| The American election.. | |
|
Jacen Aratan - Student |
Good or bad that Bush won? Discusssssss! |
| Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |
| Comments |
|
LEO2033 - Student 
|
Well yes I agree politics is much easier to talk about than religion but it is still sometimes can get into a heated debate. _______________ Katan's Music Bruver 
History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it. - Winston Churchill |
|
Bail Hope of Belouve - Student 
|
Quote: Politics is so hard to talk about with anyone. That and Religion are probably the hardest topics to talk about with someone about in my perspective. I don't really agree about that. You're right that they're both two difficult subjects to talk about. But when discussing Politics, it's not personal taste, but it's more of facts that are being discussed. Discussing Religion is far harder because you can't say: "Here's proof that God exists ..." but you can show proof on someone from Politics who is lying, or whatever They're both immensely different, and I think that Politics is easier to discuss, to be honest... _______________ Visit the Belouve Family Website! Quote: I try to have fun with my friends and try to make a difference as best I can. What does making a difference mean? Well, it can be as simple as saying hello, answering a question that seems obvious or heck, just talking. -- Vladarion
Want to know Vladarion? Read the Article about his life here. |
|
LEO2033 - Student
|
Politics is so hard to talk about with anyone. That and Religion are probably the hardest topics to talk about with someone about in my perspective. Anyway I just hope this is a better 4 years than the past 4. I'm not saying they were bad, but I just want an improvement which I think can happen. _______________ Katan's Music Bruver
History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it. - Winston Churchill |
|
Jacen Aratan - Student |
You make a lot of valid points, Duffman. I disagree a bit with your generalisation of why Europe dislikes America, the money thing (yeah, don't worry, I know it was an oversimplification), but I think you're most certainly right about the Americans not seeing the war on their doorstep. Except for those who have served during war, people have only really heard of it - the US hasn't lost millions of civilians, like many other countries that have been to war. |
|
Duffman - Student 
|
does no one read these posts for facts? or do they just get pissed off and rant for a few sentances because they missed something? Somewere below either buzz, java, or myself explained the whole "Clinton Surplus" issue. edit~ Java's post on the surplus issue Quote: [EDIT: Plo actually said three trillion, not five as I originally wrote. That doesn't change my point a bit, but for the sake of acuracy I correct.] [2nd EDIT: Fixed my italics tags!] I find it fascinating that Plo feels qualified to call millions of people stupid when he has irrefutably proven that he himself cannot grasp second-grade arithmetic. Let's go over the budget "surplus" under Clinton, okay? According to Plo, it was three trillion dollars during the Clinton administration. The budget surplus is revenue minus cost (if revenue is greater than cost, otherwise there's a deficit which is cost minus revenues). Revenues under the Clinton administration peaked at $2.105 trillion for fiscal 2001*, about two trillion. This means that according to Plo, two trillion minus the money the Federal government spent that year is three trillion! WOW! Can I learn to do that kind of math? The arithmetic they taught me is a lot less fun--if I have ten bucks, I can only spend that much or less. But seriously... More than grade-school arithmetic, I'd really like to see Plo learn some manners. People of good conscience can disagree about whom to vote for, but the discussion should really be based on facts and reason, not name-calling. Plo began his little tantrum with a posting of "data" about political figures' military careers that he (almost certainly) copy-pasted from the urban legend e-mail we all got a couple months ago beginning with the all-caps entreaty to "FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!" Yes, Plo, almost everybody got that e-mail the first time it went around, but most people know to hit the delete button as soon as they see those messages. It's a good habit to get into and will save you the embarassment of warning all your friends about Mickey Mouse tatoos with LSD in them. After his, um, "data" were countered with actual facts, he kind of lost it. Oh no, people didn't agree with him! And they use facts! The horror! Only one thing to do: Bring out the name-calling. Not only will that never win any arguments with thinking people, Plo, it won't win you any friends, either. I know a lot of Kerry supporters who are willing to discuss their views calmly and rationally using real facts, even if we disagree on how to interpret the facts. They don't make up "facts" that don't even jibe with the laws of arithmetic, much less evidence, as you do. They may never convince me, and I may never convince them, but at the end of the discussion we still go for beer together and are still friends. I suspect you're still very young, and I know this is a lot to take in, but take it from someone who pissed off and alienated a lot of people in his reckless youth: calm and rational and armed with facts is the way to go, and even those who disagree with you will respect you for it. Best of luck. JavaGuy ---------------- *It was actually less, because the $2.105 trillion figure was arrived at by the Clinton administration's counting of money borrowed from the Socialist Security surplus as "revenue," which is like borrowing money on a credit card and calling it "income." Imagine going to a bank to apply for a loan and having the following conversation: You: I'd like to borrow $100,000. Banker: You'll have to make monthly payments of $733. How much money do you earn? You: Six thousand dollars a month. Banker: How do you make that money? You: Well, I make $1,500 a month at my job, and I borrow $4,500 a month on my credit card. Think you'd get the loan? That's the "accounting" method by which the Clinton administration got its "surplus." And BTW, in years where Socialist Security runs a deficit, no, they do not count that as a cost (it's magically "off-budget"  nor subtract it from revenues in any way. As "not agreeing with the rest of the world and europe" and "If britain would have won, things would have been much better". (counts to ten) *deep breath* First off, playing "what if" with issues like that (wars that are 200 years gone) is not only pointless but stupid. Neither you nor I can truely say what would happen should one side or the other win. Had Britain won, (which if you look at things is entirely feasable) who's to say the colonists wouldn't have risen up again? Who's to say they wouldn't have been as oppressive to the native americans or the blacks or any of the other minoritys that the american people subjugated? Who's to say that britain winning would have changed the way that England ruled over this land? No one can say, because there is entirely too much to take into consideration. "Not agreeing with the rest of the world and europe" Firstly- difference of opinion does not = wrong. It = different reasons behind those opinions. To understand the reasons behind the opinions is to understand the person or people that have those opinions. I was raised both in europe (Bamburg Germany to be precise) and all over the US, i was in a military family. I have the benifit of both a european and american education. I understand both sides of most situations that America and the rest of the world (Europe especialy) can be at odds. There is a very simple and easy reason WHY we dont get along. We wernt raised that way and we dont want to change. Follow me for a bit- 1) America breaks from Britain because we feel oppressed (some say rightly, some say not, it doesnt matter) but needs help doing it 2) Americans feel a lingering sence of bitterness over being oppressed and of needing help. We reject most european people as a result of this. (still after the american revolution, no were near present day) 3) More wars happen both on our soil and on european soil, America gets help from europe durring those wars, and supplies some in return. People die and families are torn apart 4) WWI. Worst war anyone had seen up to that point. Millions dead. Very little gorund taken or lost as a result due to technological advances. 5) post WWI. Europe in shambles. America is not as effected as europe, although we do have the massive lose of life. Germany in taters, and looking for someone to blame. Europe is reluctant to go to war again, fearing its massive cost (rightly so). Rise of the Nazi party and other forces that will come to plauge the world build for confrentation agian 6) WWII. America doesnt come in till we are attacked, feeling it is europes problem, and we dont want to loose more people. America didnt get involved because it was agianst popular opinion to do so. 7) post WWII. Europe in shambles again, entire nations devistated. The european population becomes even more reluctant to use force or the threat of force to resolve conflict. America is dealing with the stagering loss of life and helping the nations rebuild. Add to this the looming threat of comunisim, it builds up tention that might bring about total devistation to the entire world. One of the 2 superpowers left after wwii falls, leaving a void in power and eases the threat of worldwide devistation. It also leaves a massive amount of arms and technology at the disposal of people that were oppressed by both sides. 8) Now. Due to several generations of "peace" and being raised by those that did not have it, europeans are still (on the whole, not as a rule) unwilling to use force or the threat of force to resolve situations, unless the circomstances are extreeme. America on the other had has not seen war on our doorstep after our civil war ended. I shall quote plato - "Only the dead have seen the end of war." What father or mother wouldnt want to shealter thier child from the horrars of war? The children of the United states did not have to see it, we had homes and food. So we were shealtered from it, and once the children grew up, they found out for themselves what the world was like, and protect thier children or expose them as they see fit. Add a few generations of this. We now have america split. Half knowingor thinking or whatever word you choose to place here, that force doesnt = right; and half knowing or thinking or whatever word you choose to place here, that force is a last resort, but at times it is needed. That is how both sides were raised over the past few centuries. With bigotry and predjudice, weither you admit it or not, you have an opinion and feel that the other side is wrong. And thats just europe. If you understand it being condensed down as such. As to why we dont want to agree with europe - You (Europe at large. I am generalising yes, but you can't tell me im wrong. I lived there and I have seen it with my own eyes) seem to think that you are better then Americans, due to the additude you precieve americans as having. It could be much MUCH simpler then that as well. America = money money = stuck up stuck up = idiot idiot = wrong therefore by predjudicial thinking- America = wrong This is a gross generalization, but generalizations exist for a reason. In contrast, how americans see europeans- Think they are better then us = Idiots Idiots = I wont listen to them. Idiots also = wrong, so therefore, I am right as a result. Simple thinking, but there are times when simplicity is easier and done more often then is prudent. The rest of the world at large would take much MUCH longer to explain and would go back farther then 230 years. NOW- Having said all that, it was not my intention to offend anyone. This is just my view of how things are seen my the population at large. I could very well be wrong. But let me say this- How we veiw right and wrong is determined by several things- a) how we were raised b) our environment c) our personal point of view This is mine, and is quite open to change. I respect your right to disagree with anything I have said, and respect your right to prove me wrong. Please, If you reply to this, do not reduce yourself to calling me an idiot or a bigot or anything else that might be slander. This is a public site, and all opinions are valid, be they right or wrong in your eyes. and fyi- I am republican, my IQ is 135, and i live in ohio. And i can't spell, or speak in public that well. tooddles _______________ *Sigh* Married to Mirael D'kana, Former master to Shangri Stomwind and Crash D'Kana, Owner of Gil-Galad's 100th post, Khâ D'Kana's 700th post, and friend to just about everyone This comment was edited by Duffman on Nov 06 2004 08:08am. |
|
Plo Koon - Student 
|
And also,my math may not be perfect but the Facts are, Clinton left a huge surplus and Bush hammered it away,and now we have a huge deficit.go look it up for the correct numbers if you want. _______________ Free Tibet! Click this link,and learn Here too |
|
Aayla Secura - Ex-Student 
|
Lol, If us (British) Had won I can say for sure, that ALOT of the worlds problems wouldn't exist... But lets look at the bright side, Bush ain't a Bad person per-say, just got opposing views to the rest of the world and europe _______________ IN UR FACE I'M NOT BLONDE! This comment was edited by Aayla Secura on Nov 05 2004 08:09pm. |
|
Plo Koon - Student
|
Well I take back what i said in my last comment about the people who voted for Bush stupid. I apologise.I believe he did alot of good things and did good in a time of crazyness (9/11) but I dont believe he's fit for president. I believe Kerry is more like a president. plus Javaguy's right,there shouldn't be need for name calling so whats done is done,and now we must move on and work even harder. _______________ Free Tibet! Click this link,and learn Here too |
|
Odan-Wei Belouve - Student 
|
Buzz and Java, I'm just expressing opinion here, not facts. Bush isn't the worse man on Earth, I never said that nor anything else. I'm just thinking he's not up to the par. That's all. And again I expressed MY opinion, not the one of all French dammit. You two guys are very prompt in putting words in someone else's mouth. I'm not a democrat supporter but I'm not a republican supporter. I base my opinion on what I saw during Bush's first presidence and I emit concerns about what it might become in the next 4 years. And final point, I'm not a political militant like the two of you who are obviously prisoners of stereotypical views: basically you defend Bush on every ground, because he's a republican, ok we all understood you're both republican supporters, that's great, you put your message across. Now what ? [Special edit for Javaguy] Quote: As for France's role in our independence, I'd like to point out that after the British surrendered, the French tried to screw us over in the negotiations that followed, hoping to carve up the continent for themselves. But yeah, most Americans do know about the French role in our independence and are grateful for it. That was a long, long time ago, though, and we have twice repaid the debt in blood. And by this very paragraph you illustrate perfectly my point about the way French were depicted by the Bush government, congratulations, you swallowed it all to the last drop. If you take a History book, France surely tried to take advantage of the situation at this time. Like any other powerful country would have. However, France did more than watch the British surrender. But I'm not going to play your game: our people helped each other several times over the centuries and I AM NOT speaking of debts and paybacks. I'm speaking of friendship and the very fact that because you disagree with a friend doesn't mean you're not friends anymore. Period. Now I prefer to leave this subject away. Sorry if I interrupted your discussion to express feelings and not show off my knowledge (which obviously is not sufficient and is also obviously biased by my nationality, race and age, and sex, and etc.) _______________ Padawan and brother to SmilyKrazy - Adopted in the Belouve Family by Fizz and Bubu, BELOUVE ON! - Vladarion, you'll always be in my heart and memories - Spam-Padawan of Jacen Aratan - [DJ is my beloved wife!  - JA Family: Brothers:
Virtue, Furi0us, Vladarion, Hardwired, Janus, Axion, D@RtHM@UL, Motrec, Mike , xAnAtOs , Luke Skywalker; Little bro to SilkMonkey ; Special kind of brother to Kenyon ; Sisters in-law: Rosered, Ain-Soph Aur] Photoshop works: click here This comment was edited by Odan-Wei Belouve on Nov 05 2004 07:55pm. |
|
Bail Hope of Belouve - Student
|
Quote: There's a new book out now, and I'll post a link as soon as I can find it, of reprinted arguments from the late 1930s both for and against going to war against Hitler. The arguments were pretty much the same--the U.S. is "extremist" and "imperialist" if it removes Hitler from power, we're "meddling" in European affairs, the threat posed by Hitler is exagerated as an excuse to go to war. Hitler himself loved to call Americans "cowboys" for meddling in his plans for world domination. These arguments have all been used before. If there really is something saying that, that the reasons for war on Hitler were exagerated... then he better take a look at my history book... Or heck, take a look at Band of Brothers, Episode 9. That should clear some things up ... _______________ Visit the Belouve Family Website! Quote: I try to have fun with my friends and try to make a difference as best I can. What does making a difference mean? Well, it can be as simple as saying hello, answering a question that seems obvious or heck, just talking. -- Vladarion
Want to know Vladarion? Read the Article about his life here. |
|
JavaGuy - Student 
|
Yeah, if what we cared about were money we could have lifted sanctions years ago. The war was expected to cost upwards of $80 billion (has actually cost a lot more)...for oil, the French claim? We would have bought something like five million dollars per day worth of oil from them if we had simply lifted the sanctions, much cheaper than going to war. The "blood for oil" argument makes absolutely no sense, especially since it was made most persistently by Jaques Chirac, whose nation had lucrative oil contracts with his longtime pal Saddam that pretty much screwed over the Iraqi people in order to prop up Saddam's bloody regime. And as Buzz pointed out, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq will be under U.S. control. Afghanistan just had its first elections. The Afghan people control it for the first time now that the Taliban is gone. Yet we're called extremist and the Taliban is not? Iraq now has a democracy, and most Iraqis are delighted to have Saddam gone. The Iraqi people are going to elect their own government. How is that "extremist?" I though Mr. put-living-people-feet-first-into-industrial-grade-plastic-shredders Hussein was extremist, but that's just me. I really don't see how being opposed to brutal totalitarian regimes is extremist. I thought the totalitarian regimes were extremist and that opposition to them was just, well, human. There's a new book out now, and I'll post a link as soon as I can find it, of reprinted arguments from the late 1930s both for and against going to war against Hitler. The arguments were pretty much the same--the U.S. is "extremist" and "imperialist" if it removes Hitler from power, we're "meddling" in European affairs, the threat posed by Hitler is exagerated as an excuse to go to war. Hitler himself loved to call Americans "cowboys" for meddling in his plans for world domination. These arguments have all been used before. As for France's role in our independence, I'd like to point out that after the British surrendered, the French tried to screw us over in the negotiations that followed, hoping to carve up the continent for themselves. But yeah, most Americans do know about the French role in our independence and are grateful for it. That was a long, long time ago, though, and we have twice repaid the debt in blood. _______________ My signature is only one line. You're welcome. |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
Afghanistan is not under US control. It was a multilateral operation I believe even the French are there Odan, or at least were there in the beginning. The French, Germans, Canadians all helped out in Afghanistan. It almost sounds like you think Afghanistan and Iraq are going to become US Territories or States. And having US economic concerns above how right it is to remove the Taliban and Saddam is very bass ackwards. If we had economic concerns at the forefront, we would have made a deal with Saddam to get the sanctions lifted and leave him in power. Look there great things for the economy with no major cost, unless you count children in prison, mass graves, countless other atrocities I won't mention. If the easy profitable way is taken then you make a deal with the devil, like all the controversy surrounding the Oil for Food scandal. Gold plated toilet seats aren't a dime a dozen you know. Corruption isn't just a one way street you can pin only on a Republican President you don't agree with. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Nero - Student 
|
Odan said that very nicely I must say. Except for the France/USA thing I think so too. _______________ -Nero Quote: Curious, Smartass, what else? |
|
Aayla Secura - Ex-Student 
|
I 2nd that. But it will be interesting too see how the neo conservatives try to change the world into their “view” of a good world, in 4 years... I see a lot of death and destruction in waiting, for the Middle East. Delivered by those who see themselves righteous. _______________ IN UR FACE I'M NOT BLONDE! This comment was edited by Aayla Secura on Nov 05 2004 06:18pm. |
|
Jacen Aratan - Student |
I agree with Odan. |
|
Odan-Wei Belouve - Student 
|
Well, I have 2 main points that bother me about Bush. - his foreign policy - his faith I think Bush's foreign policy is too extreme and that his choices are less for the righteousness than for US economy well-being. I mean the terrorist attacks on NYC surely were awful and something had to be done. But a military engagement in both Afghanistan and Iraq do not only serve the purpose of fighting the terrorist organizations. It also puts 2 geo-strategically important areas under US military control. Afganistan is on the natural gas route, Iraq has one of the best oil in the world. That just seems a bit too easy... Note that I do feel compassion for the US people about the Sept 11th. But I feel disgust toward the foreign policy the Bush administration has run. And being French, we were badly struck in the face by the way US gov treated us (recalling the world war 2 and the fact USA saved France, and forgetting strangely the role of France in the Independance War between USA and Great Britain... We could spin the circle forever...). So, I'm mainly anti-Bush and anyone but him was necessarly better 5and Kerry has ties with French people). - Now Bush's faith is something that worries me. I don't mind religious people at all. I just don't like seeing religion intertwined so tightly with executive power. But that's just my opinion. Now, maybe Bush did some great things for the internal affairs of USA, I can't tell. I'm just scared that he doesn't correctly fit in his international role _______________ Padawan and brother to SmilyKrazy - Adopted in the Belouve Family by Fizz and Bubu, BELOUVE ON! - Vladarion, you'll always be in my heart and memories - Spam-Padawan of Jacen Aratan - [DJ is my beloved wife! - JA Family: Brothers:
Virtue, Furi0us, Vladarion, Hardwired, Janus, Axion, D@RtHM@UL, Motrec, Mike , xAnAtOs , Luke Skywalker; Little bro to SilkMonkey ; Special kind of brother to Kenyon ; Sisters in-law: Rosered, Ain-Soph Aur] Photoshop works: click here |
|
Jacen Aratan - Student |
Well, I called Bush's English "poor" because it was just the best contradiction to Kerry's "big words"-English. And can you really be certain he ISN'T a West Texan girl? Thought so. |
|
JavaGuy - Student 
|
Quote: I personally think it's a bad thing if someone loses votes because he can use big words - some people have a habbit of using them, without thinking about whether others understand them or not (*cough*Java*cough* ). Three words: dictionary dot com And Bush has a fine command of the English language. It's public speaking that he's not great at. He trips over his words, stumbles over sentences. Some of the most intelligent people in the world do that. What I love is how the media pounce on every verbal flub Bush makes and completely ignore those of the Democrats. Bush once referred to men serving on a battleship as "soldiers" (the correct term is "sailors" , and the liberal press jumped all over it--they had ignored Al Gore's having made precisely the same error months earlier. John Edwards, the "eloquent" one? He mixes up his usage of "me" and "myself" all the time. I don't hold it against someone if he's not an expert on grammar, but when someone who graduated from a prestigious law school thinks it's okay to criticize Bush's public speaking, then he should at least have mastered the basic rules of pronouns himself. _______________ My signature is only one line. You're welcome. This comment was edited by JavaGuy on Nov 05 2004 03:16pm. |
|
Bail Hope of Belouve - Student 
|
Quote: Yeah, but some just do that naturally - and if you're not gonna punish Bush for speaking poor English, then why punish someone for using big words? ... good point. Well, I don't think his english is poor, let me tell you that first of all. Yes, he makes mistakes, but he's dyslexic, which is why he's prone to make certain mistakes, like the one in Gradius' profile A west Texan Girl, just like me. Everyone knows what he meant, but he just made an ass off himself. Could happen to anyone who's dyslexic. Oh well, you have a good point Jacen  Besides, I don't think Kerry lost all that many votes simply because of his language... He probably just lost a few hundred votes _______________ Visit the Belouve Family Website! Quote: I try to have fun with my friends and try to make a difference as best I can. What does making a difference mean? Well, it can be as simple as saying hello, answering a question that seems obvious or heck, just talking. -- Vladarion
Want to know Vladarion? Read the Article about his life here. |
|
Jacen Aratan - Student |
Yeah, but some just do that naturally - and if you're not gonna punish Bush for speaking poor English, then why punish someone for using big words? |
|
Bail Hope of Belouve - Student
|
Quote: I personally think it's a bad thing if someone loses votes because he can use big words - some people have a habbit of using them, without thinking about whether others understand them or not (*cough*Java*cough* ). yeah okay, not positive ... but still, sometimes I watch those elections and I just weep ... (figure of speech) "Big words, wow, you can use big words. Now... who understood what he was saying?" if you get my point. That's why I'll always prefer a President who talks understandable english, and none of that gibberish crap ... _______________ Visit the Belouve Family Website! Quote: I try to have fun with my friends and try to make a difference as best I can. What does making a difference mean? Well, it can be as simple as saying hello, answering a question that seems obvious or heck, just talking. -- Vladarion
Want to know Vladarion? Read the Article about his life here. |
|
Jacen Aratan - Student |
I personally think it's a bad thing if someone loses votes because he can use big words - some people have a habbit of using them, without thinking about whether others understand them or not (*cough*Java*cough* ). |
|
Bail Hope of Belouve - Student
|
Quote: But, wasn't Kerry exactly that, an intellectual? which in my opinion made him very impopular. I remember when preparing for my debate that I read through a site saying that he lost a lot of votes in the polls simply because he can use big words ... Bush can't. What good is a leader you don't understand what he's saying? And I agree completely with that. Here in Belgium, we have the Flemish Block, they are the biggest (and dumbest) racists ever who believe that women should be at home, not working, taking care of the children, and they believe that every outsider (not a Belgian) should be banned from Belgium. I won't go over everything they stand for, but it's quite close to the Hitler Germany. They are winning all elections simply because the people understand what they're talking about. All other parties use big words, and only those who are smart (enough) vote for the other parties. But if we say: "Hey, they are sexists who want the wife to stay at home!" no one wants to vote for them anymore. Know what you're voting for, that's all I'd like to say. :-) A bit of googling can make a big difference, (and don't google for 'Bush Bashing' if you're looking up the facts, just my idea) _______________ Visit the Belouve Family Website! Quote: I try to have fun with my friends and try to make a difference as best I can. What does making a difference mean? Well, it can be as simple as saying hello, answering a question that seems obvious or heck, just talking. -- Vladarion
Want to know Vladarion? Read the Article about his life here. |
|
Nero - Student 
|
Quote: You contradict yourself. You said Kerry's main plan was pointing out errors and not giving solutions. That's pretty much just saying Bush sucks. They ran about the same. The difference was Bush ran on his record and could point out things that some people thought he did good and play on the fact that people thought he would be stronger than Kerry on National Security. Kerry ran on his military record that he refused to completely release to the public, and not using his 20 year record in the senate. Of course the Republican campaign was more than happy to use it. The point is that both parties tried running the "The other guy is horrible" campaign, and at the end of the day Bush is the president. You can be happy, you can be disappointed and move on, or you can be like some morons out there whining about wanting to put it in the courts forever to try and cheat a win or call for civil war. I'd recommend moving on. -I haven't said anything about a "Main plan" - Kerry is attacking the policy, Bush the person. In my opinion attacking the person is far worse than attacking the policy if it comes to the campaign thing. - With the second part I agree. _______________ -Nero Quote: Curious, Smartass, what else? This comment was edited by Nero on Nov 05 2004 09:57am. |
|
Ash - Eats Babies 
|
Quote: Oh noes, the possibility of having HALF THE PRICES we have in Europe. Fear. Oh, horror. Etc. *Sweeps over with sarcasm detector* *Explodes* _______________ "We keep odd hours...." ----------------------- They Live, We Sleep |
| Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |