random websites, articles sent to me by friends, links on various message boards and newsgroups. apparently the same places you do.
so, at what point was this in any danger of going forward?
It still is going forward.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Cool. Call me if they put us all on the peso overnight. I'll keep looking for Dr. Evil. Hopefully, I find him before they put their evil plan into action.
Cool. Call me if they put us all on the peso overnight. I'll keep looking for Dr. Evil. Hopefully, I find him before they put their evil plan into action.
seriously, I cannot see this being any sort of priority right now ...
good to know about, but, again, it's no where near the top of the agenda at current.
Maybe overtly it isn't. Stuff like this just doesn't go "boom" and appear. They gradually wear away at the people's attention and let it go unnoticed for periods at a time only to let it slightly resurface as something marginally different in name but almost entirely the same in function. All one needs to do is take a look at how the implementation of the Federal Reserve came to be and one can see some of the very same actions going on here.
Or perhaps he hasn't heard of it because this is some nutty fringe group of people who have no hope of ever getting this plan off the ground so no one with REAL issues to deal with doesn't give a flying fuck what they're "hatching and planning." It's not like they're going to create some NAU without any government ever taking a look at the plan.
That's BS.
You are saying that a North American "Union" is the coveted ideal of a "nutty fringe group"?
CHECK THESE CNN VIDEOS OUT, before you think this idea is something hatched by crazy people with no influence. ANYTHING BUT:
"THE SECRECY AND LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY THAT HAS MARKED DEVELOPMENT OF THE SPP ... LEAVE INSUFFICIENT ROOM FOR INFORMED INVOLVEMENT OF CIVIL SOCIETY..." -- Amnesty International
I wish i could find the report he did the NEXT day, because it had interviews with 2 or 3 congressmen & women and they were PISSED about being cut out of the loop on all proceedings. I believe congress in full actually signed a complaint about it ... over 100 members signed.
Crazy nuts, them all, i guess.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I wish i could find the report he did the NEXT day, because it had interviews with 2 or 3 congressmen & women and they were PISSED about being cut out of the loop on all proceedings. I believe congress in full actually signed a complaint about it ... over 100 members signed.
Crazy nuts, them all, i guess.
So, aside from having a bunch of secret meetings, what exactly have they done?
"Secret" meetings by the leaders of North America doesn't concern you in of itself?
No, not particularly. I don't expect to be invited to the president's foreign intelligence briefings. I didn't expect to be invited to Camp David when Carter tried to talk peace with Palestine and Israel. I don't expect to be invited to confidential merger negotiations between computer companies. I only expect that if the governments or leaders involved decide to pursue action, it will be brought to the people and subjected to public scrutiny before implementation. Until then, let them talk all they want about whatever they damn well please.
No, not particularly. I don't expect to be invited to the president's foreign intelligence briefings. I didn't expect to be invited to Camp David when Carter tried to talk peace with Palestine and Israel. I don't expect to be invited to confidential merger negotiations between computer companies. I only expect that if the governments or leaders involved decide to pursue action, it will be brought to the people and subjected to public scrutiny before implementation. Until then, let them talk all they want about whatever they damn well please.
Suit yourself.
On this issue you and I clearly differ.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
No, not particularly. I don't expect to be invited to the president's foreign intelligence briefings. I didn't expect to be invited to Camp David when Carter tried to talk peace with Palestine and Israel. I don't expect to be invited to confidential merger negotiations between computer companies. I only expect that if the governments or leaders involved decide to pursue action, it will be brought to the people and subjected to public scrutiny before implementation. Until then, let them talk all they want about whatever they damn well please.
Cool. Call me if they put us all on the peso overnight. I'll keep looking for Dr. Evil. Hopefully, I find him before they put their evil plan into action.
You're part of the problem.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
No, not particularly. I don't expect to be invited to the president's foreign intelligence briefings. I didn't expect to be invited to Camp David when Carter tried to talk peace with Palestine and Israel. I don't expect to be invited to confidential merger negotiations between computer companies. I only expect that if the governments or leaders involved decide to pursue action, it will be brought to the people and subjected to public scrutiny before implementation. Until then, let them talk all they want about whatever they damn well please.
dude... You're fucking scary. Look around.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
In any event for Obama to feign ignorance to this is utter bullshit.
Take a good look at Obama, as that's exactly what he looks like when he lies.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
We get it dude. You really, really, really hate President-elect Barack Obama and have a gigantic hard-on for him to be an utter failure.
Got it. Doom and gloom, we're all gonna die. Got it.
Get some rest man.
It's not that. It's that I've been calling this long before Obama was even in the media.
Remove brand X insert brand Y.....business as usual.
People need to become aware this is how it's played, and start getting wise to it.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I'm trying very hard to give this thread the benefit of the doubt and abstain from terms such as "Fox Mulder," "tin foil," and "human-alien hybrid." That said, assuming everything you're saying is actually true, what *exactly* is the threat (in the sense of how it's actually going to affect my day-to-day life)?
Even in the crazily improbable off-chance that there was some merit to the whole thing, what is their master plan, how do they benefit, and how specifically do we lose? Please enlighten me...
"You are everything, and everything is you. Me, you... you, me -- it's all related."
Apparently many people are unaware of the foot-in-the-door principle, or the principle of the snowball moving in one direction, gathering speed, size and momentum.
Also, it seems people are unaware of the psychological principle that says when humans allow something to start on a smaller level, at later stages, when it becomes inconsistent with their beliefs, they are loathe to turn in a different direction. So humans will actually later change their beliefs so as to not experience cognitive dissonance, or to feel as though they are being hypocritical.
If anyone has ever read any of the basic Dale Carnegie type of information of how to get people to do your bidding...one thing is you get them moving in one direction, because once they accept the very direction, they will be unlikely to want to turn back. And then you know you've got them.
The average person is ignorant of self-actualization techniques. Our leaders and the minority of self-actualizing individuals are often very aware of them. This is why they hold "power" over the average person...who relinquishes their power in naivete and with ignoring (ignorance) what goes on right before them...
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm trying very hard to give this thread the benefit of the doubt and abstain from terms such as "Fox Mulder," "tin foil," and "human-alien hybrid." That said, assuming everything you're saying is actually true, what *exactly* is the threat (in the sense of how it's actually going to affect my day-to-day life)?
Even in the crazily improbable off-chance that there was some merit to the whole thing, what is their master plan, how do they benefit, and how specifically do we lose? Please enlighten me...
...and then ask yourself what are the implications of removing the borders and placing pretty much the entire infrastructure under one rule.
The name of your country becomes a mere technicality once the banks and currencies have been amalgamated.....then there's health, education, resources, military etc...
Sovereignty....gone.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Actually, I just prefer to wait until there are actually problems, and when I find them I like to talk about solutions. I still have yet to see what the problem is and you're certainly not offering a solution.
I get the impression you're just looking for validation, for everyone to acknowledge your superiority and insight about Barack Obama. Unfortunately for you, the rest of us prefer to see how he does in office before passing judgment upon him.
...and then ask yourself what are the implications of removing the borders and placing pretty much the entire infrastructure under one rule.
The name of your country becomes a mere technicality once the banks and currencies have been amalgamated.....then there's health, education, resources, military etc...
Sovereignty....gone.
Sovereignty? What's so great about that? The EU seems to be doing just fine under a similar format. Furthermore, what sovereignty do I have now? You can turn this argument the other way and say that the United States itself strips me of the sovereignty I would otherwise enjoy in the independent state of Ohio.
Honestly, if I'm going to be forced to submit my sovereignty to a country (USA) that includes the evangelical nuts in the south, I might as well add Canada on to at least water down those bastards' votes.
Actually, I just prefer to wait until there are actually problems, and when I find them I like to talk about solutions. I still have yet to see what the problem is and you're certainly not offering a solution.
I get the impression you're just looking for validation, for everyone to acknowledge your superiority and insight about Barack Obama. Unfortunately for you, the rest of us prefer to see how he does in office before passing judgment upon him.
That would be an incorrect assumption.
There are problems now, and it's going global. If you think sitting back and waiting is the solution, then you've already been left behind.
This has been going on (as I've already pointed out) long before Obama was ever a household name, or in the media.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Sovereignty? What's so great about that? The EU seems to be doing just fine under a similar format. Furthermore, what sovereignty do I have now? You can turn this argument the other way and say that the United States itself strips me of the sovereignty I would otherwise enjoy in the independent state of Ohio.
Honestly, if I'm going to be forced to submit my sovereignty to a country (USA) that includes the evangelical nuts in the south, I might as well add Canada on to at least water down those bastards' votes.
You want to surrender your infrastructure to foreign interests, and that doesn't even phase you?
Are you even proud of where you live?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Sovereignty? What's so great about that? The EU seems to be doing just fine under a similar format. Furthermore, what sovereignty do I have now? You can turn this argument the other way and say that the United States itself strips me of the sovereignty I would otherwise enjoy in the independent state of Ohio.
Honestly, if I'm going to be forced to submit my sovereignty to a country (USA) that includes the evangelical nuts in the south, I might as well add Canada on to at least water down those bastards' votes.
I'm personally all for a global village, and unification beyond borders.
And yet, when my borders -- in Canada -- are to be blurred with a Country -- the US -- that has lower standards in many ways (social programs...food standards), it's understandable that I'm concerned.
And yet, my actual concern is that what is being done is that the North American leaders are using sound evolutionary principles, which are taking us towards globalization, and they are using them for the gain of an elite. They are able to do this along with the naivete and the goodwill of the people. This is quite different than any vision I might have of a world without borders, where it plays out to the benefit of all.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Disregarding the sideshow argument over the EU -- given i think it is a large reversion back from true democratic government -- sovereignty is probably THE most important question man has dared to answer.
The United States was founded by men who came to a fundamental disagreement with their own great government over the rights of man to his OWN government.
The enlightenment era of mankind turned around the concept.
The American Revolution and the French Revolution seemingly answered that long argued question forever ... only to watch the fruits of their overwhelming wisdom, courage, and bloodshed slip away 200 years later in an era of profound ignorance and moral bankruptcy.
You need only think back to the history of man before the term "liberty" became popular (and then, pathetically, became a word most often used by "conspiracy theorists") to understand the imperativeness of sovereignty.
Great thinkers like Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke spent the better part of their lives defining and arguing the concept for the world. But you would have to go back to Bodin in the 1500s to get to the suggestion of a divine ultimate authority that the founding fathers of the United States of America believed in.
And that i think is where the story gets good.
The American Founding Fathers understood it to be that mans authority to govern came from the sovereignty of god. Natural law was the only immutable law.
When you understand that, then you understand the American Revolution and you can come to know the importance of "sovereignty".
The disagreements the colonies had with "the mother country" over her sovereignty to impose law by force over them led to one of the greatest revolutions of all time.
Man had a right to decide his own affairs in government. Our forefathers settled that dispute with great bloodshed. This right to self government emanated directly from divine sovereignty itself. It was the providence of god, of natural right, the very birthright of man himself -- it could surely not be the claim of a tyrant king or even an unrepresentative parliament.
Now.
Getting away from the tearjerking history (no kidding that stuff works me up) of the subject, the practical implications of sovereignty in the United States are that the 10th Amendment specifically guarantees this right to the states and the people directly in all cases where the right is not specifically enumerated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. The Constitution which, being written by the people, derived its authority directly from the supreme lawmaker of the universe.
If you allow some shit-eating politician to sell your sovereignty off to an international governing body, you have
a. directly and irrevocably violated the United States Constitution.
b. utterly trampled the rights of the people as enumerated in the 10th Amendment. YOU HAVE STRIPPED THEM OF THEIR OWN SOVEREIGN SELF GOVERNMENT.
It means that a law, value, or principle upheld by the people of the land DIRECTLY could be destroyed by an OUTSIDE authority.
THIS IS A RIGHT FOUGHT FOR AND SECURED IN BLOOD AT GREAT COST.
It SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN LIGHTLY!
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
It's almost humourous... It's like in the movie Field of Dreams...there are the people who can see the baseball players, and those who cannot.
Personally I don't think they have enough historical reference committed as knowledge to understand where everything used to be, and where it's heading. The smaller the aperture, the less light comes in, and is available for processing.
It started by and large with Mulroney and has gotten ever worse since then.
The days of Trudeau are long, long gone.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Folks, the Amero is not going to be hitting the streets any time soon ...
We're not going to lose our sovereignty ... believe me, when it becomes anywhere near a possibility, there will be hell raised, by many.
The feelings towards Mexico are FAR too negative by FAR too many for this to come true.
I think Lou Dobbs will be standing at the border with a machine gun in each hand if this was going to happen.
Have you factored in the next false flag operation that is coming?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
It still is going forward.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Cool. Call me if they put us all on the peso overnight. I'll keep looking for Dr. Evil. Hopefully, I find him before they put their evil plan into action.
Maybe overtly it isn't. Stuff like this just doesn't go "boom" and appear. They gradually wear away at the people's attention and let it go unnoticed for periods at a time only to let it slightly resurface as something marginally different in name but almost entirely the same in function. All one needs to do is take a look at how the implementation of the Federal Reserve came to be and one can see some of the very same actions going on here.
That's BS.
You are saying that a North American "Union" is the coveted ideal of a "nutty fringe group"?
CHECK THESE CNN VIDEOS OUT, before you think this idea is something hatched by crazy people with no influence. ANYTHING BUT:
Lou Dobbs: First (and only) reporter on TV to cover talk of NAU type structure -- The people responsible for this talk? A PANEL SPONSORED BY THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, gasp, BIG SHOCKER THERE!
Bush Denying it, Talk About "Standardizing the Jelly Bean?
Check out this one: MAJOR NAU SUMMIT IN NEW ORLEANS
I wish i could find the report he did the NEXT day, because it had interviews with 2 or 3 congressmen & women and they were PISSED about being cut out of the loop on all proceedings. I believe congress in full actually signed a complaint about it ... over 100 members signed.
Crazy nuts, them all, i guess.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
So, aside from having a bunch of secret meetings, what exactly have they done?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
No, not particularly. I don't expect to be invited to the president's foreign intelligence briefings. I didn't expect to be invited to Camp David when Carter tried to talk peace with Palestine and Israel. I don't expect to be invited to confidential merger negotiations between computer companies. I only expect that if the governments or leaders involved decide to pursue action, it will be brought to the people and subjected to public scrutiny before implementation. Until then, let them talk all they want about whatever they damn well please.
On this issue you and I clearly differ.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You're part of the problem.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
dude... You're fucking scary. Look around.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Take a good look at Obama, as that's exactly what he looks like when he lies.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Got it. Doom and gloom, we're all gonna die. Got it.
Get some rest man.
It's not that. It's that I've been calling this long before Obama was even in the media.
Remove brand X insert brand Y.....business as usual.
People need to become aware this is how it's played, and start getting wise to it.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Even in the crazily improbable off-chance that there was some merit to the whole thing, what is their master plan, how do they benefit, and how specifically do we lose? Please enlighten me...
Also, it seems people are unaware of the psychological principle that says when humans allow something to start on a smaller level, at later stages, when it becomes inconsistent with their beliefs, they are loathe to turn in a different direction. So humans will actually later change their beliefs so as to not experience cognitive dissonance, or to feel as though they are being hypocritical.
If anyone has ever read any of the basic Dale Carnegie type of information of how to get people to do your bidding...one thing is you get them moving in one direction, because once they accept the very direction, they will be unlikely to want to turn back. And then you know you've got them.
The average person is ignorant of self-actualization techniques. Our leaders and the minority of self-actualizing individuals are often very aware of them. This is why they hold "power" over the average person...who relinquishes their power in naivete and with ignoring (ignorance) what goes on right before them...
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You'll have to do some reading: http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/backgrounders/guide/index.html
...and then ask yourself what are the implications of removing the borders and placing pretty much the entire infrastructure under one rule.
The name of your country becomes a mere technicality once the banks and currencies have been amalgamated.....then there's health, education, resources, military etc...
Sovereignty....gone.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Actually, I just prefer to wait until there are actually problems, and when I find them I like to talk about solutions. I still have yet to see what the problem is and you're certainly not offering a solution.
I get the impression you're just looking for validation, for everyone to acknowledge your superiority and insight about Barack Obama. Unfortunately for you, the rest of us prefer to see how he does in office before passing judgment upon him.
Sovereignty? What's so great about that? The EU seems to be doing just fine under a similar format. Furthermore, what sovereignty do I have now? You can turn this argument the other way and say that the United States itself strips me of the sovereignty I would otherwise enjoy in the independent state of Ohio.
Honestly, if I'm going to be forced to submit my sovereignty to a country (USA) that includes the evangelical nuts in the south, I might as well add Canada on to at least water down those bastards' votes.
That would be an incorrect assumption.
There are problems now, and it's going global. If you think sitting back and waiting is the solution, then you've already been left behind.
This has been going on (as I've already pointed out) long before Obama was ever a household name, or in the media.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
You want to surrender your infrastructure to foreign interests, and that doesn't even phase you?
Are you even proud of where you live?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
And yet, when my borders -- in Canada -- are to be blurred with a Country -- the US -- that has lower standards in many ways (social programs...food standards), it's understandable that I'm concerned.
And yet, my actual concern is that what is being done is that the North American leaders are using sound evolutionary principles, which are taking us towards globalization, and they are using them for the gain of an elite. They are able to do this along with the naivete and the goodwill of the people. This is quite different than any vision I might have of a world without borders, where it plays out to the benefit of all.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
IS THAT A FUCKING JOKE !?!
Disregarding the sideshow argument over the EU -- given i think it is a large reversion back from true democratic government -- sovereignty is probably THE most important question man has dared to answer.
The United States was founded by men who came to a fundamental disagreement with their own great government over the rights of man to his OWN government.
The enlightenment era of mankind turned around the concept.
The American Revolution and the French Revolution seemingly answered that long argued question forever ... only to watch the fruits of their overwhelming wisdom, courage, and bloodshed slip away 200 years later in an era of profound ignorance and moral bankruptcy.
You need only think back to the history of man before the term "liberty" became popular (and then, pathetically, became a word most often used by "conspiracy theorists") to understand the imperativeness of sovereignty.
Great thinkers like Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke spent the better part of their lives defining and arguing the concept for the world. But you would have to go back to Bodin in the 1500s to get to the suggestion of a divine ultimate authority that the founding fathers of the United States of America believed in.
And that i think is where the story gets good.
The American Founding Fathers understood it to be that mans authority to govern came from the sovereignty of god. Natural law was the only immutable law.
When you understand that, then you understand the American Revolution and you can come to know the importance of "sovereignty".
The disagreements the colonies had with "the mother country" over her sovereignty to impose law by force over them led to one of the greatest revolutions of all time.
Man had a right to decide his own affairs in government. Our forefathers settled that dispute with great bloodshed. This right to self government emanated directly from divine sovereignty itself. It was the providence of god, of natural right, the very birthright of man himself -- it could surely not be the claim of a tyrant king or even an unrepresentative parliament.
Now.
Getting away from the tearjerking history (no kidding that stuff works me up) of the subject, the practical implications of sovereignty in the United States are that the 10th Amendment specifically guarantees this right to the states and the people directly in all cases where the right is not specifically enumerated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. The Constitution which, being written by the people, derived its authority directly from the supreme lawmaker of the universe.
If you allow some shit-eating politician to sell your sovereignty off to an international governing body, you have
a. directly and irrevocably violated the United States Constitution.
b. utterly trampled the rights of the people as enumerated in the 10th Amendment. YOU HAVE STRIPPED THEM OF THEIR OWN SOVEREIGN SELF GOVERNMENT.
It means that a law, value, or principle upheld by the people of the land DIRECTLY could be destroyed by an OUTSIDE authority.
THIS IS A RIGHT FOUGHT FOR AND SECURED IN BLOOD AT GREAT COST.
It SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN LIGHTLY!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Personally I don't think they have enough historical reference committed as knowledge to understand where everything used to be, and where it's heading. The smaller the aperture, the less light comes in, and is available for processing.
It started by and large with Mulroney and has gotten ever worse since then.
The days of Trudeau are long, long gone.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
We're not going to lose our sovereignty ... believe me, when it becomes anywhere near a possibility, there will be hell raised, by many.
The feelings towards Mexico are FAR too negative by FAR too many for this to come true.
I think Lou Dobbs will be standing at the border with a machine gun in each hand if this was going to happen.
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Have you factored in the next false flag operation that is coming?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
You're saying you know how America is going to be duped some time soon?
... and what would you say is the last one?
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez