only in keeping the profits for his business buddies as high as possible.
I'm sure there is an alternate explaination, and I'd like to hear it from someone; Bell's only response to this accusations seems to be "No he isn't doing that" before changing the subject.
> Belldandy wrote:
> And I care about trade wars because ?
>
> Dunno; you tell me. You're the one who felt moved to post a comment
> here.
I notice you avoided this part of the post Bell. Tell me, do you think that if you cut a comment out of one of your posts, no-one can scroll down and see what points you run away from?
Not only a coward, but a stupid coward at that.
Oh, and it's not just your pro-war stance that leads me to conclude that you're a bloodthirsty little dogfelcher. It's your joy at the prospect of the next 50 years being taken up with terrorist attacks on 'soft' targets. And your ambivalence about the deaths of people during this stupid war. And your hypocrisy about being concerned about the deaths on 9/11. And your belief (which you yourself posted) that war and violence is the ONLY solution to terrorism. Hell, even the Pentagon try to make out that it's their last resort; it's your first resort.
Oh, and my apologies for not getting your war game of choice right; I should have remembered that you're a big fan of HALO.
> And I care about trade wars because ?
>
> Dunno; you tell me. You're the one who felt moved to post a comment
> here.
I notice you avoided this part of the post Bell. Tell me, do you think that if you cut a comment out of one of your posts, no-one can scroll down and see what points you run away from?
Not only a coward, but a stupid coward at that.
Oh, and it's not just your pro-war stance that leads me to conclude that you're a bloodthirsty little dogfelcher. It's your joy at the prospect of the next 50 years being taken up with terrorist attacks on 'soft' targets. And your ambivalence about the deaths of people during this stupid war. And your hypocrisy about being concerned about the deaths on 9/11. And your belief (which you yourself posted) that war and violence is the ONLY solution to terrorism. Hell, even the Pentagon try to make out that it's their last resort; it's your first resort.
Oh, and my apologies for not getting your war game of choice right; I should have remembered that you're a big fan of HALO.
Belldandy wrote:
> Typical of someone like you and your kind, you assume that just
> because people support taking action that they enjoy a good old war.
> Well that shows how stupid you are.
So that would nothing like you and your kind that have said anybody that was against the war was pro-Saddam then?
And it certainly wouldn't be anything like...well...your statement that anybody who marched in protest might as well have been a member of the communist party?
Or would it be anything like...well, you again I'm afraid...that assumed because "my kind" was against the war, we were pacifists?
> And who play's C&C anymore ? It's not even decent, even Generals
> was crap, though I guessed you (like the media) missed the wit, irony
> and general sarcasm in the game eh ?
Oh THIS I would like explaining please.
I haven't played C&C Generals, it's not my sort of game. But I did read the reviews showing concern about the content.
So in what way is it witty, ironic and sarcastic?
And if that is the case, why would you like it - these are qualities sorely lacking in your Dr Strangelove existence.
And the "jimjams" comment was funny.
That is wit, irony and sarcasm.
> Typical of someone like you and your kind, you assume that just
> because people support taking action that they enjoy a good old war.
> Well that shows how stupid you are.
So that would nothing like you and your kind that have said anybody that was against the war was pro-Saddam then?
And it certainly wouldn't be anything like...well...your statement that anybody who marched in protest might as well have been a member of the communist party?
Or would it be anything like...well, you again I'm afraid...that assumed because "my kind" was against the war, we were pacifists?
> And who play's C&C anymore ? It's not even decent, even Generals
> was crap, though I guessed you (like the media) missed the wit, irony
> and general sarcasm in the game eh ?
Oh THIS I would like explaining please.
I haven't played C&C Generals, it's not my sort of game. But I did read the reviews showing concern about the content.
So in what way is it witty, ironic and sarcastic?
And if that is the case, why would you like it - these are qualities sorely lacking in your Dr Strangelove existence.
And the "jimjams" comment was funny.
That is wit, irony and sarcasm.
Light wrote:
> Yeah, you don't care about wars unless they involve people dying, do
> you? After all, then you can pretend it's you controlling all the
> soldiers the next time you sit in your jimjams playing C&C.
Whatever you want to think go ahead and think it.
Typical of someone like you and your kind, you assume that just because people support taking action that they enjoy a good old war. Well that shows how stupid you are.
And who play's C&C anymore ? It's not even decent, even Generals was crap, though I guessed you (like the media) missed the wit, irony and general sarcasm in the game eh ?
