|
|
More on polls...
|
More on polls...
On Mar 13, 9:18*am, wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html That article starts with such horse****, I can't take its subsequent conclusions seriously. Start with: "Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001. Rasmussen Reports data shows that Mr. Obama's net presidential approval rating -- which is calculated by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve -- is just six, his lowest rating to date." Firstly, what period of Bush's presidency in 2001 is analogous to the present administration? W started with a shrinking, but unquestionably healthy economy and a substantial budget surplus. America was safe, we weren't bogged down in two wars, and times were pretty good in W's first few weeks. *He* ****ed it up; it wasn't given to him that way. That comparison alone is utter bull****. Secondly, the "net approval rating" comparison is bogus. Even being the incompetent he was, W did not have an army of rabid corporate media mouthpieces spewing outright lies, hatred, and violence against him 24/7. From what I've seen here as well as in the media, the possibility that BHO has high "negatives" at present is not the least bit surprising; and IMO more than a little disgusting. Obama could give everyone a million dollars and a basket of kittens, and he'd still have high negatives thanks to the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter, Malkin, and their irrational wingnut ilk. To suggest an objective comparison based on a "net approval rating" there is just more horse****. If the remainder of this "analysis" from the WSJ is based on that false premise, it's not worth the electrons; and frankly, it's contributing to the problem. Joe F. |
More on polls...
|
More on polls...
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 07:41:01 -0700 (PDT), rb608 wrote:
On Mar 13, 9:18*am, wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html That article starts with such horse****, I can't take its subsequent conclusions seriously. Start with: "Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001. Rasmussen Reports data shows that Mr. Obama's net presidential approval rating -- which is calculated by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve -- is just six, his lowest rating to date." Firstly, what period of Bush's presidency in 2001 is analogous to the present administration? Um, the period from Inauguration Day until, oh, say, mid-March... W started with a shrinking, but unquestionably healthy economy and a substantial budget surplus. America was safe, we weren't bogged down in two wars, and times were pretty good in W's first few weeks. *He* ****ed it up; it wasn't given to him that way. That comparison alone is utter bull****. Uh, yeah...so, what was it like living in total, complete isolation from about, oh, say, birth until yesterday...? Secondly, the "net approval rating" comparison is bogus. Even being the incompetent he was, W did not have an army of rabid corporate media mouthpieces spewing outright lies, hatred, and violence against him 24/7. If you actually look objecti...well, so that's out, but if you simply look at the historical numbers, you'll see that just about all "modern" US Presidents start out somewhere north of 50 and south of about 60 and stay at about there, _averaged_ with some up/down spiking, for at least a few months. Hell, if he...oops, He...wasn't somewhere about 55%, something would be _really_ wrong. From what I've seen here as well as in the media, the possibility that BHO has high "negatives" at present is not the least bit surprising; and IMO more than a little disgusting. "Disgusting?" Why? It's normal. Obama could give everyone a million dollars and a basket of kittens, and he'd still have high negatives thanks to the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter, Malkin, and their irrational wingnut ilk. To suggest an objective comparison based on a "net approval rating" there is just more horse****. If the remainder of this "analysis" from the WSJ is based on that false premise, it's not worth the electrons; and frankly, it's contributing to the problem. What problem? Joe F. HTH, R |
More on polls...
On Mar 13, 10:57*am, wrote:
Um, the period from Inauguration Day until, oh, say, mid-March... So similar chronology is all you need for a valid analogy? The states of the economy, the nation's security, and the world have no bearing? Uh, yeah...so, what was it like living in total, complete isolation from about, oh, say, birth until yesterday...? Uh, yeah...so, what is it about substance that causes you to go straight to ad hominem instead of addressing the actual issues? If you actually look objecti...well, so that's out, but if you simply look at the historical numbers, you'll see that just about all "modern" US Presidents start out somewhere north of 50 and south of about 60 and stay at about there, _averaged_ with some up/down spiking, for at least a few months. *Hell, if he...oops, He...wasn't somewhere about 55%, something would be _really_ wrong. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. The data is the data. The WSJ's presentation is the lie. "Disgusting?" *Why? *It's normal. Alas, it *is* normal for the right wing. It's disgusting to me. What problem? The problem of public confidence in the economy and the President's ability to improve it. Sorry, but I have actual work to do today, so I'll have to EOT at that. Joe F. |
More on polls...
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 08:32:57 -0700 (PDT), rb608 wrote:
On Mar 13, 10:57*am, wrote: Um, the period from Inauguration Day until, oh, say, mid-March... So similar chronology is all you need for a valid analogy? The states of the economy, the nation's security, and the world have no bearing? None what so-****ing-ever - there could be Martians swimming in the Mall, bin Laden could be discoing with Paris Hilton in Vegas on MTV, and the Germans could be invading France, and it would have no bearing on the first coupla-few months... Uh, yeah...so, what was it like living in total, complete isolation from about, oh, say, birth until yesterday...? Uh, yeah...so, what is it about substance that causes you to go straight to ad hominem instead of addressing the actual issues? What "substance?" You offered a bunch of pro-Obama/anti-Bush whining. If you actually look objecti...well, so that's out, but if you simply look at the historical numbers, you'll see that just about all "modern" US Presidents start out somewhere north of 50 and south of about 60 and stay at about there, _averaged_ with some up/down spiking, for at least a few months. *Hell, if he...oops, He...wasn't somewhere about 55%, something would be _really_ wrong. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. The data is the data. The WSJ's presentation is the lie. Uh, right. "Disgusting?" *Why? *It's normal. Alas, it *is* normal for the right wing. It's disgusting to me. Then grow the flock up - not _EVERYTHING_ is racist. Maybe you took Michelle Obama's writing a wee bit too seriously...or you're a kindred, racist spirit. What problem? The problem of public confidence in the economy and the President's ability to improve it. The President (in general, not specifically Obama) is way down on the list of those who could boost public confidence right now. Sorry, but I have actual work to do today, so I'll have to EOT at that. Oh, well then, nevermind. It won't matter if would have helped or not, then, R Joe F. |
More on polls...
|
More on polls...
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 22:02:03 -0500, Peaceful Bill
wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html An opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal !?!?! LOL !! Lots of credibility there, you betcha. ;-) Actually, yes. A lot of credibility. Where do you get your news? MSNBC? The Daily Worker. HTH, R |
More on polls...
Peaceful Bill wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html An opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal !?!?! LOL !! Lots of credibility there, you betcha. ;-) Actually, yes. A lot of credibility. You can choose to find such silliness credible if you want Mr. Jelly but I don't know a single person whose opinion I respect who finds the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal anything but ridiculous. Where do you get your news? MSNBC? I get my news from a lot of places Mr J, newspapers, magazines, NPR, Lehrer on PBS, CNN, the network talking head shows on Sunday morning and I'm a reluctant viewer of the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC. My wife finds Maddow entertaining, but to tell the truth I think she's annoying. -- Ken Fortenberry |
More on polls...
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Peaceful Bill wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html An opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal !?!?! LOL !! Lots of credibility there, you betcha. ;-) Actually, yes. A lot of credibility. You can choose to find such silliness credible if you want Mr. Jelly but I don't know a single person whose opinion I respect who finds the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal anything but ridiculous. Only because they don't agree with your intensely narrow viewpoints. The credibility issue is not with WSJ, its with you. Where do you get your news? MSNBC? I get my news from a lot of places Mr J, newspapers, magazines, NPR, Lehrer on PBS, CNN, the network talking head shows on Sunday morning and I'm a reluctant viewer of the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC. My wife finds Maddow entertaining, but to tell the truth I think she's annoying. MSNBC is so far out of touch with anything remotely resembling reality that the "channel" belongs in the finction listings next to the SciFi channel and the Twilight Zone channel. Maybe you find the "disciplined intellect" (more like "lack of") of Keith Doberman a little closer to your view. He's off the cliff sorta like you are. But he doesn't seem to carry all the racist guilt you do. |
More on polls...
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 10:11:38 -0500, Peaceful Bill
wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: Peaceful Bill wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html An opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal !?!?! LOL !! Lots of credibility there, you betcha. ;-) Actually, yes. A lot of credibility. You can choose to find such silliness credible if you want Mr. Jelly but I don't know a single person whose opinion I respect who finds the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal anything but ridiculous. Only because they don't agree with your intensely narrow viewpoints. The credibility issue is not with WSJ, its with you. Where do you get your news? MSNBC? I get my news from a lot of places Mr J, newspapers, magazines, NPR, Lehrer on PBS, CNN, the network talking head shows on Sunday morning and I'm a reluctant viewer of the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC. My wife finds Maddow entertaining, but to tell the truth I think she's annoying. MSNBC is so far out of touch with anything remotely resembling reality that the "channel" belongs in the finction listings next to the SciFi channel and the Twilight Zone channel. Maybe you find the "disciplined intellect" (more like "lack of") of Keith Doberman a little closer to your view. He's off the cliff sorta like you are. But he doesn't seem to carry all the racist guilt you do. Don't be so hard on Fortenberry. NPR, PBS, CNN, talking heads on Sunday morning, Maddow, The Daily Worker, Mao's Little Red Book are *ALL* legitimate left wing wacko sources, which is exactly where Fortenberry is. But you are correct about his racist guilt. Ken is the most guilt ridden white man I have ever known. His mental anguish over being born a free white man is killing him. He should have been born a black female Rastafarian living in Cuba, but even then he'd find something to whine about. At least he'd have his dope to smoke. d;o) |
More on polls...
Peaceful Bill wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: I get my news from a lot of places Mr J, newspapers, magazines, NPR, Lehrer on PBS, CNN, the network talking head shows on Sunday morning and I'm a reluctant viewer of the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC. My wife finds Maddow entertaining, but to tell the truth I think she's annoying. MSNBC is so far out of touch with anything remotely resembling reality that the "channel" belongs in the finction listings next to the SciFi channel and the Twilight Zone channel. Maybe you find the "disciplined intellect" (more like "lack of") of Keith Doberman a little closer to your view. He's off the cliff sorta like you are. But he doesn't seem to carry all the racist guilt you do. You old, uneducated, less affluent white guys had your day in the political sun and now you're just a bunch of grumpy old whiny losers with nothing better to do than yell at the kids to stay off your lawn. Your day is done Mr. Jelly, welcome to the political wilderness. It's about damn time and thanks a whole hell of a lot for the big stinking economic mess you dimwitted morons left us in. -- Ken Fortenberry |
More on polls...
On Mar 14, 11:46*am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
Don't be so hard on Fortenberry. *NPR, PBS, CNN, talking heads on Sunday morning, Maddow, The Daily Worker, Mao's Little Red Book are *ALL* legitimate left wing wacko sources The remainder notwithstanding, CNN? The network that employs Tucker Carlson, Nancy Grace, Lou Dobbs, et al is left wing wacko? Shirley you jest. Joe F. |
More on polls...
Dave LaCourse wrote:
At least he'd have his dope to smoke. d;o) Most of his posts seem to be reflective of that. |
More on polls...
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Peaceful Bill wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: I get my news from a lot of places Mr J, newspapers, magazines, NPR, Lehrer on PBS, CNN, the network talking head shows on Sunday morning and I'm a reluctant viewer of the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC. My wife finds Maddow entertaining, but to tell the truth I think she's annoying. MSNBC is so far out of touch with anything remotely resembling reality that the "channel" belongs in the finction listings next to the SciFi channel and the Twilight Zone channel. Maybe you find the "disciplined intellect" (more like "lack of") of Keith Doberman a little closer to your view. He's off the cliff sorta like you are. But he doesn't seem to carry all the racist guilt you do. You old, uneducated, less affluent white guys had your day in the political sun and now you're just a bunch of grumpy old whiny losers with nothing better to do than yell at the kids to stay off your lawn. Your day is done Mr. Jelly, welcome to the political wilderness. It's about damn time and thanks a whole hell of a lot for the big stinking economic mess you dimwitted morons left us in. You poor condescending racist. Too much guilt. Too out of touch with reality. Too much smoke. Way too much smoke. You should really get help. Really. Serious help. Are you referencing the "economic mess" that started in March 2000 and was set up in the mid-90s? Is THAT the economic mess you're talking about? And don't start whining about surplus. That was all only on paper and based upon the economy growing at the tech-bubble rate, not the reality of the post-March, 2000 crash. |
More on polls...
On Mar 14, 12:29*pm, Peaceful Bill
wrote: Are you referencing the "economic mess" that started in March 2000 and was set up in the mid-90s? *Is THAT the economic mess you're talking about? Oh, so we're falling back on the tired "It's all Clinton's fault" canard? Puhleese. Joe F. |
More on polls...
" * At least he'd have his dope to smoke. "
thanx king hussein, fow screwing this up also...nice work... http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=7081495 |
More on polls...
Peaceful Bill wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: You old, uneducated, less affluent white guys had your day in the political sun and now you're just a bunch of grumpy old whiny losers with nothing better to do than yell at the kids to stay off your lawn. Your day is done Mr. Jelly, welcome to the political wilderness. It's about damn time and thanks a whole hell of a lot for the big stinking economic mess you dimwitted morons left us in. ... Are you referencing the "economic mess" that started in March 2000 and was set up in the mid-90s? Is THAT the economic mess you're talking about? Ah, now I get it. You want to contend that the economy was set down the irreversible path to ruination by Bill Clinton. A path so ruinous and irreversible that eight years of a GOP administration could not hope to even mitigate it's disastrous consequences. God only knows the GOP tried but alas, the Clinton economic mess was so total, complete and ingrained that the current disaster was inevitable. Mr. Jelly, they have drugs that can help you. Next time the orderly checks in on you tell him that a fellow on the Internet recommends that you take antipsychotics and would he please pass the word to your attending psychiatrist. Trust me on this, a few weeks on Haldol and they may even let you out of the straitjacket and let you wander around the rubber room unrestrained. Good luck. -- Ken Fortenberry |
More on polls...
On Mar 14, 2:59*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: You want to contend that the economy was set down the irreversible path to ruination by Bill Clinton. A path so ruinous and irreversible that eight years of a GOP administration could not hope to even mitigate it's disastrous consequences. It follows, of course, that Obama is a complete, unmitigated failure for not correcting the problem is two months. Joe F. |
More on polls...
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 11:32:45 -0700 (PDT), rb608 wrote:
On Mar 14, 12:29*pm, Peaceful Bill wrote: Are you referencing the "economic mess" that started in March 2000 and was set up in the mid-90s? *Is THAT the economic mess you're talking about? Oh, so we're falling back on the tired "It's all Clinton's fault" canard? Puhleese. Um...he didn't mention Clinton, you did...IAC, no, it's not Clinton's fault, it's not Bush's fault, and no, Obama can't fix it, but that's not his fault. But what is happening today does stem from about the mid-80s through the mid-to-late 90s, with much of it in the latter. If one MUST have a single person to blame, it'd probably be Greenspan, but even then, he didn't cause it alone, he is just the one person who heads up the single-person blame list. HTH, R Joe F. |
More on polls...
On Mar 14, 1:28*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 11:32:45 -0700 (PDT), rb608 wrote: On Mar 14, 12:29*pm, Peaceful Bill wrote: Are you referencing the "economic mess" that started in March 2000 and was set up in the mid-90s? *Is THAT the economic mess you're talking about? Oh, so we're falling back on the tired "It's all Clinton's fault" canard? *Puhleese. Um...he didn't mention Clinton, you did...IAC, no, it's not Clinton's fault, it's not Bush's fault, and no, Obama can't fix it, but that's not his fault. But what is happening today does stem from about the mid-80s through the mid-to-late 90s, with much of it in the latter. *If one MUST have a single person to blame, it'd probably be Greenspan, but even then, he didn't cause it alone, he is just the one person who heads up the single-person blame list. It actually started with Reagan. |
More on polls...
rb608 wrote:
On Mar 14, 12:29 pm, Peaceful Bill wrote: Are you referencing the "economic mess" that started in March 2000 and was set up in the mid-90s? Is THAT the economic mess you're talking about? Oh, so we're falling back on the tired "It's all Clinton's fault" canard? Puhleese. Joe F. Why not when its the truth. Obama is already using "its all Bush's fault" when he can't figure out which restroom to use. |
More on polls...
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Peaceful Bill wrote: Ken Fortenberry wrote: You old, uneducated, less affluent white guys had your day in the political sun and now you're just a bunch of grumpy old whiny losers with nothing better to do than yell at the kids to stay off your lawn. Your day is done Mr. Jelly, welcome to the political wilderness. It's about damn time and thanks a whole hell of a lot for the big stinking economic mess you dimwitted morons left us in. ... Are you referencing the "economic mess" that started in March 2000 and was set up in the mid-90s? Is THAT the economic mess you're talking about? Ah, now I get it. You want to contend that the economy was set down the irreversible path to ruination by Bill Clinton. A path so ruinous and irreversible that eight years of a GOP administration could not hope to even mitigate it's disastrous consequences. God only knows the GOP tried but alas, the Clinton economic mess was so total, complete and ingrained that the current disaster was inevitable. Mr. Jelly, they have drugs that can help you. Next time the orderly checks in on you tell him that a fellow on the Internet recommends that you take antipsychotics and would he please pass the word to your attending psychiatrist. Trust me on this, a few weeks on Haldol and they may even let you out of the straitjacket and let you wander around the rubber room unrestrained. Good luck. You'd know all about those drugs. How many years have you been using them. Still hasn't worked, eh... You're simply pathetic. And mostly just simple. |
More on polls...
|
More on polls...
Peaceful Bill wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: Ah, now I get it. You want to contend that the economy was set down the irreversible path to ruination by Bill Clinton. A path so ruinous and irreversible that eight years of a GOP administration could not hope to even mitigate it's disastrous consequences. God only knows the GOP tried but alas, the Clinton economic mess was so total, complete and ingrained that the current disaster was inevitable. Mr. Jelly, they have drugs that can help you. Next time the orderly checks in on you tell him that a fellow on the Internet recommends that you take antipsychotics and would he please pass the word to your attending psychiatrist. Trust me on this, a few weeks on Haldol and they may even let you out of the straitjacket and let you wander around the rubber room unrestrained. Good luck. You'd know all about those drugs. ... Well, I have no personal experience with antipsychotics but at this point you're so far gone what have you got to lose ? Hell, who knows they may even let you out of the asylum one of these days. It must be really tough on you old rubes who bought into Reaganomics hook, line and sinker. Poor thing you never did get trickled on, did you ? Your whole world view, everything you'd been told, everything you believed in, gone in a matter of months. I feel sorry for you in a way and I totally understand how sick you are that the get the government out of the way, limited regulation, free wheeling, free market capitalism uber alles of Ronny Raygun and his GOP collapsed under the weight of its own corruption. But still, it's not healthy to live in a fantasy world. One of these days you're going to have to face reality. Try the drugs, they may help and they sure as hell couldn't hurt. -- Ken Fortenberry |
More on polls...
On Mar 14, 4:28*pm, wrote:
Are you referencing the "economic mess" that started in March 2000 and was set up in the mid-90s? *Is THAT the economic mess you're talking about? Oh, so we're falling back on the tired "It's all Clinton's fault" canard? *Puhleese. Um...he didn't mention Clinton, you did... Perhaps I misunderstood his implication. Who was president in the mid-90s again? Joe F. |
More on polls...
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 15:17:38 -0700 (PDT), rb608 wrote:
On Mar 14, 4:28*pm, wrote: Are you referencing the "economic mess" that started in March 2000 and was set up in the mid-90s? *Is THAT the economic mess you're talking about? Oh, so we're falling back on the tired "It's all Clinton's fault" canard? *Puhleese. Um...he didn't mention Clinton, you did... Perhaps I misunderstood his implication. Who was president in the mid-90s again? Yeah, right, and Nixon was singularly responsible for man landing on the moon, too...if you're serious, bluntly, you aren't very intelligent or well-informed. And there it is, R |
More on polls...
"rb608" wrote in message ... On Mar 14, 4:28 pm, wrote: Are you referencing the "economic mess" that started in March 2000 and was set up in the mid-90s? Is THAT the economic mess you're talking about? Oh, so we're falling back on the tired "It's all Clinton's fault" canard? Puhleese. Um...he didn't mention Clinton, you did... Perhaps I misunderstood his implication. Who was president in the mid-90s again? Joe F. Dammit Joe, please do try to keep up! The Donald, as in Trump, was POTUS in the mid-90s. Or were you just too stoned out of your freakin' mind to remember? HTH Op |
More on polls...
On Mar 14, 7:26*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 15:17:38 -0700 (PDT), rb608 wrote: \ Perhaps I misunderstood his implication. *Who was president in the mid-90s again? Yeah, right, and Nixon was singularly responsible for man landing on the moon, too...if you're serious, bluntly, you aren't very intelligent or well-informed. And there it is, Well, since the Peaceful Bill confirmed below my understanding of his intent, "there it is" indeed. The rest of your intellectual dishonesty and ad hominem bull**** further confirms my opinion of you, so there that is as well. I'm done. |
More on polls...
|
More on polls...
|
More on polls...
~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:
stupid lib's... Redundant. |
More on polls...
"Peaceful Bill" wrote in message ... It actually started with Reagan. Under the Carter admin. Hands down THE WORST president in this country's history. let's just push the blame off onto Washington, or at the very least one of the Adams', and bring this thread to it's logical conclusion........ Tom |
More on polls...
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 17:46:33 -0700 (PDT), rb608 wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:26*pm, wrote: On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 15:17:38 -0700 (PDT), rb608 wrote: \ Perhaps I misunderstood his implication. *Who was president in the mid-90s again? Yeah, right, and Nixon was singularly responsible for man landing on the moon, too...if you're serious, bluntly, you aren't very intelligent or well-informed. And there it is, Well, since the Peaceful Bill confirmed below my understanding of his intent, "there it is" indeed. The rest of your intellectual dishonesty and ad hominem bull**** further confirms my opinion of you, so there that is as well. I'm done. You were "done" before you booted your computer. Put bluntly, while there are a fair number of "left"/"liberal" folks around here who have made informed, intelligent choices, you aren't one of them. In short, you are to "left"/"liberal" what "beancounter" is to "right"/"conservative" - a silly, uninformed nitwit with a conformation bias... ....and you've used "ad hominem" when "ad feminam" would be much more appropriate, given your usage... Knowing it won't help one lil' ol' bit, R |
More on polls...
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 02:54:03 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"Peaceful Bill" wrote in message . .. It actually started with Reagan. Under the Carter admin. Hands down THE WORST president in this country's history. let's just push the blame off onto Washington, or at the very least one of the Adams', and bring this thread to it's logical conclusion........ Tom Um..."logical?" Well, good luck with THAT... TC, R |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter