Neowin.net

Boy you are really eating up the propaganda put out by the Democratic party. You really think it's bad now? Look at the Carter administration in the late 70s. For some reason, Democrats, and the ilk, tend to forget that period of time.

Last edited by 1734 on 30 Jan 2003 - 07:40

P.S. You might want to find some new material to spew. That line about "the worst economy in 50 years" is so 1991. That was the same line used by Clinton when he ran against George Bush, referring to the Bush and Reagan economies.

People tend to forget (or don't want to believe the facts) that the current problems with the economy started well within the last year or so of Clinton's term. Many of the problems that this country currently face are a direct result of Clinton's policies (or lack there of).

wtf... Clinton only helped technology.... the Market during Clinton's year broke records almost every other day. You are in a definite minority on this one. The majority of the world believes that Bush is an idiot who is just finishing up what his dad started. He will not be re-elected in 2004... I can guarentee that.

The Clinton administration had more positive affects then the Bush "administration" most likely ever will. At least Clinton can talk without making words up or mis-pronouncing words........ More proof that presidency doesn't require much intelligence, especially in Bush's case.

The fact of the matter is, we were well into a recession two years before Clinton's administration ended. It wasn't till he got out of office that they finally admitted to fudging the books by well over 30%. The goal: Help Gore get elected. If they revealed that the economy was doing so badly, Gore wouldn't have stood a chance. Eric, you're proof that liberals can't properly argue ideas without resorting to baseless slander. Fact: GW got over 1200 on his SATs. He is in no way a stupid man.

Yvo, ya the tech industry did make leaps and bounds during the Clinton era. Whether that had anything to do with Clinton's policies is debatable. The fact is though, one of the reasons why we were in a recession is because the tech industry, that had such huge and unprecedented growth in the 90s, fizzled. This caused the Stock Market to take a huge drop at the end of the 90s. The fact is, the Stock Market is growing and a more sustainable rate now, and we have been out of the recession for a while now. The economy is still struggling, but things are a lot better than the were at the end of the Clinton administration and the very beginning of the Bush administration.

P.S. Who gives a flying flip what the world thinks. We are the United States, not some state of a World Union that has to bow to the opinion of the majority. The majority of which couldn't stand up for themselves if they tried. The UN is impotent, the fact is that Saddam know this and is counting on it. If we weren't there to prod them into enforcing their own resolutions and treaties (which Saddam signed and has Never honored), the UN and the majority of it's member nations would be content to let Saddam do what ever he wanted. This inherent complacency is the main reason why the League of Nations (the UN's predecessor) failed and disbanded. History examples from the demise of the League of Nations: Ethiopia was being invaded by Italians. Ethiopia appealed to the LoN to lend help as dictated by its charter. France, among other nations, decided that Ethiopia wasn't worth helping. Months later, France was overrun by Nazi tanks. Irony.

[quote]P.S. Who gives a flying flip what the world thinks. We are the United States[/quote] 100 years ago that would of been: "Who gives a flying flip what the world thinks. We are the United Kingdom." but then even Americans are ignorant to history, even recent history. PS: ignorance is bliss wouldn't you say?

Oh wise one Enlighten use humble Americans as to why the UK should have said that in 1902? Could you be referring to opposition to the UKs colonial hold on a number of nations around the world? I don't see how that is relevant to today's situation. As for ignorance being bliss, you'll have to enlighten me as to the answer to that question. I've always loved history. P.S. I tend to like the UK. They don't give in like the rest of Europe. And when they do, they are quick to realize their mistake.

The UK are wimps at times, they are trying to play the best of both worlds with Europe and the United States, we see it a lot that they sit on the sidelines. By the way, I'm from the UK

[neoquote=#2.3 by KNIGHT]The fact of the matter is, we were well into a recession two years before Clinton's administration ended. It wasn't till he got out of office that they finally admitted to fudging the books by well over 30%. The goal: Help Gore get elected. If they revealed that the economy was doing so badly, Gore wouldn't have stood a chance. Eric, you're proof that liberals can't properly argue ideas without resorting to baseless slander. Fact: GW got over 1200 on his SATs. He is in no way a stupid man.[/neoquote] Guess you did not read todays news. The GDP dropped and unemployment is higher again. People and business are not spending because of Dubya's continued war mongering! Or is that Clinton's fault too?

[neoquote=#2.3 by KNIGHT]The fact of the matter is, we were well into a recession two years before Clinton's administration ended. It wasn't till he got out of office that they finally admitted to fudging the books by well over 30%. The goal: Help Gore get elected. If they revealed that the economy was doing so badly, Gore wouldn't have stood a chance. Eric, you're proof that liberals can't properly argue ideas without resorting to baseless slander. Fact: GW got over 1200 on his SATs. He is in no way a stupid man.[/neoquote] Now thats something I haven't heard before, supposedly I'm liberal. Thats funny. Baseless slander you say? Test scores are one thing, acutal intelligence is another. Some people simply test a lot better then most. Amusing how somone so "intelligent" cannot even pronounce simple words like strategy, or makes up words like "resignate" and "exemplarary" or "analyzation." Not a stupid man? Sure isn't too bright.

So Eric, when you talk to someone, you never have a problem with words sometimes getting mixed up on their way out your mouth? Wow, you must be a super man, 'cause I know a lot of people that have that problem. That doesn't make them stupid, does it? I'm sorry, it's laughable that you think that someone that periodically has a speech impediment is stupid. As to you being a liberal, you sure sound like one when you use baseless slander Chick, the economy and unemployment flucktuate all the time. Up one day, down another. What we in the real world (unlike those who are constently looking for the negative) do is look at the economy overall, and overall the economy is growing. Oh ya, and you tink that unemployment is high? I can remember when the unemployment rate was well over 15% and inflation was up as high as 20% (the late 70s). As it stands now, unemployment is currently about 6% (give or take a few .1%) and inflation is about 3%. Sound pretty good. Shoot, unemployment was higher during Clinton's first administration.

Bush doesn't have any documented & diagnosed speech impediment. I know people that do have a diagnosed speech impediment, and they aren't stupid at all. Bush just sucks when it comes to (among other things) public speaking apparently. You'd think that the President of the U.S. would have taken a public speaking class or two, back when he got that 1200 SAT, if he did take public speaking, you sure can't tell it. You'd also think that his aides & PR people would work on his speech skills. Guess not. You think I'm liberal just by reading one or two postings from me? Hmm....not exactly an accurate way of determining someones political affiliations. You could give Ms. Cleo a run for her money in the bs department.

Last edited by 7725 on 30 Jan 2003 - 20:50

Clinical or not, he has a speech impediment. Still doesn't mean he's stupid. As for public speaking, some are better at it than others. Still doesn't make him stupid. As for working on his speech skills, I'd say he is doing pretty good. You didn't watch the State of the Union address did you? Maybe you're not a liberal, but your constant slander of Bush means that are one or you have bought into the Democrat's propaganda against Bush. I find it pitiful that you think someone who sometimes has problems speaking in public is somehow stupid. Instead of arguing issues, you slander him.

I was referring, mostly to the State of the Union address, in regard to his speech skills. His speech skills would improve if he spent more time on it, I bet. He reminds me of someone at my high school, who whenever he was making an announcement, he would use the word "Uhh" every 10 seconds, and he wasn't an idiot. My public speaking teacher liked to keep track of how many times he (the person Bush reminds me of) said "Uhh" during the announcements. It was quite a high number, a result of poor public speaking skills. Slander? Slander is something that is factually incorrect, and as far as I know, it's not been proven that he's a genius, nor an idiot (I'll grant you that).

You must have been watching a different State of the Union than I was. I thought he did very well. The slander comes into play when you use one thing to prove another. Using his speech to imply stupidity is slander because it is factually false. As for being a genius? Never claimed he was, but he is anything but an idiot (glad you agree).

Yes hmm.....that must have been another countries State of the Union I was watching........I doubt it. He did better in it, but of course their were several mistakes....etc. Besides, he didn't entirely write that speech anyway, he just read it aloud to the public. His aides & advisors likely did most of the work on it. Using one thing to prove another is also commonly called "circular logic" too. Slander would be the wrong word to use. Your right, you never said he was a genius. Anyway, this has been a thrilling debate. I try to stay away from such postings usually, lol.

