Go Home Mr. Bush

[cyberbard]

FOR ONCE...and this is historical, so someone make a note in the
log...I agree with something a Federal Liberal did. Kudos to Mr.
Martin for saying no to Bush's missiles over Montreal idea.

That being said...he's still a Liberal, so I'm holding my breath a bit
for the flip flop when pressure is applied. If that flip flop
comes, I'm going to take advantage of my grandmother's Irish heritage
and leave the continent faster than you can say Yankee Doodle.

Bard

[y2kmark]

Awww, do we gotta get him back so soon?

[Quest4Less]

I hope the Liberals come to their senses and agree to take part in this program. If some nut job launches a nuke I'd like to think that there is at least SOME chance of knocking it down.

[Diode]

Why are Canadians, so reluctant to protect our country? While our part of the world has been relativly stable for 50 years , do people really think there will never be a "fourth Riech" type dictator/king/president who will begin trampling the world if the thought pleases him?
I know we have pressing domestic problems , but the investments made by governments in "high tech military" in the 50's 60's and 70's, led to many of the great electronic wonders we enjoy today.
Hopefully the days of war are coming to an end, but I doubt it.

[danmand]

Many canadians are against weaponization of space, which is a key element in the US' plans for hegemony.

[Diode]

So danmand..what do we do? The US is pure evil, and all other despots are therefore better?
We are a large, yet pitfully unprepared nation in the event of a serious global conflict.
I don't see how sticking our collective head in the sand and pretending nothing bad is ever going to happen to us helps.
We require some type of defence, No?
What should CANADA do?

[Cobra1]

.. if only to shape the mechanics of a defense system. Using the PAtriot or Arrow systems , the risk is that you take out the propulsion system, leaving the paylod to hit short of the target. AS the pole is still the shortest route for a China/Korea, rogue CIS, then Canada is the recipient. The US will protect itself, MExico and Canada need to ensure they dont become the "shoulder area" where intercepted missles land and cause destruction.

[happywanderer]

Although Mr. Putin seems bound to recreate (in some way) the old Soviet-like sphere of influence/intimidation and all the lovely perks that came with it... MAD, I thought that these days we are fighting a different type of war. The days of keeping the peace with Minutemen isn't exactly over, but we have to a) focus on what the threats are right now, and b) as Canadians, understand where we should put our efforts in detering those threats.
While we have to certainly keep a watchful eye on the likes of people like Kim Jung Il, I believe we are in small war scenario. Our doctrine and spending on defense should be in rhythm with who and what we are... not a multi-million (right now... insert billion later on) space defense system (SDI boondoggle). We should have a small, but extremely professional standing army, navy and airforce with a capable civilan reserve system.
The days when we were one of the larger military forces in the world (end of WW2) are long gone. Let's be rational and logical in what we do in the future. Let's buy the right weapons, not ones that we "feel" are the most politically expedient (remember the Avro Arrow).


TTFN

[guelph]

Don't forget the great track record with missle defence systems I can think of SCUD and Bomarc as two major flops are we heading for three.

Canada got totally ripped with the bomarc purchase. I hope its once bitten twice shy

[Ranger68]

SDI is nonsensical. The weaponization of space is something that should be fought against.

If the US was really concerned about security, and not about their military-industrial complex, they'd find better ways to do things.

That having been said, the US may at some point be presenting Canada with a fait accompli. At some point, it may be in our best interests to go along with it, if for no other reason than to improve relations, since there wouldn't be any good reason to continue opposition.

[Drunken Master]

Originally posted by Ranger68
SDI is nonsensical. The weaponization of space is something that should be fought against.

If the US was really concerned about security, and not about their military-industrial complex, they'd find better ways to do things.

That having been said, the US may at some point be presenting Canada with a fait accompli. At some point, it may be in our best interests to go along with it, if for no other reason than to improve relations, since there wouldn't be any good reason to continue opposition.

I agree. If the US wants to waste money on putting Death Stars in orbit - that's fine with me. I frankly could care less about the "weaponization of space," beyond the fact that's there's precious little evidence that it can be made to work. I think we should go along with the States on this one just as we would with the plans of the kid on the block who keeps wanting us to help him build a tank with pipe cleaners and a refrigerator box.

[danmand]

Originally posted by Diode
So danmand..what do we do? The US is pure evil, and all other despots are therefore better?
We are a large, yet pitfully unprepared nation in the event of a serious global conflict.
I don't see how sticking our collective head in the sand and pretending nothing bad is ever going to happen to us helps.
We require some type of defence, No?
What should CANADA do?

North America has had no danger of being invaded for 200 years.A foregn missile never landed on North America. The dangers in the world today are different, as we all now understand. A missile shield will not help against muslim fundamentalists, HIV, SARS or what not.
Putting nuclear weapons in space only serves to enrich the military industrial complex and cement the hegemony of the US, so it can threaten everybody else.

The best defence for Canada is to help the have-nots of the world become haves.

[langeweile]

Originally posted by danmand
The best defence for Canada is to help the have-nots of the world become haves.


Are you willing to lower your standard of living to make this happen?

[Ranger68]

A better question would be, why isn't the US spending some of its MASSIVE military budget on this, instead of on SDI, since it would *clearly* increase national security much more than some ballistic missile shield?

Another question would be, is anyone else bothered by yet another broken treaty, yet another illegal action by the United States? There was an ABM treaty, if I recall correctly - don't ask the Repubs, I'm sure they haven't heard of it either. :rolleyes: Are we down to just doing whatever strikes our fancy of the day, international law be damned? Fuck you, pal, we're gonna do whatever we want?

How is this attitude defensible?

[langeweile]

Originally posted by Ranger68
A better question would be, why isn't the US spending some of its MASSIVE military budget on this, instead of on SDI, since it would *clearly* increase national security much more than some ballistic missile shield?
How is this attitude defensible?

Military expenditure creates jobs.
Foreign aid has been one of the flops of foreign policies.

1) the money never makes it to the people.
2) Since the money ends up in the hands of the goverments, those goverments become independent from their population, and loose all motivation for reforms.

[Ranger68]

Military expenditure, at the cost of foreign aid, has put the US into a debt hole it might never climb out of.

Your two assertions are typical, but pretty much faulty, of arguments against foreign aid.

[langeweile]

Ranger,
Again my comments don't come from a Dyer book. My stepsister happens to live in Kenia and is married to a Kenian. She has lived there for the past 15 years or so.
She has seen first hands what happens to foreign aid money. She has witnessed several attempts by well meaning nations to establish some type of agriculture there. Everything was fine until the foreign aid workers left. The fields were neglected and the natives lost interest.

If a goverment is not depended on the goodwill and tax money of it's citizen, because money to maintain themselves comes from another source. What motivation does the goverment have to follow the wishes of it's people?
People are greedy and become even more so when put in to an unchecked position of power.

[Ranger68]

My comments don't come from a Dyer book, either.
LOL
It doesn't pay to reference authority with any of these jobbers.

Not to belittle your sister's situation, but has she kept an accounting of all the foreign aid that's come? I've seen people make fake IDs, too, but that doesn't mean that nobody has real ones. Right?

Don't pass judgement on all foreign aid, just because it doesn't always make miracles happen. You're making bad assumptions and generalizations about the goals of foreign aid.

[danmand]

Originally posted by langeweile
Are you willing to lower your standard of living to make this happen?

The answer is yes, not only am I willing to, I have done it.

Any place where there is a gulf between the haves and the have-nots, (and I have lived a few places like that, including the US and South Africa), violence and high rates of criminal behavior follows. I assume from your question that you don't include that in your definition of standard of living.

I chose to lower my standard of living (by your definition) by living in Canada, instead of in the US or South Africa.

[Quest4Less]

It's a forgone conclusion that there WILL be weapons in space eventually. Given that, would you not want to be on the side that put them there? If there are to be "death stars" in space, I'd sure want a piece of them, maybe the ability to influence the "owners".....

[Ranger68]

Why is it a foregone conclusion?
Is it a foregone conclusion that there will be a nuclear war? I think saner heads can prevail, *provided* enough people speak up against a notion.

[Diode]

Ah but Ranger, out of control social spending has put Canada into the same debt hole, similar to the US.
Yes, I agree that the ideal would be a more "fair" distribution of resources...But The Soviet Union, failed, N.Korea is a basket case, China is quickly adopting a "western style" economy and Cuba, survives due to Canadian Tourists.
What Governments should do ,is encourage a Healthy competitive economy, that requires as many smart, high tech people as possible.
SDI, won't work...? Maybe, but the real gains come from the failures of the technology, forcing ever better solutions.
There is no sin in encouraging a homeland design of defensive wepons.
RE: Terrorists..I.don't really think money has everything to do with their hatred...It is a fundemental difference to our way of living. No wepon will stop this.

[Ranger68]

No weapon defense will stop terrorists.
Also, technologies will advance regardless of whether or not we develop a "space shield" to defend ourselves from some non-existent threat.
Finally, I'd rather be in a debt hole from social spending than military spending.

[danmand]

The fact is that Canada is NOT in a debt hole. We have healthy surplusses, that is why the $C is gaining on the $US.

By the way, the canadian debt is largely held by canadians, while a big portion of the US debt is held by China, Japan, etc.

[Diode]

The problem, Ranger, is the Scocial Service "Industry" that sucks up valuble and scarce resources and continues to feed at the Trough of "unlimited" Government dollars ( read: Taxpayers Hard earned cash)
I'm all for helping the less fortunate, and donate a decent amount of my take home to real Charity groups..who make a differnce, without having HUGE INFRISTUCTURE like boondogle government schems.
It costs Toronto $65k per year per shelter "bed"
Come on. I pay less than 10% of that for my Morgage and 4 people live in my house.
Goverment does not do things with Resonable cost...It consumes tax dollars without any concern from those who pay.

But if a government allows high tech, and not so high tech industry to flourish..We are all better off.

Technology will advance, yes...But never has so much happened so quickly as did during the drive to the MOON landing.

That, is the type of project that causes Real advancement.

[onthebottom]

Originally posted by danmand
The fact is that Canada is NOT in a debt hole. We have healthy surplusses, that is why the $C is gaining on the $US.

By the way, the canadian debt is largely held by canadians, while a big portion of the US debt is held by China, Japan, etc.

danmand,

Yes and no. You do owe money, a fairly healthy amount actually, but at the moment your government takes in more than it spends.

There are many reasons for the US dollar falling, trade deficit, budget deficit and it was too strong to begin with. Some worry that the dollar falling is a way for the US to reduce it's foreign debt load, not getting as many Yen for those bonds as the Japanese once were.

The USD is still the worlds reserve currency - if that were to change the US would have to clean up it's fiscal house, I don't think it will change - suggest a currency that has a stronger economy behind it that he USD and we can discuss.

OTB

[jwmorrice]

Originally posted by Diode
...It costs Toronto $65k per year per shelter "bed"
Come on. I pay less than 10% of that for my Morgage and 4 people live in my house... I don't know where you got that figure - it seems awfully high - but if it refers to an operation like Seaton House, the cost of doctors, nurses, kitchen staff, pest exterminators, shelter workers, etc., is probably factored in.

jwm

[Diode]

Jw,you pest: you are right, of course. That's probably not a fair Number to use.(The 65k, published in the NP last year)
But do you argree Government housing schemes are way too expensive?

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by Diode

But if a government allows high tech, and not so high tech industry to flourish..We are all better off.

Technology will advance, yes...But never has so much happened so quickly as did during the drive to the MOON landing.

That, is the type of project that causes Real advancement.

I agree with your first statement. However, preventing the weaponization of space isn't going to hold up anybody.

Nobody went to the moon armed.

[danmand]

Originally posted by Diode
Jw,you pest: you are right, of course. That's probably not a fair Number to use.(The 65k, published in the NP last year)
But do you argree Government housing schemes are way too expensive?

A society will always be judged on the way it treats it's most disadvantaged members. And I for one am appalled by the sight of people sleeping on the streets of Toronto. It is truly embarrasing and disgraceful that a rich society is abandoning these disadvantaged people.

[Diode]

Right danmand...These people have to be encouraged to work..
Make an exciting, fast place WORK environment wher people are egear to show up every day.
Tell people who are capable of work (must be close to 98%), that every job has value and purpose. Work hard, get promoted, make more $.
Don't "steal" so much of their paycheque for HUGE, Wasteful government.
People who are INCAPABLE of work, must be helped, that's what Charity, and basic welfare is for.
People who don't Want to work... For them I have NO Smpathy ...
Get off your Duffs and DO somthing.
Our Nanny state, leads to to many Layabouts who Feel intitlted to MY MONEY!
Encourage, work, growth, and Charity!
That's the way to help!
BTW wanna bet the Joint Chiefs encouraged the moon shot, with some military goals in mind?

[Ranger68]

What, exactly, does all this have to do with helping third world nations?

Who cares what the joint chiefs thought the goals of the moon mission were? The rest of us thought differently, and it still hasn't led to the weaponization of space.

[Diode]

Is it not possible Ranger..If I make more Money..I might just donate more to worthwhile causes? The third world, Shelters, Homes for pregnant girls?
Is it so bad to want to defend what we have?

[Ranger68]

Why wouldn't you *want* to help the third world? Especially, if you need a self-serving reason, if it's going to improve the security of your country?

[Diode]

Ranger: My we read into things , don't we?
Did I ever say (write)
I did not WANT to help the Third world? HUH???

Look again boy-o!
Yes, of course, My family, friends and Loved ones must come first.
I'll admit it! I'm ruthless!
But GEEEEEZZZ, guy, I want to help people in bad straights.
But WAstefull Government Boondogles help NO-ONE!
Give me MY money, which, strangley enough..I earned By busting my ASS 60-90 hours a week, and I will decide Where, and to Whom I will send my donations.
Simple!!!!
And Yea, I like the Idea of a strong, secure country.
Geez I like the Idea of Keeping arms to protect myself,
just in Case..But MY thats just not the Canadian ( wimpy) way.

[Ranger68]

I've heard this argument before.
It doesn't wash.
Our governments should be helping out the third world before they spend BILLIONS of dollars "fighting terrorism" or weaponizing space. It's not up to YOU to decide where that money should go. It's up to the government. And if you think that's the same thing, you don't understand modern "democracy".

[Diode]

Wait, my friend, I along with my 30M citizen neighbours elect that government.
Now If we decide to call the Government out, regarging actions deemed to go against their mandate, can we not Protest?Complain? Strike?

The Government is there to SERVE not to get in my way.
Yes Leadership is required, But without constant input from the citizens, what good is it?
Remember, I make my money, Government has the power to Extort it from my by threats of fines/jail.

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by Ranger68
I've heard this argument before.
It doesn't wash.
Our governments should be helping out the third world before they spend BILLIONS of dollars "fighting terrorism" or weaponizing space. It's not up to YOU to decide where that money should go. It's up to the government. And if you think that's the same thing, you don't understand modern "democracy".


You argue that the US should be the bank and charity to the world, rather then support their home defense.

Were some to break into your home an kill your family and friends. Would you just say Oh well I deserved it??????? Or would you want to bring those who did it to justice???? Maybe even a third choice here. If you suspected you knew who was behind it. Would you find a way to get to them??????

Most would say the second choice but be thinking about the third.

But some might believe innocents should die and walk away.

[someone]

Originally posted by Drunken Master
I agree. If the US wants to waste money on putting Death Stars in orbit - that's fine with me. I frankly could care less about the "weaponization of space," beyond the fact that's there's precious little evidence that it can be made to work. I think we should go along with the States on this one just as we would with the plans of the kid on the block who keeps wanting us to help him build a tank with pipe cleaners and a refrigerator box.

I agree, as long as the U.S. is welling to pay the cost, I don't see any downside and perhaps an upside in defence contracts. Of course, if they want U.S. to fork up significant cash, I think that our starving Armed Forces could use the money much more and a project that few experts think will work.

[assoholic]

..well one downsize is a further erosion of Canadian Independence.I dint like the idea of US military personel in Canada at all. Let alone an increase in that presence.

[Ranger68]

Originally posted by papasmerf
You argue that the US should be the bank and charity to the world, rather then support their home defense.

Were some to break into your home an kill your family and friends. Would you just say Oh well I deserved it??????? Or would you want to bring those who did it to justice???? Maybe even a third choice here. If you suspected you knew who was behind it. Would you find a way to get to them??????

Most would say the second choice but be thinking about the third.

But some might believe innocents should die and walk away.

Nope. I argue that the US' best interests would be served by using missile defense money on foreign aid.

LOL

But keep up the rhetoric. ;)

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Nope. I argue that the US' best interests would be served by using missile defense money on foreign aid.

LOL

But keep up the rhetoric. ;)





How does weakening home defense strengthen America, when you have pointed out that both China and North Korea seems to have the US targeted?

I am not sure why you are not calling for China and Russia to increase foreign aide and decrease defense spending.

[Ranger68]

How does the missile defense shield "weaken home defense"? How would foreign aid not *boost* home defense?

Neither China nor North Korea would launch on the US. To do so would be suicidal - and they're not Islamic terrorists. If North Korea didn't have nuclear weapons, the US may already have invaded. It's called deterrence.

Why isn't the US pursuing the ABM treaty with the Chinese?

I'm not calling for China and Russia to increase foreign aid because I have no conduit to their governments and peoples. It would be pointless.

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by Ranger68
How does the missile defense shield "weaken home defense"? How would foreign aid not *boost* home defense?

Neither China nor North Korea would launch on the US. To do so would be suicidal - and they're not Islamic terrorists. If North Korea didn't have nuclear weapons, the US may already have invaded. It's called deterrence.

Why isn't the US pursuing the ABM treaty with the Chinese?

I'm not calling for China and Russia to increase foreign aid because I have no conduit to their governments and peoples. It would be pointless.


The US Soth Korea and North Korea signed a treaty a few years back as you might recall. Invading North Korea is quite simply a foolish statement on the part of those who would try to deflect light away from fact.

[Ranger68]

Uh ... so why are they on the "axis of evil"?? Not a foolish statement at all. Bush put them on alert. Did you miss that? The US has no peace treaty with NK, and they've withdrawn from the NPT.

What treaty are you talking about?

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Uh ... so why are they on the "axis of evil"?? Not a foolish statement at all. Bush put them on alert. Did you miss that? The US has no peace treaty with NK, and they've withdrawn from the NPT.

What treaty are you talking about?

An armistice agreement was signed (July 27, 1953).


Would you call that a treaty?

[Ranger68]

LOL
Okay, I guess this qualifies as "a few years ago".
LOL
So, why did Bush decide to monstrously endanger that treaty and place them on the "axis of evil"? I can find quotes where he *directly threatens them with military force*, if you'd like.

The US has signed LOTS of treaties - many of them YEARS ago, you'd be interested to know - and has recently begun to break large numbers of them.

LOL You're too much, papasmerf. :D

[papasmerf]

I was never privy to the meetings that led Bush to conclude that North Korea having ICBMs or other weapons would be a threat to the world. So in that you need to ask Bush or his cabinet. I am sure you will.

[Ranger68]

So why are you in here talking smack about something you don't know anything about?
Not that that's stopped you before. LOL

Buh-bye.

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by Ranger68
So why are you in here talking smack about something you don't know anything about?
Not that that's stopped you before. LOL

Buh-bye.

Na you are trying to ask for opinions to be drawn not based on fact but speculation. I just can't anwer your question. And stated so.

[Ranger68]

Yup. You can't answer my question. Or practically any question you're posed. Whether it involves fact-based arguments or opinions.

LOL

Nice try though. Well, not really.

You said that the notion that the US was going to invade NK was foolish. I reminded you - or maybe *informed* you - that the US had directly threatened them, and quite recently - much more recently than the end of the Korean War. You then said you had no idea what Bush was thinking about - which sorta implies that your first statement was utterly false. Nothing to do with "speculation" - just simple logic.
:)

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by Ranger68
Yup. You can't answer my question. Or practically any question you're posed. Whether it involves fact-based arguments or opinions.

LOL

Nice try though. Well, not really.

You said that the notion that the US was going to invade NK was foolish. I reminded you - or maybe *informed* you - that the US had directly threatened them, and quite recently - much more recently than the end of the Korean War. You then said you had no idea what Bush was thinking about - which sorta implies that your first statement was utterly false. Nothing to do with "speculation" - just simple logic.
:)

the same logic that says the sky is falling.

[Ranger68]

LOL
Nice rhetoric.
LOL
Again, I'll refrain from arguing with you - it's not even that enjoyable, bashing someone who has such a tiny grasp on reality and rationality. At least some of the others in here can *kinda* represent what they're talking about. Arguing with you is like talking with someone in grade five about these things.

If you had a clue, you'd be dangerous. You don't, so you're easy to ignore.

Buh-bye.

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by Ranger68
LOL
Nice rhetoric.
LOL
Again, I'll refrain from arguing with you - it's not even that enjoyable, bashing someone who has such a tiny grasp on reality and rationality. At least some of the others in here can *kinda* represent what they're talking about. Arguing with you is like talking with someone in grade five about these things.

If you had a clue, you'd be dangerous. You don't, so you're easy to ignore.

Buh-bye.


Hell you broght up simple logic. I was hoping you would present it.

Bummer

[Necromancer]

SDI is a response to the Chinese who are currently investigating the feasibility of putting up nukes in space as a defense to "rogue meteroites" and an effort to push the US ahead of all nations in technology for the upcoming trade wars.

As for North Korea, this joke nation is making a lot of noise because its days are numbered. The US policy of forcing PRK to talk to the ROK, Japan, China, Russia and the US together is a brilliant move. They are forced to face all their possible enemies and benefactors together which doesn't give them much squirming room. This is giving them fits as can be seen by their on again, off again meetings.

I nearly lost it when I heard that Scarey Kerry said he would have unilateral talks with the PRK. This would only legitiimize the PRK's claim that the ROK is merely a puppet government and that all South Korean peoples are slaves to the USA. A reason for the PRK to start a war.

[Ranger68]

Why isn't the US negotiating with China on these issues?

If NK's a "joke nation", why is it on the Axis of Evil? Or, is the implication that the phrase "Axis of Evil" is a joke? ;)

[Necromancer]

The twisted ties of war and money. Every country on this earth is behaving like a sycophantic moron believing that there are endless riches in China and therefore cannot jeopordize possible future trade possibilities. Witness the EU pushing to leave China out of the Kyoto treaty. What sense is there in a pollution treaty when you leave out some of the worst violators?

Here's one reason why the PRK is a joke nation: the leader, Kim Jong-Il fancies himself to be one of the most handsome men in the world. He boastfully tells people of the number of women who cannot get enough of him and that any female in his country quickly falls under his good looks (or else they die; seeing how he looks, death may be better). This is a joke leader and therefore a joke country.

[Ranger68]

We need not fear "a joke country".

China is well down the list of polluting countries. And they ARE on the protocol - they've SIGNED it - they are just exempt from the FIRST ROUND of emissions controls. Read it before you criticize.

You haven't answered my question - why isn't the US negotiating with China on these treaties?

[Necromancer]

Hmmm...do you see China on this list (especially in Annex B)?

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html

In most cases, I would agree with you that joke countries should not be feared but when they have nukes, it's a little different.

As for China, as I tried to make in my previous point, they have said that this is "only for emergency space disasters, end of discussion, do you really want to jeopordize future trade?"

[Ranger68]

The facts are EXACTLY as I've stated them:
http://www.mct.gov.br/clima/ingles/quioto/signata.htm

As I clearly already indicated, the first round of emissions controls exempts developing nations. When their capacity to emit GHGs rises to the levels of industrialized nations, they will be expected to take part in controls.

Who then cares if NK is "a joke" or not, because clearly they should be paid attention to? Are they a joke or aren't they? Argue the facts, don't soapbox.

If the *US* doesn't want to jeopardize future trade, that's up to them. I think, if they were concerned about China's programs, they'd want to talk. Fact is, they don't. It's not about China. It's about *seeming* to be involved in another arms race, about *seeming* to still have global enemies capable of inflicting massive harm on the US. The ABM was a good, decent treaty, signed for very good reasons. That the US has abandoned it should tell you that its priorities have changed.

[Asterix]

Originally posted by Ranger68
At least some of the others in here can *kinda* represent what they're talking about.

Feeling especially generous today?

[Ranger68]

;)
Papasmerf's ramblings have taken on Pansey-like tones. lol

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by Ranger68
;)
Papasmerf's ramblings have taken on Pansey-like tones. lol

Ah I see your mom got you up from your nap.

[Asterix]

Originally posted by Ranger68
;)
Papasmerf's ramblings have taken on Pansey-like tones. lol

Not what I was referring to, but that's OK. Guess that one *kinda* went right over your head.

[Ranger68]

I'm sorry, did you say something? Something intelligent?
I must have missed it.

[papasmerf]

Originally posted by Ranger68
I'm sorry, did you say something? Something intelligent?
I must have missed it.


Could be you were napping