Actually for strategy games, the Sudden Strike series is pretty good as far as semi-realism goes.
> Yeah, you don't care about wars unless they involve people dying, do
> you? After all, then you can pretend it's you controlling all the
> soldiers the next time you sit in your jimjams playing C&C.
Whatever you want to think go ahead and think it.
Typical of someone like you and your kind, you assume that just because people support taking action that they enjoy a good old war. Well that shows how stupid you are.
And who play's C&C anymore ? It's not even decent, even Generals was crap, though I guessed you (like the media) missed the wit, irony and general sarcasm in the game eh ?
Actually for strategy games, the Sudden Strike series is pretty good as far as semi-realism goes.
Lol. I can see it now - Bell and Goaty fighting for the souls of 30 school kids...
The story did make me think of something though. Over recent months (and years) (well, since reading 'the prince') I've noticed how machiavellian most western governments, especially the US, really are in their policies.
But I'd not given much thought to how machiavelli insists leaders should treat their 'allies'.
And with Blair's 'special relationship' we must be the easiest pawn to control.
The story did make me think of something though. Over recent months (and years) (well, since reading 'the prince') I've noticed how machiavellian most western governments, especially the US, really are in their policies.
But I'd not given much thought to how machiavelli insists leaders should treat their 'allies'.
And with Blair's 'special relationship' we must be the easiest pawn to control.
Bane wrote:
> *looks at watch*
>
> School's out then?
Heh. I just had one awful, awful feeling there; maybe Bell is a teacher, not a student! Now there is an image to play with...
> *looks at watch*
>
> School's out then?
Heh. I just had one awful, awful feeling there; maybe Bell is a teacher, not a student! Now there is an image to play with...
Belldandy wrote:
> And I care about trade wars because ?
Dunno; you tell me. You're the one who felt moved to post a comment here.
>
> Seriously, unless it's orientated around something I buy I don't
> really care.
Yeah, you don't care about wars unless they involve people dying, do you? After all, then you can pretend it's you controlling all the soldiers the next time you sit in your jimjams playing C&C.
> And I care about trade wars because ?
Dunno; you tell me. You're the one who felt moved to post a comment here.
>
> Seriously, unless it's orientated around something I buy I don't
> really care.
Yeah, you don't care about wars unless they involve people dying, do you? After all, then you can pretend it's you controlling all the soldiers the next time you sit in your jimjams playing C&C.
*looks at watch*
School's out then?
School's out then?
And I care about trade wars because ?
Seriously, unless it's orientated around something I buy I don't really care.
Seriously, unless it's orientated around something I buy I don't really care.
I liked this paragraph:
"EU sanctions will come in the form of higher import tariffs on a range of US goods such as Harley-Davidson motorcycles and Ray-Ban sunglasses. They will see many US goods priced out of the European market and have been calculated to inflict maximum pain upon US manufacturers based in "swing states" whose support will be crucial for Mr Bush's re-election campaign next year. "
'Calculated to inflict maximum pain'
SUFFFFFEEERRRRR you american dogs! etc.
"EU sanctions will come in the form of higher import tariffs on a range of US goods such as Harley-Davidson motorcycles and Ray-Ban sunglasses. They will see many US goods priced out of the European market and have been calculated to inflict maximum pain upon US manufacturers based in "swing states" whose support will be crucial for Mr Bush's re-election campaign next year. "
'Calculated to inflict maximum pain'
SUFFFFFEEERRRRR you american dogs! etc.
Who'd be Dubya's enemy?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/ 0,12271,1082149,00.html
Just so we can all have a taste of how Dubya will treat any nation, ANY nation, that is not the US.
Coupled with yesterday's story about how he is trying to block compensation for his own army, we can start to see how Dubya is nothing more than a corrupt thief, interested only in keeping the profits for his business buddies as high as possible.
I'm sure there is an alternate explaination, and I'd like to hear it from someone; Bell's only response to this accusations seems to be "No he isn't doing that" before changing the subject.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/ 0,12271,1082149,00.html
Just so we can all have a taste of how Dubya will treat any nation, ANY nation, that is not the US.
Coupled with yesterday's story about how he is trying to block compensation for his own army, we can start to see how Dubya is nothing more than a corrupt thief, interested only in keeping the profits for his business buddies as high as possible.
I'm sure there is an alternate explaination, and I'd like to hear it from someone; Bell's only response to this accusations seems to be "No he isn't doing that" before changing the subject.