Current Events - Page 2

sikdogg · 09-08-2006, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by happy stud

If the bitch has so damn much money why in the hell didnt she get somebody to go get her the damn hamburger? She just wanted to show off and drive fast and see if any policeman had the balls to arrest her ass.

I believe her story... her alcohol level was at the very low end of the legal limit. She was probably buzzing but not drunk. How many of us on this board has driven after drinking a couple of beers?? Depending on your weight, that could be enough to be considered drunk driving.

happy stud · 09-08-2006, 10:21 PM

Would it be ok to ask what everybody thinks whether we should be in Iraq or not? I dont personally think we should be there fighting for these fuckers especially when they are so unappreciative.

Überschwanz · 09-08-2006, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by happy stud

Would it be ok to ask what everybody thinks whether we should be in Iraq or not? I dont personally think we should be there fighting for these fuckers especially when they are so unappreciative.

I'm not so much pissed at the Iraqis as I am at the president. He acts like anyone who questions anything about the Iraq War is unpatriotic and ignoring the sacrifices of our soldiers. Sending soldiers to die for a lie is the most unpatriotic thing a president can do.

I'm sorry if this sounds politically incorrect, but I've never been convinced that Islam and democracy are mutually compatible with one another. It's one or the other as far as I see it. Name one truly democratic Muslim country in the word today: not a single one exists and probably won't for a very, very long time.

happy stud · 09-08-2006, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Überschwanz

I'm sorry if this sounds politically incorrect, but I've never been convinced that Islam and democracy are mutually compatible with one another. It's one or the other as far as I see it. Name one truly democratic Muslim country in the word today: not a single one exists and probably won't for a very, very long time.

Man I agree 100%. Its like we say down here you cant make a cat bark like a dog. Ive always believed that Bush was just trying to get even since Saddam wanted to kill his daddy. These Iraqi fuckers have no interest or desire in becoming a democracy. Its a damn shame Bush and his people dont understand that.

Überschwanz · 09-08-2006, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by happy stud

Man I agree 100%. Its like we say down here you cant make a cat bark like a dog. Ive always believed that Bush was just trying to get even since Saddam wanted to kill his daddy. These Iraqi fuckers have no interest or desire in becoming a democracy. Its a damn shame Bush and his people dont understand that.

I'm a big fan of the Yugoslavia model. Let everything descend into sectarianism and let them have their civil war since they hate each other so much. Billions of dollars of weapons, thousands of dead soldiers, and the eternal optimism of Dubya can't make more than a millenium of hatred just disappear. Look at the Yugoslav republics today. They are separate, and happier countries now. This is one reason I would consider voting for Sen. Biden for president. That's what he thinks we should do.

JonPop · 09-08-2006, 11:01 PM

I agree. Biden in 2008!
We are stuck in another Viet Nam. The politicians are running this war, just like last time. Did Viet Nam become a democracy? NO! It's a communist country.
Muslim and Christian ideals will never be compatible. A feudal society always rejects democracy.

jennifer · 09-09-2006, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonPop

I agree. Biden in 2008!
We are stuck in another Viet Nam. The politicians are running this war, just like last time. Did Viet Nam become a democracy? NO! It's a communist country.
Muslim and Christian ideals will never be compatible. A feudal society always rejects democracy.

Yes, this war is becoming another VietNam. If the politicians had one of their close blood relatives in the service, maybe they wouldn't be so hesitant to send them to fight someone else's war.

What about Hilary in '08? She's against the war. You guys have a problem with a female president? Haha.

Überschwanz · 09-09-2006, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jennifer

Yes, this war is becoming another VietNam. If the politicians had one of their close blood relatives in the service, maybe they wouldn't be so hesitant to send them to fight someone else's war.

What about Hilary in '08? She's against the war. You guys have a problem with a female president? Haha.

I'd vote for her. Although her criticism of the war has been pretty tame by Democratic standards, I think she is walking the tightrope with the knowledge that she'll need moderate support if she ever wants to get elected. She knows the Dems will support her and being considered such a polarizing figure she knows she can't afford to say anything that sounds completely stupid.

jennifer · 09-09-2006, 12:55 AM

2008 - Hillary vs. McCain.

Überschwanz · 09-09-2006, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jennifer

2008 - Hillary vs. McCain.

With Biden as her running mate I bet.

kal · 09-09-2006, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jennifer

Yes, this war is becoming another VietNam. If the politicians had one of their close blood relatives in the service, maybe they wouldn't be so hesitant to send them to fight someone else's war.

What about Hilary in '08? She's against the war. You guys have a problem with a female president? Haha.

I think it's gonna be Hilary vs Condi in '08. I really don't like Hilary, but I despise Condi. She is one of the most important architects of this current quagmire. Think about it, a spoiled rich kid, has his dad's life threatened, becomes President, then wages a war on the Middle East in the name of the Christian God. I'd laugh histrically if it weren't for the fact that this invasion and illegal occupation is so damn bloody. O, and btw Jen, you are somewhat right, while Hilary is quietly against the war, mostly she supports W. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121100846.html

sikdogg · 09-09-2006, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jennifer

... What about Hilary in '08? She's against the war. You guys have a problem with a female president? Haha.

She's way to liberal for me... Liberalism = taxes

I'm not a fan of a woman prez because i don't think that they have the fortitude to make strong decisions regarding the military and war in general. Unless the woman has served in the armed forces, she will never get my vote... and we can thank Hilary's husband's presidency for dropping the ball on the whole terrorism issue. Thanks Bill and Al, 911 was a ball...

Überschwanz · 09-09-2006, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sikdogg

She's way to liberal for me... Liberalism = taxes

I'm not a fan of a woman prez because i don't think that they have the fortitude to make strong decisions regarding the military and war in general. Unless the woman has served in the armed forces, she will never get my vote... and we can thank Hilary's husband's presidency for dropping the ball on the whole terrorism issue. Thanks Bill and Al, 911 was a ball...

There's a reason why we have a civilian presidency in this country. Military juntas always turn out to be repressive so why should military experience be a prerequisite? That's just short sighted.

Am I correct in assuming sikdogg that you don't think Boxer or Feinstein have the fortitude to make such decisions. Besides, what good is fortitude if you are always wrong like the current president who finds it necessary to spend one third of his presidency on vacation. Is the job really that hard George?

Überschwanz · 09-09-2006, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sikdogg

She's way to liberal for me... Liberalism = taxes

No, liberalism is a social agenda, not an economic agenda. Libertarians don't support high taxes on the wealthy, but they are still considered social liberals.

happy stud · 09-09-2006, 07:03 PM

I would just like to know out of all of these damn people that are considering to run next year which one is gonna get us the hell out of a war we aint got any business in the first place being in and which one is gonna raise some hell and get these damn gasoline prices under $2 a gallon like they were before all this shit with Iraq started. And which one is gonna keep all these damn illegal aliens out of our country?

10 · 09-09-2006, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sikdogg

She's way to liberal for me... Liberalism = taxes

I'm not a fan of a woman prez because i don't think that they have the fortitude to make strong decisions regarding the military and war in general. Unless the woman has served in the armed forces, she will never get my vote... and we can thank Hilary's husband's presidency for dropping the ball on the whole terrorism issue. Thanks Bill and Al, 911 was a ball...

While I do agree with this to some extent, I do seriously think that a woman president couldn't do any worse than of the men have over the decades.

As for liberalism, dogg, you're about as liberal as they come................which is one of the reasons we get along so well....

10 · 09-09-2006, 10:38 PM

Has anyone heard of this 23 year old girl who's suing Starbucks for $114 million?????

If you're not familiar with this, Starbucks placed emails out to select customers offering a free iced coffee drink. In any event, this email got recirculated much more than Starbucks had figured on so it discontinued the ad. Now, this 23 year old chick is suing them claiming misrepresentation of their ad or some crazy crap like that. And, what's worse, she'll probably win.

Gotta love that old deep pockets theory.......

sikdogg · 09-10-2006, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Überschwanz

There's a reason why we have a civilian presidency in this country. Military juntas always turn out to be repressive so why should military experience be a prerequisite? That's just short sighted.

I bet to differ... i think military experience is important because in the course of every presidency, there will be a time where they will have to make military decisions. People like Clinton and Gore were warned by the likes of Ollie North and other military men but they failed to see what their lack of action would lead to. A military person would have taken the threat more seriously.

Quote:

Am I correct in assuming sikdogg that you don't think Boxer or Feinstein have the fortitude to make such decisions. Besides, what good is fortitude if you are always wrong like the current president who finds it necessary to spend one third of his presidency on vacation. Is the job really that hard George?

God, i'm scared to death of the thought that those two would ever be considered for president... I used to be a very strict conservative and although in the last 10 years or so have become more liberal in my social beliefs, i am still a very strong fiscal conservative. One thing i must admit though is that i really regret admitting to having voted for Bush. But if i had to choose between Bush, Hilary, Boxer, or Feinstein... i'd choose Bush every single time.

sikdogg · 09-10-2006, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10

While I do agree with this to some extent, I do seriously think that a woman president couldn't do any worse than of the men have over the decades.

As for liberalism, dogg, you're about as liberal as they come................which is one of the reasons we get along so well....

I honestly don't think all women would make for a lousy president... only women democrats as they are all about feel-goodism. They want to save the world by giving them social programs that middle America has to fund. Taxes on the rich is a riculous concept... think about it, most of the people in both houses are very wealthy. Do you really think they want to pay more taxes?? The concept is a sham. I think we need to get the idea in our heads that the rich will NEVER pay more taxes as the burden is trickled down to middle America. That means you and I...

sikdogg · 09-10-2006, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Überschwanz

No, liberalism is a social agenda, not an economic agenda. Libertarians don't support high taxes on the wealthy, but they are still considered social liberals.

Yes liberalism is a social agenda but economic agenda is based on one's social agenda. That is why we spend more than half of our budget on social programs...

Überschwanz · 09-10-2006, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sikdogg

People like Clinton and Gore were warned by the likes of Ollie North and other military men but they failed to see what their lack of action would lead to.

Oliver North is a corrupt traitor. He should be sitting in prison. The Faux News people praise him like he's the greatest war hero in world history. I've never served in the military, but I don't have to to know there are literally thousands of senior officers in the military more honorable and more sincere than he.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me you are alluding to this new ABC drama about the path to 9/11. The bipartisan 911 commission concluded from numerous sources that Clinton was not distracted by his affair with Monica Lewinsky to any degree that it affected his military decisions. He told Sandy Berger that he knew the administration would catch flak whether it went after terrorists in Sudan and Afghanistan or not so they figured it would be the right thing to just go for it and take the flak. That doesn't sound like Clinton ignored warnings. If anything, he was many times more pragmatic than Bush has been as of late. Bush has this idea that if you have a problem, you bomb it and it'll go away. His simplistic view of the world is his greatest flaw. Clinton's womanizing was his.

sikdogg · 09-10-2006, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Überschwanz

Oliver North is a corrupt traitor. He should be sitting in prison. The Faux News people praise him like he's the greatest war hero in world history. I've never served in the military, but I don't have to to know there are literally thousands of senior officers in the military more honorable and more sincere than he.

Be that as it may... he was in the know regarding Osama and terrorists in the middle east and brought the issue to Congress.

Quote:

I could be wrong, but it seems to me you are alluding to this new ABC drama about the path to 9/11. The bipartisan 911 commission concluded from numerous sources that Clinton was not distracted by his affair with Monica Lewinsky to any degree that it affected his military decisions. He told Sandy Berger that he knew the administration would catch flak whether it went after terrorists in Sudan and Afghanistan or not so they figured it would be the right thing to just go for it and take the flak. That doesn't sound like Clinton ignored warnings. If anything, he was many times more pragmatic than Bush has been as of late. Bush has this idea that if you have a problem, you bomb it and it'll go away. His simplistic view of the world is his greatest flaw. Clinton's womanizing was his.

Actually i wasn't alluding to the ABC drama... and i don't believe that his deal with Lewinski distracted him either. I just think we wasn't competent enough to forsee what his lack of action would bring. He was a good politician, but just wasn't able to see past his term of office.

So because Clinton was going to take flak whether he took action or not, he chose not to take action?!?! What a fucking wimp... right or wrong, at least Bush has enough balls to look at a problem and DO something about it regardless of the heat he's going to take. I would rather someone err'd while trying to fix a problem then just ignoring it and hoping it'll go away. For the record, i hate Bush (he's an idiot) and don't want to defend him but at least he's doing something...

happy stud · 09-10-2006, 03:22 PM

Im listening to Vice-President Cheney on Meet the Press right now. If I could lie to the women like this fucker is lieing right now, Id have all the pussy I could handle.

Überschwanz · 09-10-2006, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sikdogg

So because Clinton was going to take flak whether he took action or not, he chose not to take action?!?!

There were multiple attempts to get bin Laden during Clinton's administration, more attempts actually than Bush has made by abdicating responsibility for Afghanistan to NATO. I said Clinton did try to do something by targeting Khartoum and Afghanistan, both of which had governments involved in terrorism. That's one more than Bush has gone after I will gladly point out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sikdogg

...at least Bush has enough balls to look at a problem and DO something about it regardless of the heat he's going to take. I would rather someone err'd while trying to fix a problem then just ignoring it and hoping it'll go away. For the record, i hate Bush (he's an idiot) and don't want to defend him but at least he's doing something...

Doing something stupid is no substitute. You hit the nail on the head: Bush is thinking with his balls. Some people forget that the Soviet Union had a leader at one point who behaved a lot like Bush. It was Khrushev. His antics such as the Cuban Missile crisis eventually resulted in the Politburo removing him from office and sending him to live in his dacha in the Russian countryside. That could work for Bush. Send him to live back in Crawford; he seems to love it there so much anyway that I doubt he'd complain.