3
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

 
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 02:08 pm
BernardR wrote:
The august Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, of course, who is long since deceased, had no chance to examine the puffery and lies presented by the Islamo-fascist murderers from Iran and Hezbollah.


Picked up on the Fox News talking points quite nicely. Obviously someone is paying attention.

I especially like the "Islamo-fascist" part. It is, like, so vogue.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 02:14 pm
Foxfyre- All I am trying to do is to inform people like Advocate that they are not adding to an adult debate with statements like "Bush has an IQ of 80". Anyone who makes any kind of a controversial statement is REQUIRED to submit evidence.

These threads are not( I hope) venues for adolescent postings with not a shred of knowledge behind them!
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 02:16 pm
BernardR wrote:
Anyone who makes any kind of a controversial statement is REQUIRED to submit evidence.

These threads are not( I hope) venues for adolescent postings with not a shred of knowledge behind them!

Possum must be the exception to the rule.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 02:24 pm
Gustavratzenhofer- Would you prefer

MURDEROUS ISLAMIC FANATIC

instead of "Islamo-Fascist"

It is clear that you have never read the writings of the foremost US authority on Islam- Dr.Bernard Lewis. His writings are easily accessible on the Internet. Try them!!!
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 02:28 pm
BernardR wrote:
Gustavratzenhofer- Would you prefer

MURDEROUS ISLAMIC FANATIC

instead of "Islamo-Fascist"

It is clear that you have never read the writings of the foremost US authority on Islam- Dr.Bernard Lewis. His writings are easily accessible on the Internet. Try them!!!


I'll pass.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 03:56 pm
I do provide links and pasted stuff when appropriate. If something has been in the news ad nauseam, this is unnecessary. BTW, unlike Bernard, I don't spam, misquote, and dwell on excrement. (I did not say that Bush has an IQ of 80, as reported by Bernard.)
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 04:05 pm
Pissum Fartbubbles may well be the fellow that Woody Allen spoke of.

Quote:
I know someone who graduated from a speed-reading course. It took him 27 minutes to read War and Peace. He said "It's about Russia."
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 04:05 pm
Here is an interesting piece. Dubya is getting a dose of his own words.


August 18, 2006 at 20:50:48

U.S District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor; A Dose of Reality for Dubya

by John Perry


http://www.opednews.com

The words of George W. Bush, April 20th, 2004, in Buffalo, New York:
"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap - it requires - a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talkin' about chasin' down terrorists, we're talkin' about gettin' a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand - when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland because we value the Constitution."

When the Pathologically Lying Law Breaker-in-Chief uttered those words, his secret NSA surveillance program (you know, the illegal, unconstitutional one where they conduct wiretaps without warrants) had already been active for almost three years. But that was before the whole world knew about it, so Bush was perfectly happy to let us all go on thinking that he actually was adhering to his oath of office and upholding the Constitution, when actually he had long since relegated that most sacred of American documents to toilet paper status.

Yesterday in Detroit, Dubya's absolute power grab got a much deserved and extremely important Constitutional smack down from U.S District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor.

In her 43 page decision, Taylor wrote "It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control." She went on to say "There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution, so all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution."

She was essentially just reiterating exactly what Bush said back in April 2004, when he talked about getting warrants for surveillance, even when "chasin' down terrorists," because "we value the Constitution."

The difference, of course, is that the Judge wasn't lying.

And here's a shocker: Taylor is now being attacked by the Bush crowd as a partisan activist judge with an axe to grind. Rupert Murdoch's fascist fish wrap, the New York Post, in an editorial today titled "Jihad's Courtroom Win", called Taylor's decision an "overtly political ruling by a left-wing Michigan federal jurist". They also felt it necessary to go back almost 30 years to remind us that Taylor was "appointed by (who else?) Jimmy Carter."

As if the neocon chicken hawks running our country into the ground would never consider acting in a self-serving partisan manner themselves. Please. Self-serving partisanship is the only course these fortunate sons have ever known.

In response to the decision, Bush said today "I strongly disagree with that decision, strongly disagree", adding also that opponents of his Constitution-shredding policy "do not understand the nature of the world in which we live."

On the contrary, sir, we understand quite well.

We understand that you do not uphold the Constitution of the United States by systematically undermining it in an effort to achieve absolute power.

We understand, as Thom Hartmann so eloquently reminded his listeners this afternoon, that if James Madison didn't need to ignore the Constitution when the British invaded Washington and set fire to the White House in 1812, you don't need to ignore it to effectively protect America from terrorism today.

We understand that the only human success you will realize with the relentless, indiscriminate killing of innocent people, in the name of the unprecedented criminal fraud that is your "war on terror", is the success of convincing millions more to hate America.

We understand that, although your entire presidency can be accurately described as one massive, disingenuous statement, your boot licking Attorney General's claim that your illegal surveillance program "provides the United States with the early-warning system we so desperately needed on September 10th" (a claim with which you no doubt concur) is the perhaps the height or your administration's hypocrisy, given the fact that you ignored dozens of pre-9/11 warnings of a terrorist attack on America.

We understand that terrorism is indeed a very real worldwide threat (a threat growing by leaps and bounds thanks to you), but also that as long as it doesn't threaten you or anyone you care about, you don't care, as long as you have an excuse to continue and benefit from your bogus war.

We understand that the reason Osama bin Laden is still a free man five years after 9/11 is that you need a boogeyman to help you maintain the climate of fear that sustains your fraudulent presidency, and he needs a boogeyman to help him boost recruitment for his jihad. You might as well be business partners.

We also understand that like you and your neocon handlers need Osama, you needed 9/11, which is why you either let it happen, or you made it happen.

America is waking up, Mr. "President". You should be very concerned, not just for your job, but also for your freedom.

Here's to swift justice.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 04:45 pm
Advocate, we've been getting along pretty well lately, but I've got to say that the garbage you just posted here is pure

http://spam.com/sp/SPAMALOT.gif

There are at least two or three dozen other active threads in which this would be appreciated. Surely you can find something more honest, constructive, and accurate to post here.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 04:54 pm
BernardR wrote:
Foxfyre- All I am trying to do is to inform people like Advocate that they are not adding to an adult debate with statements like "Bush has an IQ of 80". Anyone who makes any kind of a controversial statement is REQUIRED to submit evidence.

These threads are not( I hope) venues for adolescent postings with not a shred of knowledge behind them!


Don't be so hard on yourself Bernard. Oh yes, did I mention that I am not what you call left wing.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 10:40 pm
Fox, gee, I am sorry that you are displeased with the piece. I noticed that you failed to refute anything in it. Maybe that is because it is unassailable.

It is particularly interesting in that it throws back at Bush his own words; i.e., a wiretap requires a warrant. I guess he was flat-out lying to the public (again). It also, with emphasis, states that Bush is not a monarch -- he is subject to the law like everyone else.

I am sorry that this truth is a bit hard to swallow.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 10:49 pm
I am happy to see that Advocate is finally using something other than his/ her? deficient reasoning to back his? her? claims.

Let us examine what he? she? posted.

First of all, we must establish the source. Anyone who knows anything about Historiography is aware that the bias(or lack of it) of a source must be established even before it is analyzed.

What is Advocate's source?


WEB RESULTS
OpEdNews.Com Progressive, Tough Liberal News and Opinion Home Page
... It's a great source of news and smart, tough Op-Eds I use it all the time to ... Search. Advertising Info. Article Archives. Writers Archives "OpEdNews is one ...


NOTE THAT THE INTERNET DESCRIBES OPED NEWS AS


"Progressive, Tough LIBERAL"

I am certain that the source can be classified as BIASED.

Now, let us examine the facts:
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 10:56 pm
And the facts are . . .

Bernard, we are waiting.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2006 11:13 pm
Advocate's ADMITTEDLY LIBERAL SOURCE SAID: My comments in CAPS!!!

American documents to toilet paper status.

Yesterday in Detroit, Dubya's absolute power grab got a much deserved and extremely important Constitutional smack down from U.S District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor.

( I DO HOPE THAT ADVOCATE KNOWS WHAT A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IS. A US DISTRICT COURT JUDGE IS TWO RUNGS BELOW AUTHORITATIVE. THIS JUDGEMENT FROM AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN FORMER CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST FROM DETROIT WHO WAS MARRIED TO JOHN DIGGS-ONE OF THE MOST LIBERAL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, WILL NOT STAND. THIS OPINION WILL BE APPEALED TO THE APPEALATE COURT WHICH WILL SMACK TAYLOR DOWN!!!)

In her 43 page decision, Taylor wrote "It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control." She went on to say "There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution, so all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution."

(THE MORONIC REFERENCE TO THE FRAMERS IS RIDICULOUS. HACKS LIKE TAYLOR AVOID REFERRING TO THE FRAMERS. TAYLOR APPARENTLY NEVER READ OF THE GREATEST AMERICAN PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME, ABRAHAM LINCOLN WHO SAID:

"I CONCEIVE THAT I MAY IN AN EMERGENCY DO THINGS ON MILITARY GROUNDS WHICH CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY BE DONE BY CONGRESS")


She was essentially just reiterating exactly what Bush said back in April 2004, when he talked about getting warrants for surveillance, even when "chasin' down terrorists," because "we value the Constitution."

The difference, of course, is that the Judge wasn't lying.

And here's a shocker: Taylor is now being attacked by the Bush crowd as a partisan activist judge with an axe to grind. Rupert Murdoch's fascist fish wrap, the New York Post, in an editorial today titled "Jihad's Courtroom Win", called Taylor's decision an "overtly political ruling by a left-wing Michigan federal jurist". They also felt it necessary to go back almost 30 years to remind us that Taylor was "appointed by (who else?) Jimmy Carter."

As if the neocon chicken hawks running our country into the ground would never consider acting in a self-serving partisan manner themselves. Please. Self-serving partisanship is the only course these fortunate sons have ever known.

In response to the decision, Bush said today "I strongly disagree with that decision, strongly disagree", adding also that opponents of his Constitution-shredding policy "do not understand the nature of the world in which we live."

On the contrary, sir, we understand quite well.

We understand that you do not uphold the Constitution of the United States by systematically undermining it in an effort to achieve absolute power.

(WE WILL LEAVE THAT TO AN APPEALATE COURT TO JUDGE NOT A LEFT WING MINOR DISTRICT COURT JUDGE WHO, I AM SURE, DID NOT GRADUATE FROM HARVARD OR YALE LAW SCHOOLS AND CONSEQUENTLY REALLY KNOWS LITTLE LAW)


We understand, as Thom Hartmann so eloquently reminded his listeners this afternoon, that if James Madison didn't need to ignore the Constitution when the British invaded Washington and set fire to the White House in 1812, you don't need to ignore it to effectively protect America from terrorism today.

We understand that the only human success you will realize with the relentless, indiscriminate killing of innocent people, in the name of the unprecedented criminal fraud that is your "war on terror", is the success of convincing millions more to hate America.

(YES, PRESIDENT BUSH CONVINCED THE PEOPLE WHO DESTROYED THE WTC TO HATE AMERICA!!!- WHAT A CROCK)


We understand that, although your entire presidency can be accurately described as one massive, disingenuous statement, your boot licking Attorney General's claim that your illegal surveillance program "provides the United States with the early-warning system we so desperately needed on September 10th" (a claim with which you no doubt concur) is the perhaps the height or your administration's hypocrisy, given the fact that you ignored dozens of pre-9/11 warnings of a terrorist attack on America.

( PRESIDENT BUSH IGNORED WARNINGS OF A TERRORIST ATTACK ON AMERICA? I NOTE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE GIVEN. THE TRUTH IS THAT THE CIA GAVE A PRESIDENT WARNINGS THAT THE USA MIGHT BE ATTACKED BY MIDDLE EASTERN TERRORISTS USING AIRPLANES.
THAT PRESIDENT WAS BILL CLINTON)


We understand that terrorism is indeed a very real worldwide threat (a threat growing by leaps and bounds thanks to you), but also that as long as it doesn't threaten you or anyone you care about, you don't care, as long as you have an excuse to continue and benefit from your bogus war.

( IS THIS A CHILD WRITING? IT SOUNDS LIKE IT. THERE ARE MANY IDIOTIC STATEMENTS AND NO PROOF)

We understand that the reason Osama bin Laden is still a free man five years after 9/11 is that you need a boogeyman to help you maintain the climate of fear that sustains your fraudulent presidency, and he needs a boogeyman to help him boost recruitment for his jihad. You might as well be business partners.

We also understand that like you and your neocon handlers need Osama, you needed 9/11, which is why you either let it happen, or you made it happen.

America is waking up, Mr. "President". You should be very concerned, not just for your job, but also for your freedom.

Here's to swift justice.
end of quote
And here is a much more reasoned approach--







Spying to continue pending appeal by Justic Department





Dan Eggen and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post
August 18, 2006

A federal judge in Detroit ruled Thursday that the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program is unconstitutional, delivering the first decision that the Bush administration's effort to monitor communications without court oversight runs afoul of the Bill of Rights and federal law.

U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ordered a halt to the wiretap program, secretly authorized by Bush in 2001, but both sides in the lawsuit agreed to delay that action while the Justice Department appeals her decision.

Legal scholars said Taylor's decision is likely to receive heavy scrutiny from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati, and some criticized her ruling as poorly reasoned.

Ruling in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups in the Eastern District of Michigan, Taylor said that the NSA wiretapping program, aimed at communications by potential terrorists, violates privacy and free speech rights and the constitutional separation of powers between the three branches of government. She also found that the wiretaps violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law enacted to provide judicial oversight of clandestine surveillance within the United States.

Advertisement

"It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion. "There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all 'inherent powers' must derive from that Constitution."

The ruling is the latest courtroom setback for the Bush administration's controversial antiterrorism and detention policies, which have frequently relied on broad assertions of presidential power. In a landmark case in June, the Supreme Court rejected Bush's claims of executive power, ruling 5-3 that special military trials for alleged terrorists were not authorized under federal law and ran afoul of the Geneva Conventions.

The decision could complicate efforts by the White House and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., to win approval for a bill that would allow, but not require, Bush to submit the NSA program to a secret court for legal review.

The eavesdropping program, revealed in news reports in December 2005, allows the NSA to intercept telephone calls and e-mails between the United States and overseas without court approval in cases where the government suspects one party of links to terrorism.

The NSA refused to discuss Taylor's ruling or whether it had suspended any surveillance activities. The office of John Negroponte, Bush's director for national intelligence, also declined to comment.

Several dozen court lawsuits have been filed around the country challenging the program's legality, but Thursday's ruling marked the first time that a judge had ruled it unconstitutional. Experts in national security law argued, however, that Taylor offered meager support for her findings on separation of powers and other key issues.

"Regardless of what your position is on the merits of the issue, there's no question that it's a poorly reasoned decision," said Bobby Chesney, a national security law specialist at Wake Forest University who takes a moderate stance on the legal debate over the NSA program. "The opinion kind of reads like an outline of possible grounds to strike down the program, without analysis to fill it in."

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Bush administration "couldn't disagree more with this ruling," calling it "carefully administered."


end of quote


THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THIS PROGRAM WILL CONTINUE UNTIL THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULES ON IT. THAT MAY NOT BE UNTIL JUNE 2007.

IF THE RULING ON THIS CASE IS ANYTHING LIKE THE RULING ON GITMO, IT WILL MEAN THAT THE LEFT IS DEFEATED AGAIN..THE USSC INVITED PRESIDENT BUSH AND HIS STAFF TO SET UP PROCEDURES FOR TRYING PRISONERS AT GITMO.

Advocate should not hold his? her?: breathe until June 2007!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2006 12:26 am
mysteryman wrote:
pachelbel,
May I point out something.
We were not at war with Germany until dec of 1941.

Any business done between anyone in the US and Germany previous to that was perfectly legal,even if it was in hindsight stupid.

Are you condemning the Bush family for conducting LEGAL business?


wikipedia: Prescott BushSome records in the National Archives, including the Harriman papers, document the continued relationship of Brown Brothers Harriman with Thyssen and some of his German investments up until his 1951 death.[4] Investigator John Loftus has said, "As a former federal prosecutor, I would make a case for Prescott Bush, his father-in-law (George Walker) and Averill Harriman [to be prosecuted] for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They remained on the boards of these companies knowing that they were of financial benefit to the nation of Germany." Two former slave laborers from Poland have filed suit in London against the government of the United States and the heirs of Prescott Bush in the amount of $40 billion. A class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. in 2001 was dismissed.[5]

(For more information on the Bush family and the arms industry, see Samuel P. Bush.)

Duh. Prescott Bush wouldn't have gotten busted by Congress for trading with the enemy unless there was a declared war. Obviously P. Bush was still doing business with the Nazi's after Pearl Harbor. You really should do some research on the man. He was quite interesting. P. Bush was a lackey of Avril Harriman (look him up, too) who owned a German shipping line. They were heavily involved in handgun sales to both the Nazi's and Communists, against the wishes of the struggling Weimar republic.

The Bush family has never conducted legal business. Refer to my post - several pages back - where it is described in detail what each family member was/is doing. None of it is legal. Here is just a small sampling. You can do your own wikipedia search as well on Bushie's other illustrious siblings and relatives.

From wikipedia:

Marvin Pierce Bush (born October 22, 1956) is the youngest son of George H. W. Bush and Barbara Pierce, and brother of George W., John (Jeb), Neil and Dorothy. He is named for his maternal grandfather. He and wife Margaret have two children: a daughter, Marshall, and a son, Walker.

Marvin graduated from Woodberry Forest School in 1975, and also holds a B.S. from the University of Virginia. He spent most summers and holidays at the sprawling family estate, the Bush Compound. He was a director of the Sterling, Virginia company Securacom, also known as Stratesec, from 1993 until fiscal year 2000. The Securacom/Stratesec company was publicly traded and backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corporation. Shocked

In 1996 Marvin Bush had 53,000 shares in the company's stock he bought at 52 cents a share. In 1997 the stock sold for $8.50 a share. Marvin Bush was no longer listed as a shareholder by the end of 2000. In 2003 Marvin Bush's babysitter reportedly ran herself over with her own car in the Bush family driveway. It took the Washington Post almost a week to publish the story.
Currently, Marvin Bush is a Co-Founder and Managing Partner at the investment firm Winston Capital Management, located in McLean, VA. Mr. Bush has portfolio manager duties at Winston.

Marvin Bush is a former director of HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc (HCC), and is currently listed as an advisor to the board of directors [1]. HCC is a publicly traded insurance company on the New York Stock Exchange.

With his father being a former one-term president, his brother George W. a two-term president, and his brother Jeb a governor, there is speculation that Marvin Bush will also go into politics. Over the past decade, Marvin has engaged in a multitude of campaign and fundraising events. His brothers George and Jeb both positioned themselves as businessmen prior to going into politics.

Securacom had a contract to provide security to the World Trade Center until the day it came down. Securacom also provided security services to Dulles airport. Shocked I smell collusion here. Of course, it's just coincidence that a Bush was in charge of security at the WTC the day it came down. No possible connection whatsoever Laughing Rolling Eyes [edit]
References
^ http://www.hcch.com/content/directors_and_officers/bod/hcc_bod_frameset.htm


0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2006 01:10 am
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2006 01:21 am
Of course Prescott Bush had ties with the Nazi's. How do you think he made his millions? By being honest? An honest politician is rather an oxymoron isn't it? Avril Harriman and Prescott Bush were partners in crime.


You think the Bush's are an illustrious family? Think what silliness you like, but the proof is there: about Prescott's ties with German death camps, Neil's (Georgie's brother) savings & loan scandals that cost taxpayers millions, and Marvin (Georgie's brother also) who was in charge of security at the WTC up until the day they went down. You want to talk about his uncle, Jonathan? See the thread The Bush Family Saga.

And please stop sending such long posts. You've been asked by other posters before to cease and desist, but you continue with your automated responses. I don't read them. Or anything you write. Sorry.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2006 01:24 am
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2006 08:58 am
All manner of accusations are made against many if there is the posisbility of substantial financial rewards.

But quoting from Democrat leaders in the past, the 'seriousness of the charge' is the issue. So once one of these stories starts circulating, the more gullible (and opportunistic) take any silly rumor or false accusation and run with it to attack somebody they don't like or think they're not supposed to like.

It's too bad that national politics has been reduced to this level of discourse. There was a time when it was considered wrong and criminal to intentionally falsely ruin another person's good name.
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Aug, 2006 07:20 pm
And there will always be people who believe lies; the gullible people of America, who would prefer be told what to think rather than investigate for themselves.

The Bush's have no 'good name'. They haven't since Prescott Bush.

I find it interesting that Bush & his brothers commit such crimes and it goes unnoticed. Marvin Bush, Georgie's brother, was in charge of security at the WTC on 9/11. Of course, it's all just a coincidence that 9/11 'happened' when a Bush was in charge of security......

The fact that allegations against Prescott Bush remain UNSUBSTANTIATED means only that it could not be proven one way or the other. Of course it helps that P. Bush is dead now. Convenient time to release previously classified documents about him and A. Harriman since both are dead. The fact that it is not widely known is suspicious. What are the Bush's afraid of? Truth?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/17/2025 at 12:18:35