[neoquote=#2.11 by KNIGHT]So Eric, when you talk to someone, you never have a problem with words sometimes getting mixed up on their way out your mouth? Wow, you must be a super man, 'cause I know a lot of people that have that problem. That doesn't make them stupid, does it? I'm sorry, it's laughable that you think that someone that periodically has a speech impediment is stupid. As to you being a liberal, you sure sound like one when you use baseless slander Chick, the economy and unemployment flucktuate all the time. Up one day, down another. What we in the real world (unlike those who are constently looking for the negative) do is look at the economy overall, and overall the economy is growing. Oh ya, and you tink that unemployment is high? I can remember when the unemployment rate was well over 15% and inflation was up as high as 20% (the late 70s). As it stands now, unemployment is currently about 6% (give or take a few .1%) and inflation is about 3%. Sound pretty good. Shoot, unemployment was higher during Clinton's first administration.[/neoquote] Kinght, Have to say that you are right the unemployment was very high at the beginning of Clinton's administration. He inherited from Daddy Bush who did not get elected again because of what he did to the economy. Remember, "it's the economy, stupid"! Clinton fixed the economy and left us with so much money in the bank that Dubya just had to spend on, "TAX Relief" until know we are facing a tremendous deficit and once again he wants tax cuts for the very rich. Funny thing about those economic fluctuations. The RepubliKlans would like to believe that they are good for the markets and the economy but as Slate pointed out the Democrats are much better for the stock market than Republicans. Slate ran the numbers and found that since 1900, Democratic presidents have produced a 12.3 percent annual total return on the S&P 500, but Republicans only an 8 percent return. In 2000, the Stock Trader's Almanac, which slices and dices Wall Street performance figures like baseball stats, came up with nearly the same numbers (13.4 percent versus 8.1 percent) by measuring Dow price appreciation. (Most of the 20th century's bear markets, incidentally, have been Republican bear markets: the Crash of '29, the early '70s oil shock, the '87 correction, and the current stall occurred under GOP presidents.) You and your RepubliKlans are no doubt muttering that that's just the stock market, not the whole economy. But real GDP growth follows the same pattern. Since 1930 (the first year decent data is available), GDP growth was 5.4 percent for Democratic presidents and 1.6 percent for Republicans. Wonder what it would take to get a Clinton back in the White House!

Unemployment was higher during Clinton's first administration, but not that much higher. I seem to remember Clinton's answer was to create jobs. Government jobs. Then he stuck the local municipalities with the bill and most of those new jobs were terminated after federal funding ran out. The economy did pretty well under Clinton, some of that was because of Clinton, some of that was in spite of Clinton, and some of that was because of the Republican controlled Congress. I also seem to remember that Clinton said the budget couldn't be balanced till 2010. The Republican's did it in less than 2 years, and started paying back the national debt (most of which can't be paid back yet). I wonder. Could that have something to do with how well the economy was doing in the 90s. Your numbers are compelling, but by adding one little know fact you've proved you don't know what you're talking about. During most of those administration, who was in charge of Congress (the body with the real responsibility) and who makes up 90% of the Bureaucratic structure of our government? The Democrats. The Presidents only real power, when it comes to the economy, is the Bully Pulpit. The President can make suggestions, and present bills for consideration. It hasn't been until the 90s that the Republicans have controlled Congress. The problem we have had is that when a Republican was in office, the Democrats controlled Congress, and when a Democrat was in office, the Republicans were lucky to control either the House or the Senate, not both (till the 90s). Now you tell me, doesn't it make sense that the Democrats would try to make things worse when a Republican is in office and better when they are in office? I sure think so, and history tends to agree. A Clinton will never be elected to the White House again. P.S. I also find it amusing that you call the Republicans the RepubliKlans. For those that don't get it, he is insinuating that Republicans are racist by nature. The truth is, the Republicans backed the Civil Rights Act. LBJ stated that if it hadn't been for the Republicans, it never would have been passed. Why? Because of members of his own party that were Segregationists and Racists. Some of which temporarily broke off and formed the Dixicrats (a party devoted to Segregation). Didn't you know that you had an active member of the KKK leading the Democratic party well into the 80s? Didn't you know that Clinton was sued by the NAACP because he wasn't enforcing Civil Rights laws in Arkansas? Need I go on? Just because we believe that Affirmative Action (though needed in the beginning) is a racist policy, doesn't mean that we are racists. Nice try though. Typical though, if you can't make a case, resort to slander and name calling. The problem with that is the American people are catching onto that tactic.

If Republicans are so pro-rights and not racist......explain why most African Americans are Democrats? Kinda blows a hole in your argument, doesn't it?

Knight, Since you asked, Again from a recent Slate article which I am certain a good RepubliKlan would never read unless it was picked up by FOX! Having a Republican Congress does not help the market. A Democratic Senate showed returns of 10.5 percent (versus 9.4 percent for a GOP upper chamber), and a Democratic House returned 10.9 percent versus 8.1 percent for the Republicans. When both houses of Congress opposed the president, the return was a stellar 12.9 percent. Libertarians may celebrate this as proof that the market likes gridlock and government inaction. But the market likes steamrollers nearly as much: The S&P performs almost as well, ”returning 11.8 percent ”when the presidency and both houses are held by the same party. The only situation Mr. Market dislikes is what we one house for each party. Those years have a -0.9 percent return. Right now the RepubliKlans control everything so I ask you if Dubya's actions are not tanking the market in spite of all the statistics then what is? May I offer the rest of the article to help you. There may be all sorts of explanations for the bias of the economy and the markets toward Democrats. The worst years of the Great Depression occurred under Republican Herbert Hoover, and Democrats got credit for the entire recovery. Democrats had some awfully good streaks of peace and prosperity in the '30s, late '40s, and '90s. These could be chance, or it could be that Democrats more tightly regulate the markets, which gives investors confidence. Democrats are more likely to spread the wealth around through public spending on education or transportation, which may stimulate the economy more broadly. The foundation of recent GOP economic policy tax cuts may offer narrower benefits than Republicans claim. High defense spending, another GOP hallmark, may only boost one sector while hurting the whole economy in the form of bigger federal deficits and higher interest rates. Whatever the reasons for it, this Democratic dividend should encourage the party's 2004 presidential contenders. They have a new slogan to run on: Democrats the party of Wall Street. As far as RepubliKlan's views on racial equality are concerned maybe Trent Lott can help explain that to you! And now I have other things to attend to so I'll leave this thread to you. Have a nice life and may the RepubliKlan party repay your efforts on their behalf.

nicely said

Hey Canada, it would be a matter of time before someone comes knocking on your country's door and blows something up, if we didn't build those bombs and take part in these affairs. I really wish we could keep to ourselves. Then, watch the rest of the world beg us to assist when they get hit by terrorists. Gee, I wish that could happen.

quanta, you missed one. We also spend near a Trillion dollars on social programs. briangw, it already did happen. It was called WW2.

Briangw, if America kept to itself, then others will fill the gap of power, most likely European countrys, but as it stands now, they don't need too.

Ya, and as it stand now, the only one that could do it is the UK. Verious other countries in the EU only spend a token amount on their military. Maybe that is why some of them are making a stink. Some of them figure the only way they can take part is to raise a stink, because they know they have very little to offer in military power. I seem to remember these same events before Desert Storm. France was raising a stink about how we shouldn't go into Iraq. Blah, blah, blah. But then, when we went in, they suddenly got on the band wagon and joined the cause. Mark my words, the same will happen now. As soon as we go in, nations that have been riding the fence and opposing the action will join in.

I think it is being presumptious to claim that the US is the defender of the world. By the way, Osama is the man he is today because the US paid him and his buddies $3 billion, and trained them in warfare to drive out them pinko Commies out of Afghanistan in 1989. But I do agree, Canada has a poor military presence. We just don't invest as much cash into it as the US. If you think that's money well spent, then fine. Anyways, I was merely pointing out that Americans, imho, seem so...confrontational. It's blacks vs. whites, Republicans vs. Democrats, Us vs. Them, "You are with us, or against us". Why get so worked up about the Elephant vs. the Donkey anyway? In the end, each president promises things he never delivers, raises taxes, bombs a few countries you can't even find on a map, and pads the wallets of the lobbyists. Can we go back to a debate that actually matters, like 9700 Pro vs. GeForce FX or something?

quanta, presumptuous maybe but very true. As for Osama being the man he is today, I'm sorry but we are not responsible for him. At one time we helped the Afghan people fight an invasion by the Russians, but that doesn't mean that any later action (positive or negative) by someone that may have received help from us is suddenly our fault. At one time we also helped Sadam, but his ruthlessness to his own people and his war mongering caused him to get on our bad side. As for confrontational? Some things are black and white. And in this trial that Sadam is in, just think of us as the prosecuting attorney. We have the evidence of crimes that Sadam has committed and we are fervently prosecuting the criminal. GeForce FX all the way

[neoquote=#3.7 by KNIGHT]quanta, presumptuous maybe but very true.[/neoquote] If this was truly the case, the US would have been in Haiti, or Rwanda, or Zaire. But they were/are not. But I don't get it, why are you people treating political parties like religions?! They're all the same: say nice things to make you vote for them, and that's pretty much it.

quanta, I can assure you were were in Haiti. and thanks to clinton's no Shoot policy lost a few of our own there without fireing back. One of them was my brothers best friend. El

quanta, sorry you don't get it. If you really believe something, you will fight for it. And not all politicians are the same. Some really do care (Democrats and Republicans) about our country, and others (Democrats and Republicans) just care about power and money.

No knight, you missed the point, I said they would fill the gap, meaning they would start spending more on the military if it was needed, Britain would just have one say in it, but as it stands, they don't need to spend. Quanta, Canada can't spend as much on the military as the US does, it would cost too much, they could do it but it's not a wise move to do it, the ones who could really do it and keep it up is the EU, remember, Russia went down because they didn't have the money, the EU have an economy simerly to the US.

George W. Bush, was born in New Haven, Conn., on July 6, 1946, and grew up in Midland, Texas. Never heard him claim to have been born in Texas. He did claim to have been raised in Texas.

It is known as a lie of omission and you should have read his earlier bios, before he got repeatedly called on it.

Have to take your word on it (or not).

[neoquote=#7.0 by newalloy]Well now, it looks like the US is getting a little start to being as wired as Canada, in particular Saskatchewan. Within the last two years, every little town imagineable has broadband internet,[/neoquote] :nods: SaskTel has moved heaven and earth to get broadband to the populace. In Ontario and Quebec, 75% of all households have access to 1Mbps ADSL. And many of them can even receive 3Mbps ADSL service. And it's cheap too (typically less than $30 US for 1500/128 connection). Hey, regardless of your political affiliation, more money on infrastructure = good.

Thats funny because most of the ignorance came from one of your posts which I replied too.

read my reply to your reply. As for ignorance coming from my post, you have yet to make a case for that. Try giving some background as to what you're talking about first. I have yet to see you prove that the US shouldn't make decisions for itself as apposed to making them based on what is being heralded as the majority opinion of the rest of the world. As I seem to remember, the UK backs us. Does it not?

Last edited by 1734 on 30 Jan 2003 - 09:58

knight, nice to see your still kicking. speading your stupidity as truth again i see. bush is nothing but a moron, he killed the economy and he just wants his war on sadam. as for his populatity, it is only the after match of terrorism. which btw is going south as we speak.

werejag, I'm glad to see that I'm a threat to you're way of thinking Question (I think you can handle it): How did Bush 'kill' the economy. We were in recession at the end of Clintons term, and have been slowly growing out of it cense Bush came into office. Wow, Bush is a moron? That must mean that anyone who scores 1200 on their SATs is a moron. For those who don't know what the SATs are, it is an aptitude test administered to High School students and is a requirement for Ivy League colleges (two of which bush attended, Harvard and Yale). "According to College Board figures, in recent years, fewer than 20 percent of all test takers achieved a math score of 600 or better. Fewer than 10 percent scored a 600 or higher on the verbal section." (see link bellow for ref). For those who can't do the math, 600 + 600 = 1200. George Bush scored at least 1200, making him anything but a moron. The absolute max on the SAT is 1600. As for 'his war on Sadam,' are you totally blind and deaf? What would you have us do? Wait for Sadam to use a nuke? Or better yet, should we play the same game with him that Europe played with Hitler? Thought: I just heard of a plan you might be interested in. There a bunch of people planning to go to Iraq and be human shields for Sadam. I'm sure they are still accepting people to go with them. Popularity is a fickle beast. Here one minute, gone the next. Democrats are counting on his popularity vaporizing. I guess only time will tell. As for terrorism. Last I checked we were doing pretty good (note: Sadam supports some of the terrorists that we are hunting). [url=http://www.kaptest.com/repository/templates/ArticleInitDroplet.jhtml?_relPath=/repository/content/College/SAT-PSAT/Test_Information/CO_sat_scoring.html&ProductId=]www.kaptest.com[/url]

Last edited by 1734 on 30 Jan 2003 - 11:54

I don't care to get involved in the political side of this argument, but for a student, 1200 is nothing to be proud of. If I knew someone who got a 1200, I would think they are just average, or maybe even below average, especially as a high school senior. Then again, the SAT isn't a very effective indicator of intelligence. The only intelligence you need for the presidency is the ability to use the information you have to make correct decisions.

Exactly, test scores are not a perfect intelligence indicator. "Ohh wow, I got a 1200 on my SAT, but can I spell strategy?"

I have a friend who got a 36 on his ACT, I still think he's an idiot. Just because you score well on a standardized test doesn't mean jack, I got a 24, and I am a pretty smart person. (not very humble though )

Yeah, someone I know also got a 36. That was a helluva surprise, who would have thought? I got a 22 on my ACT, which was surprising because I suck at math.

Sorry guys, but you still haven't made the case that he is a stupid man. Granted he does sometimes have a speech impediment, but then who doesn't. And that isn't a gauge for intelligence at all. However, Democrats would have you believe otherwise. Amazing how Democrats, and the ilk, always try to make Republicans look like raging buffoons. Seems really sad to me (and pitiful). The best example you can come up with for lack of intelligence is an infrequent speech impediment (accent in some cases). P.S. If you're not a Democrat, you sure have bought its propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

[neoquote=#8.4 by KNIGHT]As for terrorism. Last I checked we were doing pretty good (note: Sadam supports some of the terrorists that we are hunting). [/neoquote] Oh sure, right.... Anyone seen Osama lately? No?

Has anyone seen him lately? No. Could he be dead? Yes. Could he be hiding? Yes. Either way, we have him on the run or he is food for the worms (the latter being more likely). And by the way, having a body to parade around (or lack of) isn't proof of how well the war on terrorism is going.

I knew you'd say that, but I left my word choice open for it. No one seeing him isn't proof that he's dead, his status is just left in the air hanging. What's worse, knowing he's alive or not knowing? He's (Osama) managed to outsmart (so far) one of the best equipped and trained militaries in the world, even with the price on his head. Having his body to show for it would go along way to show that we can achieve our goals, Bush himself said (a long while ago) that capturing Osama alive was his highest goal.......yet that hasn't happened. Disappointing. Another thing, what of Daniel Pearls murderers? They ever stand triel in the US for his slaughter? Nope. Daniel it seems, has been forgotten.

If Osama is dead, he hasn't outsmarted us. Your assumption is that because you don't see a body, he is allive and has outsmarted us. More than likely he is dead, but if he isn't, we'll find him. Daniel hasn't been forgotten, and I hope his murderers never stand trial. I hope they are killed as enemy combatants and are buried in a shallow grave. More than likely, that has already happened. But you have provided no proof that the war on terror is going any other way than is reported by the media and the White House. All you've presented is a slant on situations that looks for any way to try and make Bush look bad. Like he said, this war could go on for a long time. It's a whole new battle field.

I'm just curious, are you a paid PR spokesman for the Republican party? Seems like it.

Eric Ferleman, who in their right mind would pay KNIGHT to be a PR spokesman. then again Republicans did put bush in office. so i guess im wrong. KNIGHT, clinton had a surplus of money when he was in office. bush will pass on his blunders with economy to the next president in less than 2 years. (yes you read it right, bush is a 1 term president) you are far from being a threat to my way of thinking. i find you plain funny in the way you fundie two step around facts. as for your doom's day idea that sadam has nukes. where are these nukes, the weapon inspectors cant find them and neither can satalites! As for terrorism. Last I checked we were doing pretty chitty (note: the US supported most of the terrorists that we are hunting). as for bush being a moron. i am mistaken. he has a mental disorder. he talks so great when he speaks of killing people but when it comes to humanitary aid he speaks like a raging buffoon. P.S. Im a neither republican nor democrat. and you seem to be paid PR spokesman for the raging buffoon party.

Nice way to put down farmers. You live in a city don't you? Though crude, you're statement has some truth in it. They will have the same ability to look at porn as you do. As I remember it, this is an extension of a similar program forwarded by the Clinton administration.

[neoquote=#9.0 by Inertia]so now thanks to this loan american farmers will be able to download and share pr0n faster too, this can only be bad news, kazza will be flooded with animal r0n[/neoquote] Yep, thats what it means. Now instead of working their fields they'll be inside looking at porn.. What the hell do you need 196 Million dollars of internet connections for? It's getting rediculious, deal with a serious issue!

loolll @ Inertia

So simple you didn't even get it. Sadam invaded a country. Sadam lost the war. Sadam signed treaties with the UN. Sadam has never honored the treaties, and people like you don't want to make him. The fact is, it doesn't matter what Sadam thinks. He's lost the war already. It's just that his ego won't let him realize it. And that megalomaniacal ego will get him into another war that will mean his downfall and will serve to benefit the people of Iraq.