View Full Version : Bush to be arrested in Canada?
I was just watching CNN Headline News (Yes I know) and the announcer suggested that Bush could be indicted under Canada's War Crimes act, if so he would be arrested as soon as he arrived in Canada.
Obviously I don't think this will happen. but it's a nice thought.
What would this mean for international politics. It would certainly hurt our relations with the US.
mattmns
Nov28-04, 05:06 PM
I doubt it.
If Canada arrests Bush they better be ready to feel the wrath of the powerful United States! If I ever become Pres. of the US I will definately take over Canada :smile:
Here's a website on the matter
http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/news/2004/11/16472_comment.php
I doubt it.
If Canada arrests Bush they better be ready to feel the wrath of the powerful United States! If I ever become Pres. of the US I will definately take over Canada :smile:
Thank you for that wonderfully intellectual comment.
mattmns
Nov28-04, 05:30 PM
No problem, to be serious for a minute or two.
Do you really think that Canada is going to make an attempt to arrest the President of the United States? If Bush actually had a chance of getting arrested in Canada there is no way he would be willing to go there. I am not a friend of Mr. Bush, but I guarantee you that he has plenty of lawyers on his side that are making sure that there is no way for him to get arrested anywhere.
"As well, according to a foreign affairs spokesperson, visiting heads of state are immune from prosecution when in Canada on official business. If Ottawa wanted to act, it would have to wait until Bush was out of office — or hope to catch him when he comes up here to fish." - Quote from your source.
Looks like Canada would have to wait four years anyway.
There's no chance Canada would even try to arrest Bush. I hope no one is seriously thinking that it would. Just imagine the ramifications...
Anyway, on a side note: Bush isn't going to speak in Parliament anymore for fear of being booed. (That is a real possibility). What a shame though, that would have been quite entertaining.
Some clubs at my school are organizing a trip to Ottawa to protest Bush. Maybe I'll go. I haven't been to Ottawa in a few years.
Gonzolo
Nov28-04, 05:47 PM
LOL! Now THAT would be news, wouldn't it? Be careful what you read. This is not a serious issue.
Well, he's actually comming to my city. There's so many people ready to protest. I don't believe anyone wants him here. So many of our highschools were closed down, to house the people on the 911, and we didn't even get a thanks.
When this was first brought up, the issue wasn't that they could arrest Bush now (if only...), but an attempt prevent Bush's visit. The letter sent to the PM (http://www.canadiandemocraticmovement.ca/displayarticle505.html) by some lawyers stated that inviting Bush showed contempt for Canadian law and called for declaring Bush persona non grata in Canada (and indicated that allowing the visit might make it possible to indict the PM for abetting Bush's war crimes).
Ooooh, that's good too! (not as good, but still good)
PerennialII
Nov29-04, 12:15 AM
When this was first brought up, the issue wasn't that they could arrest Bush now (if only...), but an attempt prevent Bush's visit. The letter sent to the PM by some lawyers stated that inviting Bush showed contempt for Canadian law and called for declaring Bush persona non grata in Canada (and indicated that allowing the visit might make it possible to indict the PM for abetting Bush's war crimes).
This is rebuilding my belief is lawyers ... great effort !
loseyourname
Nov29-04, 03:43 PM
In case you guys don't know, every president, presidential candidate, and ex-president, along with their families, are constantly followed by enough secret service agents that it would take a pretty strong force to take any of them anywhere against their will.
schwarzchildradius
Nov29-04, 04:28 PM
ROTFL wouldn't the Queen kick your guys' butts?
franznietzsche
Nov29-04, 04:38 PM
I doubt it.
If Canada arrests Bush they better be ready to feel the wrath of the powerful United States! If I ever become Pres. of the US I will definately take over Canada :smile:
You mean canada is still independent? i thought they were just another one of those evil blue states...
ROTFL wouldn't the Queen kick your guys' butts?
HAHaha..oh too true to really be funny...but it is!
I doubt it.
If Canada arrests Bush they better be ready to feel the wrath of the powerful United States! If I ever become Pres. of the US I will definately take over Canada :smile:
What would you want? Our Seakings? Or water? =\ Oh, maybe our ice, perhaps?
Gonzolo
Nov29-04, 06:23 PM
I was quite surprised to see the subject coming up on cbc, one of Canada's foremost news channel tonight!
I was quite surprised to see the subject coming up on cbc, one of Canada's foremost news channel tonight!
I was even more surprised seeing it on CNN the least TWO nights!
mattmns
Nov29-04, 09:09 PM
What would you want? Our Seakings? Or water? =\ Oh, maybe our ice, perhaps?
No, what I will want is all of America.
My first day as pres I will take over Canada, not that it will take long, maybe a few hours or so. :tongue2: Then Mexico, Central America, South America. After that, my followers and I will build a huge shield protecting us from every other country in the world. Then we will stop almost all military spending, and use our newfound wealth for health care and that other good stuff.
revelator
Nov29-04, 11:04 PM
My first day as pres I will take over Canada, not that it will take long, maybe a few hours or so.
You guys tried it once already, it didn't seem to go to well.
mattmns
Nov29-04, 11:13 PM
You guys tried it once already, it didn't seem to go to well.
The US did? What year and under which president?
Loren Booda
Nov29-04, 11:35 PM
Can you imagine the gall of Canadian officials arbitrarily targeting members of other governments for persecution?
The US did? What year and under which president?
1812 under maddisson
(hint: It's when the whitehouse was burned down)
mattmns
Nov30-04, 01:27 AM
1812 under maddisson
(hint: It's when the whitehouse was burned down)
Ok, I didnt think it was recent, that was almost 200 years ago. I think we could easily take you guys today :tongue2:
Ok, I didnt think it was recent, that was almost 200 years ago. I think we could easily take you guys today :tongue2:
Thats what you said then "They're busy with Napoleon, we could easily take them today"
revelator
Nov30-04, 01:37 AM
Ok, I didnt think it was recent, that was almost 200 years ago. I think we could easily take you guys today
That's a given :P. But we'd give a resistance like nobody's business.
Although I don't know how you would expect to be able to occupy so much land. Canada is the second largest country in the world in terms of area. And on top of that you want the other North/South American countries?
mattmns
Nov30-04, 01:48 AM
Thats what you said then "They're busy with Napoleon, we could easily take them today"
I never said that, maybe some US president or somebody else did.
Personally I don't know much about history, and don't worry about history because it is well useless. We all know that history does not predict the future.
That's a given :P. But we'd give a resistance like nobody's business.
I have no doubt that many of you will resists, nobody likes to lose their country. After I take over all of America I will have a big shield created to protect us and then cut almost all of the military spending and use it on some stuff that will help everyone live better.
Back on topic for a second... Bush is visiting Canada today(now Nov 30 04)? The visit is still on? If so I guess we will find out what happens soon :cool:
edit... back off topic
Although I don't know how you would expect to be able to occupy so much land. Canada is the second largest country in the world in terms of area. And on top of that you want the other North/South American countries?
Good point. That led me to think of something better, I was actually thinking about how the shield would work in central america because of how small and narrow it is. Now that I think of it more, maybe not, meh I'll worry about it when I am elected President.
Once again another thread has been hijacked into a Canada vs. USA argument. Continue.
Can't we all just...get along?
mattmns
Nov30-04, 02:02 AM
yeah I was thinking the same thing while reading my post, thats why I decided to stop thinking about it and try to get back on topic.
What time is Bush scheduled to enter Canada? I am guessing that he is going to speak, or sign something?
Personally I don't know much about history, and don't worry about history because it is well useless. We all know that history does not predict the future.
Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it, You can't begin to comprehend how controversial that statement is.
Good point. That led me to think of something better, I was actually thinking about how the shield would work in central america because of how small and narrow it is. Now that I think of it more, maybe not, meh I'll worry about it when I am elected President.
What is this 'shield' you talk about, and how are you going to cut military spending while simultaneously occupying all the Americas?
mattmns
Nov30-04, 02:07 AM
Can't we all just...get along?
I think we can.
Edit... ok one last comment before bed, since I am unsure of what you(Smurf) mean
You can't begin to comprehend how controversial that statement is.
Which statement? I am going to guess that you are refering to my "[w]e all know that history does not predict the future" statement.
I personally feel that nothing can predict the future. I do realize that history can point out certain trends that have happened in the past, but nothing can determine exactly what will happen tommorow.
My shield, don't worry about it. You will find out about it when I become president.
Edit 2... Smurf you are absolutely correct.
I forgot to define "history." When I say that history is useless I am talking about US history, World history, etc (something you would take at school). You may still disagree with this, but I just wanted to clear that up.
History, as in the history of my life, is very usefull. The history of my life being things that I have done, or seen happen, etc. I have made mistakes in my life that I will try to never repeat, and that is when history(of my life) is usefull.
Now hopefully to sleep :zzz:
PerennialII
Nov30-04, 03:42 AM
I forgot to define "history." When I say that history is useless I am talking about US history, World history, etc (something you would take at school). You may still disagree with this, but I just wanted to clear that up.
Does not really make it easier to buy, from historical perspective it's easy to say that people are repeating the very same patterns and mistakes over and over to date, perhaps if they stopped for a sec to learn and evolve from mistakes & successes of the past, at least some of the trivial mistakes could be reduced in number. People really haven't changed that much over the centuries.
revelator
Nov30-04, 04:59 AM
mattmns I can see your campaign slogan now.
Meh?! I'll figure it out later! Vote mattmns!
Personally I don't know much about history, and don't worry about history because it is well useless. We all know that history does not predict the future.
No it does not, but it does keep a record of all the incredibly stupid mistakes we've made over the years. If people don't learn history, then they won't learn about these incredibly stupid mistakes. Which will lead to people repeating the same old mistakes.
History, as in the history of my life, is very usefull. The history of my life being things that I have done, or seen happen, etc. I have made mistakes in my life that I will try to never repeat, and that is when history(of my life) is usefull.
Think of it this way. Your personal history is a very good guide, when making decisions in your life. Human history works the same way, just on a larger scale.
Since I'm in a bubble bursting mood, I'd also like to point out that once you cut your military spending, it won't take very long for some next country to invent something that could get around/through this shield of yours.
This has to be one of the most poorly thought out plans of conquest I've ever heard. Pinky and the Brain usually come up with better than that.
revelator, are you pondering what I'm pondering?
revelator
Nov30-04, 06:25 AM
Uhh, I think so plover, but I can't memorize a whole opera in Yiddish.
:D
mattmns
Nov30-04, 08:58 AM
Yep you guys are right, I'm a moron, sorry for wasting your time. :cry:
I forgot to define "history." When I say that history is useless I am talking about US history, World history, etc (something you would take at school). You may still disagree with this, but I just wanted to clear that up.
History, as in the history of my life, is very usefull. The history of my life being things that I have done, or seen happen, etc. I have made mistakes in my life that I will try to never repeat, and that is when history(of my life) is usefull.
Why is it usefull on a personal level but not on a much larger international scale?
Yep you guys are right, I'm a moron, sorry for wasting your time. :cry:
Don't worry, We've been planning world domination our whole lives, you'll catch up in a few years :biggrin:
mattmns
Nov30-04, 10:24 AM
History is probably useful on an internation scale to some people(elected officials for example). I just do not see how it can help me. I could easily be wrong though. If you can give me some great examples of how international, US, even Canadian, history will help me in some way then I will easily change my point of view on the subject.
I just do not see how watergate and nixon, the bay of pigs and kennedy, the cold war helping civil rights, the US intervining in the phillipines, cuba, etc, helps me. (sorry I only know modern US history, maybe thats why I see it as being useless to me lol) I am not saying that history is not interesting(I think it is); however, I am saying that I do not see how I could use the watergate scandal to help me in daily life. If you can come up with some good examples I will easily change my position.
loseyourname
Nov30-04, 03:21 PM
Does not really make it easier to buy, from historical perspective it's easy to say that people are repeating the very same patterns and mistakes over and over to date, perhaps if they stopped for a sec to learn and evolve from mistakes & successes of the past, at least some of the trivial mistakes could be reduced in number. People really haven't changed that much over the centuries.
Not that I agree with the view that the study of history of useless, but the argument could easily be made that those who do study history still repeat the same mistakes.
I just do not see how watergate and nixon, the bay of pigs and kennedy, the cold war helping civil rights, the US intervining in the phillipines, cuba, etc, helps me. (sorry I only know modern US history, maybe thats why I see it as being useless to me lol) I am not saying that history is not interesting(I think it is); however, I am saying that I do not see how I could use the watergate scandal to help me in daily life. If you can come up with some good examples I will easily change my position.
Nothing would give me greater joy.. but I don't know you so I wouldn't know where to start... I think that everyone should learn about the History of Capitalism (you won't learn this in textbooks) just because so many people are naive about the whole system.
mattmns
Nov30-04, 10:54 PM
Yeah I was thinking about how it would be quite hard to find something useful for someone you don't know.
The history of captialism? Do you mean economics? Or how capitalism has progressed over the years? Capitalism like in The Jungle?
No, I mean how US Capitalism has caused more human rights violations than anything else I can think of.
mattmns
Nov30-04, 11:05 PM
So like in the book The Jungle. Have any recommendations of good books about Capitalsim in the US?
Yeah, "What Uncle Sam Really Wants (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-contents.html)" by Noam Chomsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky)
and anything else by Noam Chomsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky), Howard Zinn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Zinn) and maybe even Michael Moore. A movie just came out called "The Corporation (http://www.thecorporation.tv/)" which is really good too.
mattmns
Nov30-04, 11:22 PM
Thanks, I will definately check that book out. I just read Dude where's my country by Moore; it is not all capitalism, but it does have some interesting stuff about big corporations. I have only read Terrorism and War by Zinn, but will definately look for other stuff by him.
:!!) Wooooaaaoo, from dominance to fraternity, I see the beginning of world peace. There is hope, there is hope. :approve: :smile:
revelator
Dec1-04, 05:20 AM
So apparently, it's gonna cost the city of Ottawa $3 Million (Canadian Dollars) to host the President and his entourage for his 30 hour stay.
There is now also an attempt to bring charges against Rumsfeld and the Abu Ghraib chain of command in Germany (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/120104X.shtml).
russ_watters
Dec1-04, 08:14 AM
Yeah, "What Uncle Sam Really Wants (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-contents.html)" by Noam Chomsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky)
and anything else by Noam Chomsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky), Howard Zinn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Zinn) and maybe even Michael Moore. A movie just came out called "The Corporation (http://www.thecorporation.tv/)" which is really good too. Well done, Smurf - while I don't know who Zinn is, Chomsky and Moore are the perfect examples of how not to study history.
As you of course know, the greatest potential problem in learning history is bias. Chomsky's anti-capitalist bias is the reason he's famous.
As I'm sure you also know, the greatest way to combat bias is with facts. Moore is the greatest innovator in propaganda we've had in decades and his contribution is his ability to twist facts, making it more difficult (for the gullible and willfully ignorant) to identify the bias. Previous propagandists relied on rhetoric, utterly devoid of facts. Moore is heavy on facts; carefully chosen and precisely worded to decieve his audience without being specifically factually wrong.
Nevertheless, the bias of both is still evident and the way to check for bias is to check the ratio of opinion to facts. While Moore (I know less of Chomsky's work) uses more facts than previous propaganists, his work is nevertheless also heavily opinion-based. In addition, his facts are so qualified and carefully worded, that to a critical observer, they are obvious attempts to mislead: a fact presented as a question is a real red-flag, for example.
The history of capitalism is best learned from an economics textbook. They teach the theory and the factual history and are relatively light on opinion. Learning it from a political source can be more problematic since the economic theory is so closely tied to politics.US Capitalism has caused more human rights violations than anything else I can think of. Another wonderful reverse-psychology. This highlights the fact that western democracy, the political theory tied to capitalism, is the only form of government ever enacted that actively protects human rights.
The most blunt facts to support this would have to be 20h century internal kill-rates associated with the various governments in the world. China and the USSR were killers of the highest efficiency in raw numbers, though per capita, I'm sure there are some southeast asian and african countries that did better. North Korea in particular is taking a good shot at the title, having killed roughly 10% of their citizens in the past 10 years. As far as external killing goes, even including war, the US (and most other western countries) end up with negative kill-rates due to their humanitarian aid. Admittedly though, it is difficult to calculate how many people you save by stopping a famine or genocide.
russ_watters
Dec1-04, 08:40 AM
Since I am admittedly fairly ignorant of Chompsky's work, I picked a page from one of those links to read. THIS (http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-2-09.html) one. Its propaganda of the traditional sort: light on facts, heavy on rhetoric. One paragraph in particular jumps out at me: The situation in Africa is even worse. The catastrophe of capitalism was particularly severe in the 1980s, an "unrelenting nightmare" in the domains of the Western powers, in the accurate terms of the head of the Organization of African Unity. Illustrations provided by the World Health Organization estimate that eleven million children die every year in "the developing world," a "silent genocide" that could be brought to a quick end if resources were directed to human needs rather than enrichment of a few.[emphasis added] This paragraph contains one fact (in bold), devoid of context. The rest of the paragraph is opinions (with one psuedo-fact). And does the fact support the opinions? It appears to, but only if you consider the implications being made in the opinions as facts. If you add the context (the associated real facts), you will clearly see that it does not: As Aquamarine has been parroting lately (because people continue to believe the opposite), it is a fact that global poverty levels are decreasing and it is a fact that the reason for this is the proliferation of capitalism.
The last point in the quote is particularly ironic: it is pseudo-factual, meaning it is trivially true that a lot could be done if more money was channeled to humanitarian aid, but it its implication ("enrichment of a few") is rhetorically false (ie, not specifically a lie, but highly misleading): While it is true that capitalism benefits some more than others, the implication that capitalism happens at the expense of others is factually wrong. But the irony comes from the fact that the money that Chompsky argues should be used to feed the poor would not even exist without capitalism.
Great stuff, in any case. Its fairly weak for convincing a critical mind, but to somene who only wants a confirmation of things they already believe, I'm sure its potent stuff. From the looks of it, Moore has taken a lot from Chompsky and built on his work.
selfAdjoint
Dec1-04, 10:18 AM
The man's name is Chomsky, not Chompsky.
The statement that "the implication that capitalism happens at the expense of others is factually wrong" is your interpretation, just as the paragraph you quote is Chomsky's interpretation. The free market (absent government intervention) generates a distribution of incomes, and so it CAUSES both the high and the low incomes. We've had the argument before as to whether the assignment of individuals to income slots represents more luck (genes, parents' wealth, circumstances) or virtue; you haven't convinced me it's virtue.
fourier jr
Dec1-04, 11:40 AM
Have any recommendations of good books about Capitalsim in the US?
"Forces of Production" by David Noble
"Imperial Brain Trust" by Shoup/Minter. here (http://www.eco.utexas.edu/Homepages/Faculty/Cleaver/357Lsum_s2_ShoupMinter.html)'s a synopsis
In September 1939, as the war broke out, Council members felt the need for advanced planning and offered a long range planning project, called The War and Peace Studies Project. This would assure close Council-Department of State collaboration and the formation of several study groups to focus on the long term problems of the war and to plan for peace. Research and discussion would result in recommendations to the department and President Roosevelt, and would not be made public. The Rockefeller Foundation granted the Council $44,500 to finance this project. It was then concluded that, as a minimum, the American “national interest” involved free access to markets and raw materials in the British Empire, the Far East and the entire Western hemisphere.
The man's name is Chomsky, not Chompsky.
The statement that "the implication that capitalism happens at the expense of others is factually wrong" is your interpretation, just as the paragraph you quote is Chomsky's interpretation. The free market (absent government intervention) generates a distribution of incomes, and so it CAUSES both the high and the low incomes. We've had the argument before as to whether the assignment of individuals to income slots represents more luck (genes, parents' wealth, circumstances) or virtue; you haven't convinced me it's virtue.
No its certainly not his interpretation. Its factual.
Attention kids:
There is only One Pie in the One Pie World. Can't see it?
Money is only poker chips; it is not really a flow of value for value. So, whenever someone gets paid 10,000,000 dolllars, that means that there are 10,000,000 less poker chips to pay anybody else. If you add up all the wages/salaries of everybody in America, it must equal M1. Assets=Revenue, that's all I really can figure out, the difference between a static account and a flow just boggles my mind, so, if somebody gets paid a gazillion bucks a year, it must be coming out of my Fair Share.
Those of us who have no clue should limit the earnings of those that do, because there are more of us.
Amorphous society has not seen fit at its secret meetings to award Me-Me-Me with untold millions, so sumpin must be wrong with the world.
I am not paid what I deserve, but I stay at my job anyway because nobody will pay me more to do what I want to do, live where I want to live, and live how I want to live, the heartless bastards.
Why can't they pay pro athletes less, and just give the rest to me? AFter all, we all have a gun to our heads when it comes to supporting the NFL and NBA. I may suck at basketball, but I'm not 100 million times worse then Matumbo. I mean, he's taller then me, but he's not 100 million times taller then me. Besides, he's a gawk. Life's not fair. But, I still watch the games...
Life really should be just like the endless Thirteenth Grade. Show up, slouch behind the desk, and wait for that big promotion. I mean, public education is free. That means it's effortless, and we should all get the same grades and the same outcomes from the adults running this thing.
They don;t need to pay CEOs 100 million dollars. Hell, I'll do it for 10 million dollars, and the rest can support the Thirteenth Grade. After all, we have no choice but to drink Coca Cola and work for huge corporations. I mean, we just gotta do that.
Ditto the Space Shuttle. No need to spend all those millions. I'll deliver cargo into low earth orbit for half the price. How hard can it be?
It's like witnessing the Stupidization of America.
AWI is 30,000/yr. Who in the world is twice as 'good' as anybody else or 'deserves' to be paid twice as much as the 'average' American? 'twice' is so insulting. Better cap salaries/wages at 60,000/yr. Then, stand back and see how much 'extra' cash just flows into the economy.
Better yet, let's fix the whole world while we are at it. AWI in Bangladesh is $1000/yr. Let's cap worldwide wages/salary at $2,000/yr. I mean, why should the 'average American' be making THIRTY times what the 'average' Bangladeshi is 'earning.' Surely, the average American is not THIRTY times more deserving then the average Bangadeshi? How judgmental.
That way, there will be more paper dollar bills to burn in our little Hibachis.
Freedom; it's not just being eaten at breakfast anymore.
This is not, never was, and will never be, a One Pie World.
The fact that some are successful has no impact on others ability to be successful as well.
Get over it.
russ_watters
Dec1-04, 02:29 PM
The statement that "the implication that capitalism happens at the expense of others is factually wrong" is your interpretation, just as the paragraph you quote is Chomsky's interpretation. No, it isn't - factually wrong is factually wrong. Here's why: The free market (absent government intervention) generates a distribution of incomes, and so it CAUSES both the high and the low incomes. That is true but it does not address the issue at all because it makes no claim nor provides any data about what the income of that bottom 5th could be without capitalism, nor does it provide any data that the income of that bottom 5th is decreasing. That's why it is misleading and that is why the implication garnered from it is still factually wrong.
The actual data we have says several things:
-The income/living conditions of the bottom 5th of the population in the US is increasing (I don't have data for other western countries, but I think you would agree that their poor live quite a bit better than the average sub-Saharan African).
-The global poverty rate is decreasing (rapidly).
-The vast majority of wealth generated in this world comes from capitalistic countries.
The conclusion that comes from these facts is self-evident: capitalism is good for virtually everyone. We've had the argument before as to whether the assignment of individuals to income slots represents more luck (genes, parents' wealth, circumstances) or virtue; you haven't convinced me it's virtue. Yes, we have and though we disagree on that discussion, that discussion is utterly irrelevant here. Regardless of what slot someone falls into [in the US], the average income in every slot is increasing. In addition, my being born in an upper-middle class American family did not cause another child to be born in sub-Saharan Africa.
Capitalism has, of course, had its failures: Argentina comes to mind (though some would argue that it wasn't implimented correctly). But compare that to the economic failures in non-capitalistic countries: North Korea comes to mind. You do know how many people have starved to death in the past 10 years, right?
russ_watters
Dec1-04, 02:32 PM
For the benefit of those who didn't read the whole thing.... No its certainly not his interpretation. Its factual.
Attention kids:
There is only One Pie in the One Pie World. Can't see it?......
[much, much later]
This is not, never was, and will never be, a One Pie World. [emphasis added]
The fact that some are successful has no impact on others ability to be successful as well.
Get over it.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.