Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Platforms
PCXboxPlayStationNintendo
Games
ActionStrategyRole Playing GamesSimulatorsSport Games

Game Forum / Role Playing Games / Final Fantasy / December 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Buchanan Bitch Slaps the Neo-Cons

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Freedom Fries - 26 Dec 2005 22:16 GMT
     Good to see that some conservatives understand the damage that Bush
has done to the country. America's reputation is shot and rightfully so.

     How Stands the Empire?

     by Patrick J. Buchanan
     How long ago was it that you last heard some pundit blather on about
America being "the greatest empire since Rome"?

     Quite a while, I imagine. For if the Iraqi insurgency has done nothing
else, it has induced a sense of humility, and of the limits of American
power.

     Surely, all Americans hope the Iraqi elections will usher in a
coalition that will let us depart. But it is time we stood back and took a
hard look at what this war tells us, not only about our ability, but about
the wisdom of trying to remake the world in our own image.

     Is this generation of Americans really up to the task? Is it really
willing to pay indefinitely in blood and treasure to realize the ambitious
agenda George W. Bush has set out? Consider:

     Though our 2,150 war dead are not 4 percent of the men we lost in
Vietnam, our home front has buckled. Half the nation wants out. Is this how
a mighty empire reacts to a little adversity?

     Today, we field armed forces one-tenth the size of U.S. forces in
1945, and not half as large as the forces commanded by Ike and JFK. Yet, the
very suggestion of a return to the draft, which we all readily accepted in
the 1950s, causes a firestorm of indignation and protest.

     Apparently, few of our future leaders wish to risk their lives in the
"global democratic revolution."

     Nor have the rest of us been called on to sacrifice. Today, we spend 4
percent of our GDP on the military. In Ike's day, it was 9 percent; in
Reagan's, 6 percent. But any proposal to raise taxes to expand U.S. armed
forces to enforce the Bush Doctrine against Iran or North Korea would have
Republican supply-siders digging the cobblestones out of the streets of
Georgetown.

     When it comes to empire, we are - in a phrase Bush used to hear often
growing up in West Texas - "all hat and no cattle."

     And whether we invaded to liberate Iraq from a brutal tyrant, or to
strip a dangerous regime of WMD, or to establish democracy, does the world
appreciate it? Does the world really want America to democratize mankind?

     A new Zogby poll of 3,900 people in six once-friendly Arab nations
finds that, when asked to name the leader they detest most, 45 percent named
Ariel Sharon, but Bush has moved into second at 30 percent. Tony Blair was a
distant third at 3 percent. No one else was close.

     Only 6 percent agreed with al-Qaeda's goal of a caliphate ruling the
Islamic world, and only 7 percent approved of its terrorism - but fully 36
percent admired how al-Qaeda "confronts the U.S."

     How admired is President Bush? When he urged the Iranians to go to the
polls and repudiate the mullahs, they responded by choosing as president
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who makes Hashemi Rafsanjani look like Ramsey Clark.
When Condi Rice stiffed the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood on a visit to
Cairo, the Brotherhood soared in Egyptian eyes and swept to victory in 60
percent of the parliamentary races it contested.

     Everywhere today, nationalists burnish their credentials by dissing
us. In Canada, Prime Minister Paul Martin seeks to save a scandal-ridden
regime by pandering to Canadians' dislike of the United States. Hugo Chavez
made himself the toast of South America by flipping off Bush at the
Argentine summit. Evo Morales just swept to victory in Bolivia by promising
to defy the Americans.

     When Bush went to Seoul, he was informed that South Korea is pulling
out of Iraq. The U.S. ambassador, who denounced the North as a criminal
regime, was told to shut up. East Asia just held its first summit - to which
the United States was not invited. The Uzbeks have just told us: Close your
airbase, and get out.

     Because of charges that we used secret prisons in Europe to
interrogate jihadists and EU airports to transfer them there, the United
States has never been less admired in NATO Europe, nor its president more
despised.

     Is it not thus apparent the world does not really want an American
empire, or American hegemony, or Bush's "democratic revolution"? Is it not
equally apparent that we Americans, unwilling to conscript our young or
further tax ourselves, cannot sustain a global policy that commits us to
defending nations all over this world, most of which do not even like us?

     However Iraq ends, the era that began with the fall of the Berlin Wall
has reached its close. That place in the sun the Greatest Generation won for
us, and the Cold War generation kept for us, the baby boomer generation
appears to have lost. And perhaps forever.

     America needs a new vision. America needs a new foreign policy.

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=8306
boobah - 27 Dec 2005 00:27 GMT
That's not all --
This is from Barron's -- a conservative leaning weekly business
newspaper

Unwarranted Executive Power
The pursuit of terrorism does not authorize the president to make up
new laws
By THOMAS G. DONLAN

"AS THE YEAR WAS DRAWING TO A CLOSE, we picked up our New York Times
and learned that the Bush administration has been fighting terrorism by
intercepting communications in America without warrants. It was
worrisome on its face, but in justifying their actions, officials have
made a bad situation much worse: Administration lawyers and the
president himself have tortured the Constitution and extracted a
suspension of the separation of powers . . .

Certainly, there was an emergency need after the Sept. 11 attacks to
sweep up as much information as possible about the chances of another
terrorist attack. But a 72-hour emergency or a 15-day emergency doesn't
last four years . . .

Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is
at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval
Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House
Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton
ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate
it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change
the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.

It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to
that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible
Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power
of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the
obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and
his predecessors signed into law.

Some ancillary responsibility, however, must be attached to those
members of the House and Senate who were informed, inadequately, about
the wiretapping and did nothing to regulate it. Sen. John D.
Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, told Vice President Dick
Cheney in 2003 that he was "unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse
these activities." But the senator was so respectful of the
administration's injunction of secrecy that he wrote it out in longhand
rather than give it to someone to type. Only last week, after the cat
was out of the bag, did he do what he should have done in 2003 -- make
his misgivings public and demand more information.

Published reports quote sources saying that 14 members of Congress were
notified of the wiretapping. If some had misgivings, apparently they
were scared of being called names, as the president did last week when
he said: "It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very
important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this
program is helping the enemy."

Wrong. If we don't discuss the program and the lack of authority for
it, we are meeting the enemy -- in the mirror.
Freedom Fries - 27 Dec 2005 00:34 GMT
> That's not all --

No It's definitly not.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0512250256dec25,1,3...
Beyond the imperial presidency
Steve Chapman

Published December 25, 2005

President Bush is a bundle of paradoxes. He thinks the scope of the federal
government should be limited but the powers of the president should not. He
wants judges to interpret the Constitution as the framers did, but doesn't
think he should be constrained by their intentions.

He attacked Al Gore for trusting government instead of the people, but he
insists anyone who wants to defeat terrorism must put absolute faith in the
man at the helm of government.

His conservative allies say Bush is acting to uphold the essential
prerogatives of his office. Vice President Cheney says the administration's
secret eavesdropping program is justified because "I believe in a strong,
robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands
it."

But the theory boils down to a consistent and self-serving formula: What's
good for George W. Bush is good for America, and anything that weakens his
power weakens the nation. To call this an imperial presidency is unfair to
emperors.

Even people who should be on Bush's side are getting queasy. David Keene,
chairman of the American Conservative Union, says in his efforts to enlarge
executive authority, Bush "has gone too far."

He's not the only one who feels that way. Consider the case of Jose Padilla,
a U.S. citizen arrested in 2002 on suspicion of plotting to set off a "dirty
bomb." For three years, the administration said he posed such a grave threat
that it had the right to detain him without trial as an enemy combatant. In
September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit agreed.

But then, rather than risk a review of its policy by the Supreme Court, the
administration abandoned its hard-won victory and indicted Padilla on
comparatively minor criminal charges. When it asked the 4th Circuit Court
for permission to transfer him from military custody to jail, though, the
once-cooperative court flatly refused.

In a decision last week, the judges expressed amazement that the
administration suddenly would decide Padilla could be treated like a common
purse snatcher--a reversal that, they said, comes "at substantial cost to
the government's credibility." The court's meaning was plain: Either you
were lying to us then, or you are lying to us now.

If that's not enough to embarrass the president, the opinion was written by
conservative darling J. Michael Luttig--who just a couple of months ago was
on Bush's short list for the Supreme Court. For Luttig to question Bush's
use of executive power is like Bill O'Reilly announcing that there's too
much Christ in Christmas.

This is hardly the only example of the president demanding powers he doesn't
need. When American-born Saudi Yasser Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan, the
administration also detained him as an enemy combatant rather than entrust
him to the criminal justice system.

But when the Supreme Court said he was entitled to a hearing where he could
present evidence on his behalf, the administration decided that was way too
much trouble. It freed him and put him on a plane back to Saudi Arabia,
where he may plot jihad to his heart's content. Try to follow this logic:
Hamdi was too dangerous to put on trial but not too dangerous to release.

The disclosure that the president authorized secret and probably illegal
monitoring of communications between people in the United States and people
overseas again raises the question: Why?

The government easily could have gotten search warrants to conduct
electronic surveillance of anyone with the slightest possible connection to
terrorists. The court that handles such requests hardly ever refuses. But
Bush bridles at the notion that the president should ever have to ask
permission of anyone.

He claims he can ignore the law because Congress granted permission when it
authorized him to use force against Al Qaeda. But we know that can't be
true. Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales says the administration didn't ask for a
revision of the law to give the president explicit power to order such
wiretaps because Congress--a Republican Congress, mind you--wouldn't have
agreed. So the administration decided: Who needs Congress?

What we have now is not a robust executive but a reckless one. At times like
this, it's apparent that Cheney and Bush want more power not because they
need it to protect the nation, but because they want more power. Another
paradox: In their conduct of the war on terror, they expect our trust, but
they can't be bothered to earn it.
trijcomm - 27 Dec 2005 01:57 GMT
>Certainly, there was an emergency need after the Sept. 11 attacks to
sweep up as much information as possible about the chances of another
terrorist attack. But a 72-hour emergency or a 15-day emergency doesn't

>last four years . . .

So when does the "emergency need" disappear when you are dealing with
cells? Seems like we are still in just as much danger with "sleeper
cells" as we were when the first plane hit the WTC.
Bill - 27 Dec 2005 21:59 GMT
>>Certainly, there was an emergency need after the Sept. 11 attacks to
>sweep up as much information as possible about the chances of another
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>cells? Seems like we are still in just as much danger with "sleeper
>cells" as we were when the first plane hit the WTC.

They won't get it until it happens again, then they will try to blame
the next one on Bush too.
Popa - 28 Dec 2005 06:22 GMT
> They won't get it until it happens again, then they will try to blame
> the next one on Bush too.

No you republicans have no trouble blaming things on Pres. Clinton 5
years after he's out of office, what's to stop you morons from
continuing that until 20 Jan. 2009
trijcomm - 27 Dec 2005 01:54 GMT
So you think Buchanan has become a Democrat? I love how you guys here a
conservative bash Bush and believe, for some stupid reason, that he has
seen the light and become a lib. Let me educate you and Sen. Harry
Reid: The last thing they want to do is be seen as buddies of the
liberal ilk. Sen. Larry Craig almost blew a gasket when Reid tried that
tactic.
Nemesis - 27 Dec 2005 02:33 GMT
On 26 Dec 2005 17:54:22 -0800, "trijcomm" <trijcomm@yahoo.com> with
the help of a thousand monkeys banging on keyboards, was finally able
to type out the following:

>So you think Buchanan has become a Democrat? I love how you guys here a
>conservative bash Bush and believe, for some stupid reason, that he has
>seen the light and become a lib.

No one had said that you idiot.
You're such a f.cking drone that you can't comprehend the idea that
not every conservative agrees with your master King George.
Just because you're incapable of thinking for yourself doesn't mean
you can assume that other people are also incapable of thinking.



Signature

Nemesis
LWO For Life
ICQ #4610826
http://www.tehawk.com
http://home.earthlink.net/~tehawk

trijcomm - 27 Dec 2005 05:25 GMT
>No one had said that you idiot.
You're such a f.cking drone that you can't comprehend the idea that
not every conservative agrees with your master King George.
Just because you're incapable of thinking for yourself doesn't mean
>you can assume that other people are also incapable of thinking.

What a kookout.
Dewey - 28 Dec 2005 14:16 GMT
> >No one had said that you idiot.
> You're such a f.cking drone that you can't comprehend the idea that
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> What a kookout.

Wow boy, you sure showed him.
Dub - 27 Dec 2005 16:03 GMT
> So you think Buchanan has become a Democrat?

It takes exceptionally shallow thinking to infer such a conclusion and
offer it as a leading question in rebuttal.  In case you missed it, the
point is that Democrats are not the only ones looking at Bush's foreign
policy as wrong-headed and self-destructive.

>I love how you guys here a conservative bash Bush and believe, for some
>stupid reason, that he has seen the light and become a lib.

Which was not the point of reposting the article at all.  No, nobody's
going to mistake Buchanan for a tree-hugger, or anything other than a
horse's a.s, for that matter... but for the right to downplay or ignore
the shots he's fired across the bow of the U.S.S. Neocon would be
foolish.   Especially telling is the fact that you didn't bother to
rebut any of the points put forth in the articles, but resorted to such
a ludicrous counter-charge that Buchanan was somehow a lib in the eyes
of the left.  I could hear fellow Republicans slapping their foreheads
collectively over that gem.
Venger - 27 Dec 2005 17:12 GMT
>> So you think Buchanan has become a Democrat?
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> of the left.  I could hear fellow Republicans slapping their foreheads
> collectively over that gem.

I will later regret involving myself in this conversation, but since when is
Pat Buchanan someone the left listens to - his point if not clearly stated
is that quoting Pat is silly since the same people doing the quoting fail to
quote him for near any other topic. Should we play dueling appeals to
authority? You say Buchanan, I say Zell Miller, you say Scowcroft, I say
Lieberman...

USS Neocon... could you be any more unserious? Is there a broadside against
the USS Welfare State? Did he direct grapeshot at the USS Tax'n'Spend? Is he
bearing down on the USS Lefty? Just when does your appeal to authority
expire with Pat? Because if you're offering his words gravitas here, you
have no basis to deny them on any other topic...

Venger
will(from the reality based community) - 27 Dec 2005 17:42 GMT
>>> So you think Buchanan has become a Democrat?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>I will later regret involving myself in this conversation, but since when is
>Pat Buchanan someone the left listens to -

Once again, partisanship makes you stupid.

Most people aren't a member of the right or the left. You are in such
a hurry to place people on one team or another so you can discount
what they say or defend it that you miss the point.

Thinking people from supposedly different sides of the divide see the
same problem.
Venger - 27 Dec 2005 18:14 GMT
>>I will later regret involving myself in this conversation, but since when
>>is
>>Pat Buchanan someone the left listens to -
>
> Once again, partisanship makes you stupid.

Well then what made you stupid? Are doctors feverishly researching that?

Allow me to simply retort what a total twat you are. Total. Top to bottom.
Proctor and Gamble is making a new line of enormous maxi pads, just with you
in mind. Gutless, whining, without benefit, meritless, holding no redeeming
value, not even 1/10th of a cent an empty bottle might bring.

> Most people aren't a member of the right or the left.

Most aren't a fraud. But you are. Oh, and Pat is right-wing. Deal with it.

> You are in such
> a hurry to place people on one team or another so you can discount
> what they say or defend it that you miss the point.

I discount what you say, because you are a fraud.

> Thinking people from supposedly different sides of the divide see the
> same problem.

They see you.

Venger
Dewey - 28 Dec 2005 14:28 GMT
> >>> So you think Buchanan has become a Democrat?
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> Thinking people from supposedly different sides of the divide see the
> same problem.

Some people need to define others into neat little categories. It helps them
decide who to listen to and who to mock.
Dub - 27 Dec 2005 21:17 GMT
> I will later regret involving myself in this conversation, but since when is
> Pat Buchanan someone the left listens to -

Never said they were, did I?  But he -is- someone the right
occasionally listens to, which makes it more interesting to see
right-leaning RSPW'ers cover their eyes and ears and go 'LA LA LA LA LA
LA'.

>his point if not clearly stated is that quoting Pat is silly since the same
>people doing the quoting fail to quote him for near any other topic.

And neo-cons never do that, do they?  Look for signatures bearing
Clinton's statements regarding Saddam, and you'll see my point.

> USS Neocon... could you be any more unserious?

http://www.answers.com/topic/tongue-in-cheek
Venger - 27 Dec 2005 21:47 GMT
>> I will later regret involving myself in this conversation, but since when
>> is
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> right-leaning RSPW'ers cover their eyes and ears and go 'LA LA LA LA LA
> LA'.

Pro-Wrestling? Uh huh. This topic is ended...

Venger
Dub - 27 Dec 2005 21:59 GMT
> Pro-Wrestling? Uh huh. This topic is ended...

You're not the first person to crosspost to a rasslin' newsgroup and
find himself outclassed, Venger.  Hank should've waxed you with his
magic bow when he had the chance!
Dewey - 28 Dec 2005 14:27 GMT
> >> So you think Buchanan has become a Democrat?
> >
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> is that quoting Pat is silly since the same people doing the quoting fail to
> quote him for near any other topic.

I will regret this becase you simply highlight your own hypocrisy. For
someone who has quoted Bill Clinton on WMDs and Iraq several times to
castigate others for citing someone they disagree with is simply ludicrous.
Indeed, the fact that Buchanan is such a right-wing wacko that lefties and
moderates would never quote him on most things shows how powerful his sudden
move away from Bush is. It would be like a hard-right leaning publication
like Barrons calling for Bush's impeachment. Oh wait...

>Should we play dueling appeals to
> authority? You say Buchanan, I say Zell Miller, you say Scowcroft, I say
> Lieberman...

Lieberman is republican in all but name. Anyone who wasn't blinded by
partisanship and intellectually incapable of looking beyond labels would
know this.

Here's Venger:

{
Here's Bill Clinton:

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan
or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the
day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and
chemical weapons."
}

> USS Neocon... could you be any more unserious? Is there a broadside against
> the USS Welfare State? Did he direct grapeshot at the USS Tax'n'Spend? Is he
> bearing down on the USS Lefty? Just when does your appeal to authority
> expire with Pat? Because if you're offering his words gravitas here, you
> have no basis to deny them on any other topic...

I thought is was funny on Fox News yesterday when they had 4 radically
conservative economists "debating" whether to end social security, medicare
and medicaid before they "bankrupt America." Some debate with all 4
panellists in 100% agreement. Not one of them mentioned that Social Security
is still running a surplus that is being frittered away in Iraq and used to
downgrade the actual cost of Bush's tax-cuts. I guess the USS Social Trust
is going down while the USS give-away-to-the-wealthy is just fine. NEver
forget, "W stands for Wealthy"
trijcomm - 30 Dec 2005 06:57 GMT
>the fact that Buchanan is such a right-wing wacko that lefties and
moderates would never quote him on most things shows how powerful his
sudden
>move away from Bush is.

BZZTT!! Sorry, this shows your ignorance. Buchanan has been at odds
with the Republican Party since 1992.
Bill - 27 Dec 2005 22:01 GMT
>> So you think Buchanan has become a Democrat?
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>of the left.  I could hear fellow Republicans slapping their foreheads
>collectively over that gem.

Most of us simply ignore Buchanan, he's gone off the deep end a lot
over the last few years.
Dewey - 28 Dec 2005 14:17 GMT
> > So you think Buchanan has become a Democrat?
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> of the left.  I could hear fellow Republicans slapping their foreheads
> collectively over that gem.

Not so. They are probably writing it down so they remember to use it next
time someone brings up Buchanan.
Smart Ape - Watch Kong / Snack-attack muthafucka! - 27 Dec 2005 15:36 GMT
I thought this was about Bull Buchanan :(
Signature

--- "Damn dirty fleas..."
--- Proud loser of TWO 2004 RSPW Poster Awards and several in 2005.
--- 3rd Highest Vote-Getter in KORSPW 2005
--- Ranked 4th on Lvubun's Top 127 RSPW Posters of 2005

KRJ - 27 Dec 2005 18:37 GMT
Pat B. is a U.S. Firster...an old fashion isolationist. He'd build a
fence around the US, set up a naval blockade, ban immigration, ban
imports and prepare for a defensive war against the world. His
association with conservatism comes from his old cold warrior days, but
he is neither a libertarian, economic, or neo con. He hated commies and
now they are gone so he is a simple facist, something very close to a
modern liberal.

>       Good to see that some conservatives understand the damage that Bush
> has done to the country. America's reputation is shot and rightfully so.
[quoted text clipped - 92 lines]
>
> http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=8306 
Rast - 28 Dec 2005 06:36 GMT
> Pat B. is a U.S. Firster...

As opposed to the Israel Firsters and Haliburton Firsters in the Bush
administration.

> an old fashion isolationist. He'd build a fence around the US,

Funny how the people who don't like this idea tend to have fences around
their gated communities.

> ban immigration,

That's a mainstream view right now.

> ban imports

No he wouldn't.  He'd increase tariffs on them, though.

> and prepare for a defensive war against the world.

As opposed to the Bush administration, who couldn't even properly prepare
for an offensive war against an insignificant craphole country like Iraq.

> His
> association with conservatism comes from his old cold warrior days, but
> he is neither a libertarian, economic, or neo con. He hated commies and
> now they are gone so he is a simple facist, something very close to a
> modern liberal.

Now you're just slinging bullshit.



Signature

"Ruleless 'law' will be a political weapon and control of the
judiciary will therefore be a political prize.  'Democracy' will
consist of the chaotic struggle to influence decision makers who are
not responsive to elections." -- Robert Bork

mullah - 28 Dec 2005 10:52 GMT
> Pat B. is a U.S. Firster...an old fashion isolationist. He'd build a
> fence around the US, set up a naval blockade, ban immigration,

America belongs to the white race. Mexicans do not belong in America
and are colonialist invaders, similar to whites in South Africa. We
have no obligation to allow mexicans to invade. On the other hand, we
do have an obligation to stop them as this country belongs to white
people and the brown beaners already have their own country (mexico).

ban
> imports

Foreigners, and multinationals, have no inherent right to sell foreign
made goods in this country.

and prepare for a defensive war against the world. His
> association with conservatism comes from his old cold warrior days, but
> he is neither a libertarian, economic, or neo con. He hated commies and
> now they are gone

Movies like Good Day and Good Luck getting made, while no communist
equivalent to Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List get made, is
proof that commies are not gone. Open borders, multiculturalism,
affirmative action, La Raza allowed to have advocacy groups on college
campuses, ethnic studies classes in public colleges, the jewish news
media's cover up of black on white crime, and the jewish news media's
villification of the minutemen are proof that commies are not gone.

so he is a simple facist, something very close to a
> modern liberal.

Modern liberals are jewish communists.

> >       Good to see that some conservatives understand the damage that Bush
> > has done to the country. America's reputation is shot and rightfully so.
[quoted text clipped - 92 lines]
> >
> > http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=8306 
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.