QueenZone discussion #714218

Fairy wrote: Absolute, total crap. Yes I'm one of the 99% that will laugh at you for believing it.

And what advantage has this war brought to Bush and friends?

If you're thinking of oil and control over Iraq and Afghanistan, of course it's clear that it would have been easier to just strike deals with those dictators.

Sir GH wrote:

Fairy wrote: Absolute, total crap. Yes I'm one of the 99% that will laugh at you for believing it.

And what advantage has this war brought to Bush and friends?

Control, control, and more control. History has clearly shown that the United States craves nothing more than control. Pearl Harbour gave the USA a damn good reason to use the military as they did in from the 40s to the 70s, and in the 21st century, they needed another reason. Just look at the evidence:

Sir Archie Leach wrote: 'Regardless of how patriotic we Brits feel about our country, Churchill knew that we would eventually get our arse kicked in Europe without US aid. Unfortunately, the US did not wish to get involved in a European war. By following the second course of action, he knew that the US would be dragged kicking and screaming into a world-wide conflict.' Sorry to go off topic but I disagree totally. Had the US not got involved (militarily)the Allies would still have won, although it may have taken longer. Everybody always forgets the Russians and their overwhelming numbers.

Fairy wrote: And what would be the advantage the Bush administration has derived from this so-called conspiracy??? Guys, you're so busy applying political correctness that you seem to lose common sense. Be careful though. Being critical of our own leaders is OK and necessary. Being understanding with terrorists is another thing. They will not return the favor.

Bohardy-har-har wrote: Maybe not in that documentary (although in fact there was evidence), but being as it is an entirely biased conspiracy theory, you're not preseneted with all the facts surrounding the situation. For evidence of an airplane (a jet airliner containing passengers) hitting the Pentagon, try this for starters: link Or did all those people imagine it?

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: I will never believe "eyewitness accounts" before I believe scientific evidence. I have yet to hear of a scientist coming forth with "evidence" to disprove what has been suggested here. We shall see what the future brings.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: People's words are not evidence.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: At the moment, there are no pictures or videos of this airplane. There are cameras watching the pentagon at ALL TIMES. Not one of them has provided a picture of an airplane, or a part of something that can be proven to be from an airplane.

Barry © wrote: I am not saying here that I believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories but it wouldn't be the first time a government has 'staged' something in order to attack another country. This happened before with the National Socialist regime in 1939. The SS shot some prisoners dressed them in German uniforms and then went to a radio station on the Polish border and killed those inside. They then proceeded to transmit in polish saying they were firing on the German soldiers inciting war. Of course in that case it was planned all along.

Fairy wrote: Do you know there are people who actually believe man never landed on the moon?

Fenderek wrote:

Fairy wrote: Do you know there are people who actually believe man never landed on the moon?

Well kill me, but I actually am one of those weirdos... How's the flag moving in the space, where's NO WIND? Just this one thing- someone will explain this to me and I will go back into believing. Seriously.

John S Stuart wrote:

Sir Archie Leach wrote: 'Regardless of how patriotic we Brits feel about our country, Churchill knew that we would eventually get our arse kicked in Europe without US aid. Unfortunately, the US did not wish to get involved in a European war. By following the second course of action, he knew that the US would be dragged kicking and screaming into a world-wide conflict.' Sorry to go off topic but I disagree totally. Had the US not got involved (militarily)the Allies would still have won, although it may have taken longer. Everybody always forgets the Russians and their overwhelming numbers.

Possible, but this does not negate the fact that Churchill knew about the attack before hand, and chose to keep that information secret because it would sting the US into the war. That much you have to agree with.

John S Stuart wrote: Actually: I too think the moon landing was a propaganda hoax.

Why do people believe this stuff? I am no psychologist, however I have seen and heard enough over the past years to recognize certain reoccurring personality traits in those professing to be hoax believers. Although there are varying degrees of each, I have come to categorize the hoax believers into two generalized types: the Confused and the Hardcore. The Confused are average people who have seen or heard the claims of the hoax advocates on TV, the Internet, or from friends and associates. They usually lack the scientific knowledge or experience necessary to dispute the claims, so they begin to doubt the authenticity of the moon landings. Despite their doubts, these people tend to be open-minded and willing to listen to varying points of view. When giving the opportunity to study both sides of the argument, they usually agree the moon landings were real. The Hardcore, on the other hand, are a completely different type of personality. They almost always exhibit strong paranoid tendencies with an extreme distrust and hatred of the U.S. government. Rather then allowing the evidence to speak for itself, they will often begin by assuming a hoax and then search for evidence to support that preconception. When they see something that looks suspicious they immediately accept it as proof of their belief. When someone attempts to offer an alternate explanation they dismiss it as a NASA lie. Any evidence that contradicts their belief is described as an attempt by the government to deceive us. They will say that anyone who believes in the moon landings has been brainwashed or is in denial. They are usually argumentative and often hostile.

John S Stuart wrote: Here is a fact. It only takes one bullet to kill, so below I link you to that bullet. link If you do not see what is wrong here – I will explain in full later. Watch carefully, as this proves beyond doubt, man did not land on the moon.

John S Stuart wrote: This is exactly what I mean by being blinded by science - the answer is before you, and is far, far simpler.

John S Stuart wrote: Zeni: Here is a simple filmmaking analysis. This does not rely on scientific gobbledegook or concepts understood only by the earth’s leading scientists or philosophers. Just think this through - then tell me I am talking shit. It all depends on the camera. This is why the film cannot be real. Just consider: All photographic or video images – must first be recorded on a camera.

Zeni wrote:

John S Stuart wrote: Zeni: Here is a simple filmmaking analysis. This does not rely on scientific gobbledegook or concepts understood only by the earth’s leading scientists or philosophers. Just think this through - then tell me I am talking shit. It all depends on the camera. This is why the film cannot be real. Just consider: All photographic or video images – must first be recorded on a camera.

Here's the best I can come up with in a short period of time: link "The Apollo 11 television picture from the lunar surface was sent over the lunar module's much smaller antenna. The lunar module was powered by batteries, meaning that it was best to make do with the minum electrical power necessary." Reading through that link (yes, more science gobbledegook) provides what appears to be reasonable answers to your questions. Simple answer - Technology was available, yet rudimentary at best. Pictures on the website seem to be of the same quality of your LEM clip. Also, it is difficult to answer questions about that clip directly since we do not have the proper information as to whether it is from Apollo 11 or one of the later Apollo moon landings. Again, it seems that disproving something existed is much more difficult and convoluted than proving that it did.

John S Stuart wrote: This is a good example of complicating the subject to disguise the point. It is NOT possible to transmit such distances - even today in 2001. Try reading up on how satellite television works. Broadcasting on S-Band or C-Band is a blind. It does not address the real problem of distance - or how the clip of film posted could be so maticulously taken. Have you watched it?

Fairy wrote: A part from all the scientific evidence, do you really think so many people involved in the Apollo missions would be willing to lie and keep lying for decades just for the sake of some obscure government plan? It's very hard for me to believe this, especially considering that there were I think 6 Apollo missions.

The Mir@cle wrote: ...About the 9-11 conspiracy. I don't know what to think about this. But I do now that Bush is not afraid of making sacrifices, to achieve his target.. his target to show his power all over the world... uhg -.-

Zeni wrote:

Fairy wrote: A part from all the scientific evidence, do you really think so many people involved in the Apollo missions would be willing to lie and keep lying for decades just for the sake of some obscure government plan? It's very hard for me to believe this, especially considering that there were I think 6 Apollo missions.

G. Gordon Liddy said that three men can keep a secret if two of them are dead. I may not know much about science, but I know plenty about human nature. To expect that hundreds of NASA employees would keep a secret as big as this is a bit of a stretch.

Ian R wrote: I think Bob Braeunig gives a very good explantion of why people tend to believe in things like the Moon landing hoax:

Why do people believe this stuff? I am no psychologist, however I have seen and heard enough over the past years to recognize certain reoccurring personality traits in those professing to be hoax believers. Although there are varying degrees of each, I have come to categorize the hoax believers into two generalized types: the Confused and the Hardcore. The Confused are average people who have seen or heard the claims of the hoax advocates on TV, the Internet, or from friends and associates. They usually lack the scientific knowledge or experience necessary to dispute the claims, so they begin to doubt the authenticity of the moon landings. Despite their doubts, these people tend to be open-minded and willing to listen to varying points of view. When giving the opportunity to study both sides of the argument, they usually agree the moon landings were real. The Hardcore, on the other hand, are a completely different type of personality. They almost always exhibit strong paranoid tendencies with an extreme distrust and hatred of the U.S. government. Rather then allowing the evidence to speak for itself, they will often begin by assuming a hoax and then search for evidence to support that preconception. When they see something that looks suspicious they immediately accept it as proof of their belief. When someone attempts to offer an alternate explanation they dismiss it as a NASA lie. Any evidence that contradicts their belief is described as an attempt by the government to deceive us. They will say that anyone who believes in the moon landings has been brainwashed or is in denial. They are usually argumentative and often hostile.

Mircrowave wrote: This is the same thing Mike Myers did in America (Fahrenheit 911) only with less money.

The Confused are average people who have seen or heard the claims of the hoax advocates on TV, the Internet, or from friends and associates. They usually lack the scientific knowledge or experience necessary to dispute the claims, so they begin to doubt the authenticity of the moon landings. Despite their doubts, these people tend to be open-minded and willing to listen to varying points of view. When giving the opportunity to study both sides of the argument, they usually agree the moon landings were real.

The Hardcore, on the other hand, are a completely different type of personality. They almost always exhibit strong paranoid tendencies with an extreme distrust and hatred of the U.S. government. Rather then allowing the evidence to speak for itself, they will often begin by assuming a hoax and then search for evidence to support that preconception. When they see something that looks suspicious they immediately accept it as proof of their belief. When someone attempts to offer an alternate explanation they dismiss it as a NASA lie. Any evidence that contradicts their belief is described as an attempt by the government to deceive us. They will say that anyone who believes in the moon landings has been brainwashed or is in denial. They are usually argumentative and often hostile.

Fairy wrote: I guess I'm not the only one who is changing her political views for these reasons. Many think that Mike Moore's absurd campaign actually damaged Kerry's chances of being elected. The Bush Administration has so many flaws his adversaries could have use to attack him. I think though, that believing he would be so cruel to allow the death of over 3000 civilians of his own country goes too far even for many who dislike Bush. And when these undecided voters heard such absurd stories they maybe started doubting everything else Kerry said.

Fairy wrote: Hi there Mr.Jingles! Did you hear Parma scored 1 to 1 with big Juventus????!!!

<font color=black>Andy<font color=red>38 wrote:

Fairy wrote: Hi there Mr.Jingles! Did you hear Parma scored 1 to 1 with big Juventus????!!!

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

<font color=green> M@tt wrote: This is no game... I looked @ your profile...your 16 years old. The only thing you know is what mom and dad tell you. What FOX news tells you. Did you watch the video? Did you hear that there were NO WOMD?!?!?! Bin Laden had NOTHING to do with the Towers? God Bless America? You think He still can? No way in hell would he bless such a nation. Look around you dude.

<font color=green> M@tt wrote: I'm very happy to have seen this video. I was sitting here watching the explosions as the towers fell praying' my God what have they done'...repeatedly.... I knew something was wrong shortly after 9-11. Now I know for a fact. Thanks Bob. All the naysayers can't avert their eyes forever. From a government that killed Kennedy(s) why would it be so hard to believe that they would do this. It's easy to believe. And now you have proof. I am ashamed to be called an American. I am ashamed to have anything to do with the way this contry works, and is percieved by this world. God help us.

<font color=green> M@tt wrote: That is more or less my entire point. Hating Bush is fine and dandy. Watching this fictitious "documentary", and going along with it based solely on your political beliefs is plain wrong. The movie is, simply put, a fictitious piece based on lie after lie, but put together in the most damning way that Moore could dream up! Again, if you want to hate Bush, great. Go for it. But don't mistake facts for fiction, and don't drink Moore's Kool-aid, as he has already admitted, on more than one occasion, that his "bias" has gotten the best of him, and that his movie is factually as wrong as wrong can be. That is the smartest thing I have ever read on this board. Moor is full of crap. And no I am NOT a Bush fan. Moor needs to get something straight. No lying in documentaries please.

Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: You people really have issues. You're taking a tragedy to a nation and making little games out of it. But now tell me, who provided support to the Allied Powers in WWI when Germany went on the offensive? I mean, dont credit the USA even though it was American soldiers using American weapons under a French commander. Or what about WWII, while the atomic bomb was not very ethical, it did save millions of lives that could have been lost in ground war. Not to mention that nuclear power became a staple short after. Then, what about the 1960's where the USA subsidized the French in their war against Vietnam? Although, it was never declared a "war", the USA put billions of dollars into supplying the French for their efforts which, however, were wasted. Then, during our tenure into the Vietnam Conflict, who welcomed the nomadic hmong people into our country who, now, 40 years later, are an asset to our culture? Yet, shortly after that, when an earthquake leveled 59 american cities, nobody came to help. Nobody helped even though every country with an airline excluding Russia flew AMERICAN planes. Forwarding about 20 years, Former President Jimmy Carter went around the world with his Habitat For Humanity project, building homes for the less fortunate. Then, after 9-11, the USA offered a 35 million dollar reward to helping capture the insurgents behind the terror attacks. Because the middle eastern governmets refused to take action, the US government was forced to intervene. Soon after, Saddam Hussien claimed to have chemical weapons but as soon as the secretary of defense said "Oh, really?" he changed his story. Now, the American soldiers are ridding the world of insurgents who would harm her people- God Bless America

<font color=green> M@tt wrote: This is no game... I looked @ your profile...your 16 years old. The only thing you know is what mom and dad tell you. What FOX news tells you. Did you watch the video? Did you hear that there were NO WOMD?!?!?! Bin Laden had NOTHING to do with the Towers? God Bless America? You think He still can? No way in hell would he bless such a nation. Look around you dude.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

<font color=black>Andy<font color=red>38 wrote:

Fairy wrote: Hi there Mr.Jingles! Did you hear Parma scored 1 to 1 with big Juventus????!!!

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

FORZA PARMA!!!

Mr.Jingles wrote: Just to quote this from Chappelle's Show: - Negrodamus, how does George W. Bush know that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? - Very simple, he knows Iraq has WMDs because he has the receipt.

Then why do you live here? Go move to Africa and then you'll know how good you have it.

Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: What is it you dont like about America? Is it the fact that we have the strongest solo economy? Or is it the freedom of speach and religion? Or maybe you'd just rather live in a place where you can legally be shot for voicing your opinion?

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Freedom of speech? A friend of mine knew of a high school in Seattle, where if teacher or student was caught bad-mouthing Bush, they would either be fired or expelled respectively. There is a picture of Bush at the end of every hallway. That is a blue state, might I remind you.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Freedom of religion? Recently there was a TV show called "Book Of Daniel" (which I may say I found to be fantastic!), and it used Jesus as a main character with a sense of humour. This offended religious groups in the USA, so it was cancelled.

Zeni wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Freedom of speech? A friend of mine knew of a high school in Seattle, where if teacher or student was caught bad-mouthing Bush, they would either be fired or expelled respectively. There is a picture of Bush at the end of every hallway. That is a blue state, might I remind you.

You have to ask yourself (besides the question of how truthful is this type of "I heard it from a friend" comment) what kind of school is this and is it slightly blown out of proportion? Is it a religious school, for instance? Different rules apply.

Freedom of religion? Recently there was a TV show called "Book Of Daniel" (which I may say I found to be fantastic!), and it used Jesus as a main character with a sense of humour. This offended religious groups in the USA, so it was cancelled.

The "Book of Daniel" offended many Christians, but then so does South Park on a daily basis. "Daniel" was cancelled for low ratings, not because because it offended religious groups. Remember that NYPD Blue also offended religious groups and that many stations refused to air it when the show debuted in 1993, just like Daniel last month. Of course, NYPD Blue had high ratings and continued for over 10 years.

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

Then why do you live here? Go move to Africa and then you'll know how good you have it.

Canada is a hell of a lot better than the US in many respects. How about any of the countries in Scandanavia? They all have their acts together. Can you even name the four countries that make up Scandanavia - without checking somewhere?

yamaha wrote: You must be incredibly naive to believe that the United States is inferior because of limited personal freedoms. Americans have the freedom to do whatever they wish as long as it does not infringe on the rights of other people. If the American government is so unjust as some seem to imply, then why is there so much information and new available to the public? Just to note, I have never been denied the right to do anything that I wanted to do as an American.

Mr.Jingles wrote: The FCC is run by a bunch of idiots who are easily influenced by religious zealots. Mainly because a lot of people at the FCC are ultra-conservative christians. These are the people who are turning America into the next Taliban, because they're allowing their religious beliefs to enforce what people should and shouldn't read, listen, or watch. Just look at the huge mess they created around the Janet Jackson titie pop at the Super Bowl. We only saw her boobie for 2 seconds, but then again these are the same people who seem to be OK with us invading a country and starting a war based on lies.

I do agree that indecency should be controlled, but there should be a time and place for everything. What pisses me off the most is that these morons keep whinning about what's on TV, but yet none of them want to go through their TV manuals and find how to block certain channels or programs with a V-Chip.

<font color=000000>Fenderek wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

Then why do you live here? Go move to Africa and then you'll know how good you have it.

Canada is a hell of a lot better than the US in many respects. How about any of the countries in Scandanavia? They all have their acts together. Can you even name the four countries that make up Scandanavia - without checking somewhere?

LMAO- good one. I don't think he can. I don't think he knows anything about ANY other country apart from Mighty America. And it's people like that who give Americans bad name- and I don't think it's fair.

Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: I can name 3, Finland, Norway and Sweeden.

Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote:

<font color=000000>Fenderek wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

Then why do you live here? Go move to Africa and then you'll know how good you have it.

Canada is a hell of a lot better than the US in many respects. How about any of the countries in Scandanavia? They all have their acts together. Can you even name the four countries that make up Scandanavia - without checking somewhere?

LMAO- good one. I don't think he can. I don't think he knows anything about ANY other country apart from Mighty America. And it's people like that who give Americans bad name- and I don't think it's fair.

I can name 3, Finland, Norway and Sweeden. The people who give Americans a bad name are the ones who try to pull off radical shit to prove their point.

<font color=000000>Fenderek wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

Then why do you live here? Go move to Africa and then you'll know how good you have it.

Canada is a hell of a lot better than the US in many respects. How about any of the countries in Scandanavia? They all have their acts together. Can you even name the four countries that make up Scandanavia - without checking somewhere?

LMAO- good one. I don't think he can. I don't think he knows anything about ANY other country apart from Mighty America. And it's people like that who give Americans bad name- and I don't think it's fair.

Fairy wrote:

<font color=000000>Fenderek wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

Then why do you live here? Go move to Africa and then you'll know how good you have it.

Canada is a hell of a lot better than the US in many respects. How about any of the countries in Scandanavia? They all have their acts together. Can you even name the four countries that make up Scandanavia - without checking somewhere?

LMAO- good one. I don't think he can. I don't think he knows anything about ANY other country apart from Mighty America. And it's people like that who give Americans bad name- and I don't think it's fair.

OK, but if you 2 know everything while obviously he knows nothing, how come you spelled Scandanavia instead of Scandinavia?? Maybe you should learn your spelling before telling people they don't know their geography.

<font color=000000>Fenderek wrote:

Fairy wrote:

<font color=000000>Fenderek wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

Then why do you live here? Go move to Africa and then you'll know how good you have it.

Canada is a hell of a lot better than the US in many respects. How about any of the countries in Scandanavia? They all have their acts together. Can you even name the four countries that make up Scandanavia - without checking somewhere?

LMAO- good one. I don't think he can. I don't think he knows anything about ANY other country apart from Mighty America. And it's people like that who give Americans bad name- and I don't think it's fair.

OK, but if you 2 know everything while obviously he knows nothing, how come you spelled Scandanavia instead of Scandinavia?? Maybe you should learn your spelling before telling people they don't know their geography.

Why do you quote me if it's BOB who misspelled the word? And why you take such a pathetic cheap shot when we both know it was nothing but a simple typing error!!!? *rolls eyes* Neither I (nor Bob) claim to know everything- it's QoW who does and we're trying to tell him that he doesn't... I don't post in here countless posts saying "POLAND RULEZ" or "UK'S the BEST" or similar crap- yet half of his posts are the ones saying "America's the best". Gets annoying after a while. And all I'm saying is that it's EXACTLY this kind of talk and this kind of people who give Americans bad name. At the same time I added that it's NOT FAIR- I know few Americans and they were really cool and none of them was giving me this "we're superior" bullshit... I'm not anti-American- far from it!!! That's exactly why he's annoying me so much!

John S Stuart wrote: As a non-US resident I fail to see why Michael Moore lives under a permanent death threat. Could someone please explain to me why asking questions and being critical is considered as unpatriotic? Surely it is possible to be both questioning and patriotic - or else, America would never have moved on beyond McCarthyism?

Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: Mr. GH, please tell me- If Canada is so great as you have claimed, why is it not on the permanent 5 in the UN? I mean, how will we quell renegade countries without our mounted police?

Music Man wrote: QoW, I hereby forbid you from posting any politics-related arguments in this forum. You just aren't fit for political debate, or any debate for that matter. I'm not mad, and I forgive you...but please, just stop. It just makes it a lot harder for others more capable of debate to argue your case for you. Consider this a life lesson: let your lawyer talk for you, and always do what he says. Always.

Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: He's going to make American stereotypes and not expect anything back? For christs sake, this guy probably hasnt even been to the USA. The first thing I remember him saying was "Are you american, a teenager or both?" So if he wants to use incorrect and outdated stereotypes on Americans, Im going to use the cowardly canadian.

Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote:

Music Man wrote: QoW, I hereby forbid you from posting any politics-related arguments in this forum. You just aren't fit for political debate, or any debate for that matter. I'm not mad, and I forgive you...but please, just stop. It just makes it a lot harder for others more capable of debate to argue your case for you. Consider this a life lesson: let your lawyer talk for you, and always do what he says. Always.

He's going to make American stereotypes and not expect anything back? For christs sake, this guy probably hasnt even been to the USA. The first thing I remember him saying was "Are you american, a teenager or both?" So if he wants to use incorrect and outdated stereotypes on Americans, Im going to use the cowardly canadian.

Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote:

Music Man wrote: QoW, I hereby forbid you from posting any politics-related arguments in this forum. You just aren't fit for political debate, or any debate for that matter. I'm not mad, and I forgive you...but please, just stop. It just makes it a lot harder for others more capable of debate to argue your case for you. Consider this a life lesson: let your lawyer talk for you, and always do what he says. Always.

He's going to make American stereotypes and not expect anything back? For christs sake, this guy probably hasnt even been to the USA. The first thing I remember him saying was "Are you american, a teenager or both?"

Mircrowave wrote: Hate to be critical, D@VID, but you need to get your facts straight. The last country to detonate a nuclear bomb was France. Before that, Pakistan. All you people knocking Bush and America are funny. You say how we're so terrible, but I'm trying to think of one other country that's done as much as we have around the world. If Ireland and Britain are so great, how come you guys can't figure out your differences? Your war has been going on a lot longer than Iraq. What is the IRA? A Peace organization? So Americans, don't worry about these silly ninnies. Until one of these other whining countries does something that matters in the world, I laugh at you all. America, leader of the Free World.

bitesthedust<br><h6>The QZ gentleman... wrote: the IRA has called a ceasefire and laid down their arms. The IRA attacked London (and Irish protestants) on many occasions....as I recall, not the other way round.

Mircrowave wrote: America, leader of the Free World.

Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote:

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Giddy-up.

Easy for a canadian too say.

Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: Mr. GH, please tell me- If Canada is so great as you have claimed, why is it not on the permanent 5 in the UN? I mean, how will we quell renegade countries without our mounted police?

Queen Of Wrestling<h6>Jamie's Bitch</h6> wrote: For christs sake, this guy probably hasnt even been to the USA.