Nick Against the World (109 Viewers)

[Bozi]

lol i am sooo fucked if anyone here sees that you crazy bastard

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Why are you screwed?

 

[Geof]

I'm starting to like Inter. They never disappoint, really. Once again they made me a happy man!

 

[Martin]

Adriano benched, just like everyone predicted Mancini would do. If he didn't have such a huge squad he wouldn't be able to tweak his lineup every single match, Moratti should just give him 11 players and get it over with. Meanwhile our two heroes have collected 4 red cards between them and it's just September.

 

[Geof]

Meanwhile our two heroes have collected 4 red cards between them and it's just September.

 

[swag]

yeah, after the hit "tie a yellow ribbon around the old oak tree", its been all downhill...

and I can see why !!!

Let's not forget "Knock Three Times" and their fabulous variety TV show.

glad to see that Inter is living up to their reputation

They honestly must do this intentionally. Nobody could be so amusingly pathetic by accident.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

I'm starting to like Inter. They never disappoint, really. Once again they made me a happy man!

I feel that scheisse.

 

[Azzurri7]

Meanwhile our two heroes have collected 4 red cards between them and it's just September.

 

[IncuboRossonero]

Over at Xtratime some Milan fellas created the Massimo Moratti fan club but I think a Roberto Mancini Club is in order for anti-Inter fans...its thanks to this over-rated, self-labelled 'genius' egomaniac that Inter is in such fine form: 160 million Euro spending spree...one of the most talented Brazilians riding the bench and quietly wanting OUT...along with Grosso. No system...no management...no game plan....thank you ROBERTO.

As it has been sung in the Curva Sud (Milan) many times and many ways:


NON VINCETE MAI (You Never Win).


int:

 

[IncuboRossonero]

Banner Translation: (Dante's picture with the words: Since 1908 you are the Real Comedy)

 

[Azzurri7]

Nick,

Seeing that Inter will be waving their good-bye soon in their Champions League comedy campain, You and your Milan better hurry up with Inter in Serie A. You know we'd die If Inter were to win the Scud. So please let your Maldini(the player) focus on the game.

Nothing would be better than to see these fookers empty handed, though they have a chance to win Coppa Italia with Mancini. But not able to win Serie A, with Milan starting minus. That wouldn't be only a shame, but EXTRA shame.

Not to forget Old Lady bouncing back to Serie A, to put Inter back to where they really belong.

So Nickkito, make sure your Milan side to rape Mancini's boys this season.

int:

 

[IncuboRossonero]

Nick,

Seeing that Inter will be waving their good-bye soon in their Champions League comedy campain, You and your Milan better hurry up with Inter in Serie A. You know we'd die If Inter were to win the Scud. So please let your Maldini(the player) focus on the game.

Nothing would be better than to see these fookers empty handed, though they have a chance to win Coppa Italia with Mancini. But not able to win Serie A, with Milan starting minus. That wouldn't be only a shame, but EXTRA shame.

Not to forget Old Lady bouncing back to Serie A, to put Inter back to where they really belong.

So Nickkito, make sure your Milan side to rape Mancini's boys this season.

int:

In my 25 plus years watching Serie A I have NEVER been afraid of Inter...despite all the spending sprees, all the major changes, despite all the hype I have never considered Inter a threat. They manage to lose it on their own....which is why when Calciopoli comes up they have no right to call themselves 'victims'. They lost EVERYTHING on their own save one match a few years back and the questionable Ronaldo call however, they would have managed to fuck it up.
All this to say that even if we NEVER catch up to Inter this season, some other team will win it: Perhaps Roma who seemed much more in control than INter...who despite the loss seems like a team which is more organized ...maybe Palerno who also are more consistent.
Inter with Mancini has NEVER been consistent..they beat Juve and lose to Villareal..they win a big match in Champions and lose big in SErie A...-8 is a large gap when it comes down to it but I have full faith in Inter fecking up their chances...
Yes, Milan beating INter for the Scudetto would be the ultimate humiliation perhaps even bigger than the 6-0 defeat and double CL defeat however, Inter running out of excuses as to why they can't win is just as 'sweet'.

 

[3pac]

Well I'm jumping on the "Forza Milan" bandwagon this season as well

 

[IncuboRossonero]

Well I'm jumping on the "Forza Milan" bandwagon this season as well

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know"


Besides, just remember WHO had no problem acting as scavengers and pillaging your team like hungry vultures on a corpse....what amazes me is that out of ALL the choices they took the red card duo int:

 

[Respaul]

Vinni, I haven’t got allot of time, so I’m gonna quickly breeze through your post...
I apologise for this, But your one post, I could quite easily reply to with an article going into pages upon pages. Obviously I'm not gonna do that as I don’t have time, not to mention it would bore the forum to tears.
Especially one particular section which I won’t even answer.
If you don’t want to continue this conversation then please do not read on.
If you do, Then although this reply is very brief I will expand on this and reply fully to subsequent replies at another time.
Being that I can’t be doing with the arguments that revolve around these subjects on this forum, I would also like to point out this is a discussion and will not become a personal attack...
Unfortunately I've now built this up to be far more than it is, this is only a short reply, but one which may lead to a worthwhile discussion and it needs to be made clear that it is merely a discussion... Certain individuals on this forum never allow a political or religious conversation to pass without turning it into world war 3, Not to mention the complete and utter lack of respect and acceptance of others opinions...
The latter being one of the reasons I am actually replying here... As in this case a hell of allot of the conversation is about facts, not opinions...
I've combined both your reply and my original post to make it easier.
At the bottom of this post I include a couple of attached documents as I don’t have time to go into them and they are key to the arguments you have made against Mr. Clinton and your defense of Mr. Bush and the Republican ideal.
There is one key document for various reasons I can’t add at this time, but I'll mention that later and you can find it if you look anyway.

I looked back at a book that I read 4 years ago, and stand corrected...

Book... Don’t tell me Hannity? Miniter?
There’s a minor difference between our approach here... Whilst you have looked to a book for an answer, I have looked to recognized documentation...
As for books... I don’t like to point to books on these issues and especially not this one as it aligns me in the wrong place as to this discussion, But whatever you think of the man, If you want a truthful account of this period (A book built around documented fact with very little personal opinion), You need look no further than Dick Clarkes book.

Paul was right..the date Bin Laden left Sudan was May 18, 1996....

You should know me well enough by now, to know, I wouldn’t have said it if it was not correct.

however, Clinton had many reasons to want to detain Bin Laden, the CIA gave him forty thick files of intelligence, and the threat that he posed, but Billy declined

I'll cover this a bit more in response to another part of your post... However, As I said before, No one saw Bin Laden as a real threat in 1996, Ayman al-Zawahiri Was at that time the known terrorist organiser and the most feared man from a US perspective.
In 1996 Bin ladin was known as merely a supporter and financier, Not an actual terrorist threat... No different to so many others at the time that have passed unnoticed ever since.

Now I can say this as many times as I like and you will not accept this... As such I will quote you an excerpt from the one document you have shown a belief in...

As late as 1997, however, even
the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center continued to describe him as an "extremist financier."
In 1996, the CIA set up a special unit of a dozen officers to analyze intelligence
on and plan operations against Bin Ladin. David Cohen, the head of the
CIA’s Directorate of Operations, wanted to test the idea of having a "virtual
station"—a station based at headquarters but collecting and operating against
a subject much as stations in the field focus on a country.Taking his cue from
National Security Advisor Anthony Lake,who expressed special interest in terrorist
finance,Cohen formed his virtual station as a terrorist financial links unit.
He had trouble getting any Directorate of Operations officer to run it; he finally
recruited a former analyst who was then running the Islamic Extremist Branch
of the Counterterrorist Center.This officer,who was especially knowledgeable
about Afghanistan, had noticed a recent stream of reports about Bin Ladin and
something called al Qaeda, and suggested to Cohen that the station focus on
this one individual. Cohen agreed.Thus was born the Bin Ladin unit.2
In May 1996, Bin Ladin left Sudan for Afghanistan.A few months later, as
the Bin Ladin unit was gearing up, Jamal Ahmed al Fadl walked into a U.S.
embassy in Africa, established his bona fides as a former senior employee of Bin
Ladin, and provided a major breakthrough of intelligence on the creation, character,
direction, and intentions of al Qaeda.Corroborating evidence came from
another walk-in source at a different U.S.embassy.More confirmation was supplied
later that year by intelligence and other sources, including material gathered
by FBI agents and Kenyan police from an al Qaeda cell in Nairobi.3
By 1997, officers in the Bin Ladin unit recognized that Bin Ladin was more
than just a financier.They learned that al Qaeda had a military committee that
was planning operations against U.S. interests worldwide and was actively trying
to obtain nuclear material. Analysts assigned to the station looked at the
information it had gathered and "found connections everywhere," including
links to the attacks on U.S. troops in Aden and Somalia in 1992 and 1993 and
to the Manila air plot in the Philippines in 1994–1995.

I've highlighted the important bit that refute your claim and back up mine... It clearly states that the CIA saw Bin Ladin only as an extremist Financier until 1997.
It also clearly shows that the links to Bin Ladins previous deeds were not made until 1997, not before as many today assume...

For fucks sake... Why can’t people get over that shit... It is irrelevant... A non story.. It was a non story then and it still is today... He screwed around with someone he should not have... so fucking what

I don’t care about that...if he wants a piece of ass because his wife is a closet dyke not giving him any action...then by all means do so !! I just commented that the finger waving lies were the same

Ok I accept your reasoning for saying that, though in reality he wasn’t technically lying... As such by the logic of comparing the two incidents, then he must not have been technically lying in this case either... Which of course is also true…

An offer that even if it did happen was useless... As for America to enforce this extradition at that time (a time when he was not linked or confirmed to have been involved in any act against the US) would have broken nigh on every international law and convention... The only place he could have legally been extradited to was Saudi Arabia... Who refused... If he had been extradited to Saudi Arabia that would have opened the door for the US, But they didn’t... I don’t see you blaming this on the Saudi Government

I blame the Saudi government for many things...this, along with sending Bin Laden tons of money to Afghanistan to keep him out of the kingdom. They were basically helping fund terrorism

Whilst valid points... They were not the issue of the moment.
The issue was that whilst you blame Clinton over this incident you do not blame the Saudi's who were the one and only people that could have legally extradited Bin Ladin.
Whether you like it or not, In 1996 we did not have the anti-terror laws of today, The united states could not have legally extradited Bin Ladin with the knowledge they had of him at that time.
The only thing that Clinton could have done at that time was ask the Saudi’s to take him which would have allowed a route for the US to monitor and investigate him... This is what Clinton did indeed do... But his request was denied.

In late 1995, when Bin Ladin was still in Sudan, the State Department and
the CIA learned that Sudanese officials were discussing with the Saudi
government the possibility of expelling Bin Ladin.U.S.Ambassador Timothy Carney
encouraged the Sudanese to pursue this course.The Saudis, however, did
Not want Bin Ladin, giving as their reason their revocation of his citizenship.

We also haven’t touched on the question over whether this 'offer' did indeed take place...
The only 'evidence' we have of said offer is the words of one Mr 'Mansoor Ijaz'... A morally questionable man to say the least...
I then hear you say that Clinton may or may not have admitted this occurrence...


Now here lies a key issue... We have already touched on the illegalities of the US extraditing Bin Ladin at that time... Now we have another issue that deepens the very problem of legality...
Who made this offer? Fact: There was never an official offer from the Sudanese government to arrest and extradite Bin Ladin to the United States.
What we may or may not have is a behind closed doors discussion between Ijaz and the Sudanese, or then again we may jus have the big talk of a little man(no one from Sudan has ever backed him up on his declarations).
So now we are left with the issue that even if the United States could have legally held Bin Ladin... With the laws current to the time, An extradition not officially backed by Sudan would have broken even more laws..

Not to mention that in 1996 Bin Laden was not seen by anyone as the key threat... In 1996 Ayman al-Zawahiri was seen as the key threat to the US... Indeed it wasn’t until the formal amalgamation of Egyptian Islamic Jihad and al-qaeda in 1998 that Bin Laden was recognized as the primary enemy.

The CIA has had files on Bin Laden since 1994...he has been making threats against the USA since about that time (or even sooner)

The first mention of the CIA having knowledge of Bin Ladins movements was in 1992

In 1993, the CIA
noted that he had paid for the training of some Egyptian terrorists in Sudan.
The State Department detected his money in aid to theYemeni terrorists who
set a bomb in an attempt to kill U.S. troops in Aden in 1992. State Department
sources even saw suspicious links with Omar Abdel Rahman, the "Blind
Sheikh" in the NewYork area, commenting that Bin Ladin seemed "committed
to financing ‘Jihads’ against ‘anti Islamic’ regimes worldwide." After the
department designated Sudan a state sponsor of terrorism in 1993, it put Bin
Ladin on its TIPOFF watchlist, a move that might have prevented his getting
a visa had he tried to enter the United States.

Again, whilst the CIA had files on Bin Ladin at that time, As shown earlier, He was at that time only seen as a sympathizer and financier... Not an actual terrorist threat.
He also never made a public threat against the US until August 1996

I also don’t see you attacking or laying any blame at the hands of Bush senior for his inactions or inability to deal with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed... Principal architect of the 93 bombing, Oplan Bojinka and eventually 9/11 itself... and of course being behind the attempt to destroy AA Flight 63... The FBI had knowledge of the forthcoming attack on the world trade center in 1992, yet what did Bush senior do? Oh yes ... NOTHING

I've never heard that, nor read it anywhere...Bush Sr. isn’t Clinton...if he had clear info, he would have acted

Well whether you've heard it or not it was widely reported and confirmed at the time... But even then you still sidestepped the issue of Bush Seniors inaction with regards to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed... A known terrorist, A man known to be wanting to attack the US and a man that at that time there was far more information about than there ever was in 1996 in reference to Bin Ladin. You don’t criticize Bush Senior yet you rip into Clinton.
You also keep saying that Clinton did nothing... Your only real argument on that subject in as long as I’ve read what you have to say on this subject has been regarding the Sudanese extradition issue... which has been shown to be at best beyond weak and reality a complete fallacy.
You don’t mention the Bills Clinton passed which changed the shape of International Anti-Terrorist law... Bills that in essence made the excessive War on Terror laws of George Bush possible.
You don’t mention he is the only person to even come close to capturing / killing Bin Ladin...
You don’t mention the warnings and plans he set out and handed to Bush when he left office(The Delender Plant & A Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of Al Qaida; Status and Prospects), Which of course went ignored.
You don’t mention the 60 cruise missiles fired at Bin Ladin's camp in Afghanistan...
You don’t mention even Clinton’s policies or what he had to say about terrorism.

What did the 9/11 report say ?

President Clinton issued a classified directive in June 1995, Presidential
Decision Directive 39, which said that the United States should "deter, defeat
and respond vigorously to all terrorist attacks on our territory and against our
citizens."The directive called terrorism both a matter of national security and
a crime, and it assigned responsibilities to various agencies.Alarmed by the incident
in Tokyo, President Clinton made it the very highest priority for his own
staff and for all agencies to prepare to detect and respond to terrorism that
involved chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.101
During 1995 and 1996, President Clinton devoted considerable time to
seeking cooperation from other nations in denying sanctuary to terrorists. He
proposed significantly larger budgets for the FBI, with much of the increase
designated for counterterrorism. For the CIA, he essentially stopped cutting
allocations and supported requests for supplemental funds for counterterrorism.
102
When announcing his new national security team after being reelected in
1996, President Clinton mentioned terrorism first in a list of several challenges
facing the country.In 1998, after Bin Ladin’s fatwa and other alarms, President
Clinton accepted a proposal from his national security advisor, Samuel
"Sandy" Berger, and gave Clarke a new position as national coordinator for
security, infrastructure protection, and counterterrorism. He issued two Presidential
Decision Directives, numbers 62 and 63, that built on the assignments
to agencies that had been made in Presidential Decision Directive 39; laid out
ten program areas for counterterrorism.



Although the 1995 National Intelligence Estimate had warned of a new type
of terrorism, many officials continued to think of terrorists as agents of states
(Saudi Hezbollah acting for Iran against Khobar Towers) or as domestic criminals
(Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City).As we pointed out in chapter 3,
the White House is not a natural locus for program management.Hence, government
efforts to cope with terrorism were essentially the work of individual
agencies.
President Bill Clinton’s counterterrorism Presidential Decision Directives
in 1995 (no. 39) and May 1998 (no. 62) reiterated that terrorism was a national
security problem, not just a law enforcement issue.They reinforced the authority
of the National Security Council (NSC) to coordinate domestic as well as
foreign counterterrorism efforts, through Richard Clarke and his interagency
Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG). Spotlighting new concerns about
unconventional attacks, these directives assigned tasks to lead agencies but did
not differentiate types of terrorist threats.Thus,while Clarke might prod or push
agencies to act, what actually happened was usually decided at the State Department,
The Pentagon, the CIA, or the Justice Department. The efforts of these
Agencies were sometimes energetic and sometimes effective. Terrorist plots were
Disrupted and individual terrorists were captured. But the United States did not,
Before 9/11, adopt as a clear strategic objective the elimination of al Qaeda.

Etc etc etc... If Clinton didn’t do allot.. Bush has done Fuck All...

Whose government was it that allowed a known terrorist and nephew of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef To cross your border and carry out the 1993 WTC attack? Whose government was it that allowed Yousef to leave the US?... Oh yes Bush Senior

I didn’t know Bush Sr. was working border patrol that night.
I guess we could blame Clinton for letting the 9-11 attackers into the country as well

It’s not about border patrol... In Yousef was a known Terrorist, A flagged Terrorist who walked through American customs without question, on the back of something as simple as sending another through with false paperwork minutes earlier...
Not once... But Twice...
Don’t see how you can lay that to Clinton, 9/11 was on your mans watch...

Whose government captured Yousef... No, not Bush Snr... It was of course the worthless Mr Clinton

Give the hapless FBI some credit...they did all the work

Well really you have to give credit to the man in charge... So many organizations involved, you can’t really single out one...

You blame Clinton but how far should we go back... Why didn’t Reagan deal with Ayman al-Zawahiri? Why didn’t Bush Snr deal with Ayman al-Zawahiri?
They both had the opportunity...
Oh yes, that’s right, he was off helping Americas cause against the Soviets at that time....
We can also look as to why Carter or Reagan did nothing about Abdullah Yusuf Azzam... A man who had it not been for we may never have seen the rise of Osama Bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri or indeed Al Qaeda being that it was indeed Azzam who laid the seeds for al qaeda... It was essentially his idea

You answered your own question...
When Reagan was prez, our biggest threat wasn’t al-Zawahiri...it was the Soviets !! C'mon Paul, you’re older than me...you remember how the communist machine was, and that they invaded Afghanistan. As the old saying goes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

Very different type of threat.
As for the Soviets, I won’t comment on that. As an Englishman my take on the Soviets and our relationship with them is very different to that of an American. You must remember that these are people, no matter what happened later, that we stood shoulder to shoulder with in battle. It was a very different situation for us.
But it does raise the issue that Your presidents funded and armed a known terrorist, A man who had threatened the United States... Does that really make sense to you? To arm and fund a known threat... Even if he's helping you at the time, It's pretty obvious where the money and arms are gonna go afterwards... It’s pretty obvious what such a man would do with said arms...
These arms built the ELJ and Al Qaeda...
In exchange for a job you could have done yourselves but for not wishing to get your hands dirty... Can you Now, Honestly say it was worth it??

Interesting how you use the 9/11 report to refute what Clinton says on this issue but then ignore the 9/11 reports statements regarding your key argument against Clinton (the supposed offer of extradition of bin laden)... An allegation the 9/11 report clearly states is complete and utter fallacy

I don’t believe the story was made up...Clinton has said many times the biggest mistake of his presidency was not getting Bin Laden

We've discussed that abit so I won’t bore you more on that...
You are wrong on what Clinton has said on this... Whilst there may be misquotes and even slips of the tongue from the man himself... If you listen to any of the interviews he has said this, It is clear to all that the word he says is not mistake, But Regret... He regrets he failed... At least he tried.

Why are people 'fooled'... as they don’t agree with you?
Bill doesn’t fool me at all... He's to coin a phrase "exactly what it says on the tin" always has been.
I think the same of the man now as I did 20 years ago

So you agree that he's full of shit ??

This is the bit I’m not gonna get into at this time... I could write for days on this...
But I would recommend looking through both Clinton and Bushes Election Policies... See whose contained more lie's... Look to the policies each man passed in his presidency... Look to what they said they would do, and then compare them to what those Bills really did... See who lied most...


Now one of the key things you complain of in regards to Clinton is a lack of action... You praise Bush for his supposed pro-active stance...
Please explain to me how you can have ago at Clinton and support bush when:

On January 5th 2001, Bush received a memo from Dick Clarke Clearly stating the threat from Al Qaeda, A memo containing Clintons Delender plan and strategy plans regarding the threat posed by Bin Ladin et al...
He took no notice... Why if they weren’t worth looking at in January 2001 was every issue outlined in those plans acted upon in November 2001 (2 months too late).

In the following 9 months anti-terrorist measures and resources were at their lowest for over 10 years as Bush settled into his presidency without a care for what was going on around him.
Tell me how he did nothing when he received 52 separate intelligence reports regarding Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda between April and early September 2001...
Many of said reports highlighting the risk of Hi-jacking's and suicide missions...

"In the months before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal aviation officials reviewed dozens of intelligence reports that warned about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, some of which specifically discussed airline hijackings and suicide operations, according to a previously undisclosed report from the 9/11 commission. But aviation officials were 'lulled into a false sense of security,' and 'intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/11 did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures,' the commission report concluded. The report discloses that the Federal Aviation Administration, despite being focused on risks of hijackings overseas, warned airports in the spring of 2001 that if 'the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable.' ... Among other things, the report says that leaders of the F.A.A. received 52 intelligence reports from their security branch that mentioned Mr. bin Laden or Al Qaeda from April to Sept. 10, 2001. That represented half of all the intelligence summaries in that time. Five of the intelligence reports specifically mentioned Al Qaeda's training or capability to conduct hijackings, the report said. Two mentioned suicide operations, although not connected to aviation, the report said. ... The classified version of the commission report quotes extensively from circulars prepared by the F.A.A. about the threat of terrorism, but many of those references have been blacked out in the declassified version, officials said. Several former commissioners and staff members said they were upset and disappointed by the administration's refusal to release the full report publicly. 'Our intention was to make as much information available to the public as soon as possible,'

That information is confirmed within the 9/11 Commission Report.

Please explain how you denounce Clinton for his supposed inaction with little to no evidence, yet support Bush for his complete inaction with insurmountable evidence ?

Also, if indeed Mr Bush is doing the right thing and doing the right thing for the American people, how do you explain recent Government reports stating that Bush's action have led to a far greater threat to the United States?


Transcript of Memo from Dick Clarke to Condoleeza Rice - Jan 2001 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20memo.pdf

Copy of document attached to above memo: Strategy for eliminating the threat from the jihadist networks of al qida - http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20attachment.pdf

Full transcript of 9/11 Commission Report - http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf


I apologise for skating through my response and the poorly written/laid out nature of it... I just don’t have time for anything better or more complete...

 

[3pac]

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know"


Besides, just remember WHO had no problem acting as scavengers and pillaging your team like hungry vultures on a corpse....what amazes me is that out of ALL the choices they took the red card duo int:

I never hated milan in the first place, I just don't support them. It's hard not to respect a team that manages to win titles while remaining classy.

Inter on the other hand...well....

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Over at Xtratime some Milan fellas created the Massimo Moratti fan club but I think a Roberto Mancini Club is in order for anti-Inter fans...its thanks to this over-rated, self-labelled 'genius' egomaniac that Inter is in such fine form: 160 million Euro spending spree...one of the most talented Brazilians riding the bench and quietly wanting OUT...along with Grosso. No system...no management...no game plan....thank you ROBERTO.

As it has been sung in the Curva Sud (Milan) many times and many ways:


NON VINCETE MAI (You Never Win).


int:

I can feel this.

Damn, one hell of a post, Pauly.

 

[3pac]

I can feel this.

Damn, one hell of a post, Pauly.

I am officially afraid to ever speak to Paul

 

[Vinman]

Paul,

I read thru everything you posted, but instead of the back and forth here of political facts and opinions...lets save it for MSN

 

[Bjerknes]

Paul certainly knows his facts. I love how he quoted the 9/11 report like he's presenting a case in front of the Supreme Court.

To further berate President Bush on this forum, he recently stated that the Iraq War would be nothing more than a "comma in history." A comma in history, is that right Georgie boy? More like thousands of commas in history with how many innocent lives you've taken with your useless pursuit of Saddam Hussein and subsequent oil fields.