[hi burger!] give us a thread title [/hi burger!]
 

????????????????

good ideas bad results
 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Penske_Account
Actually I agree with him. A.good.idea. I have had lots of ideas that seemed good at the time, in the idea stage. "In practice" is a-hole-nother matter.

Remember patentparalegal?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



2. Stealing blue_Triangle was a great idea, but then leagl said it made it was precedant to make it okay for someone to steal my Juan sock

[hi burger!] give us a thread title [/hi burger!]
 

Fuck! I am not sure I know how to revise thread titles...............

[hi burger!] give us a thread title [/hi burger!]
 

I figured it out. Give us a title burger, or mine sticks.

good ideas bad results
 

I agree, leagl screwed your pooch on that one. Stealing a sock is dumber than dumbest. Just make up your own. Esta facile, si?

W did sell it to the American people. So his plan worked. There is an issue of whether or not what American did was legal. There is an issue of whether or not the invasion was wise. But the issue of whether Bush lied, exaggerated or did nothing is an irrelevent issue. The only consquences to what he did are political. There will be no trial or criminal investigation. So the question is will Bush's supposed exagerration cost him politically? He was up for reelection and won. And now he can't run again. So the issue is moot. Why do the liberals keep focusing on it? Their chance to make any political capital past after the election. Now it just does not matter.

etat -- t.s.

Might makes right?

[hi burger!] give us a thread title [/hi burger!]
 

And you keep forgetting that exclamation points come in hat tricks.

:rolleyes:

[Hi Douchebag!!!] Well, look who is back from his meeting [/Hi Douchebag!!!]

I will see you on the Spanky board if you are done with your "meeting".

T-Rex:

"It's odd that you guys think we should take out Hussein, without regard to the poor prospects for replacing him with someone or something much better, but jump to that line when the subject is Pakistan. If we can install democracy in Iraq, why not Pakistan? Do you think Pakistanis are unready for democracy or something?"

Saddam Hussein was an evil nasty dictator that was against us. He was using all the power of a large state against our interests. In addition, he has a pretty educated population that is not overwhelmingly fundamentalist religious. Prior to his dictatorshiop it was a relatively affluent educated country. So there was a chance that Democracy could be better and not much of a chance of things getting worse. In addition, the majority of the population is Shiite so a government that forms there is unlikely to support Al Queda which hates Shiites as much as it hates the US.

Mushariff is a Pro-American dictator that is helping us on our war on terror. His population is highly uneducated, poor and full of relgious fanatics. If a national election were held a pro Al Queda government might get elected. Pakistan is the perfect example of why you need economic development before democracy. Pakistan needs to develop more economically before it will can establish a stable democracy. If it goes democratic before economic development is will probably just become a theocratic state.

Saddam Hussein's policies before and after the Gulf war were making the country poorer. So the long term chances of a stable democracy were nil. Mushariff has instituted free market reforms, that have led to growth, and which in the long run will lead to an affluent society that will lead to Democracy.

No but in the international scene might wins the debate. As it always does when there is no rule of law that is enforced. But that is not the point.

Most savy liberals know that the whole debate about Bush lying to get us into the war is trying to hurt Bush politically. That is the only purpose is serves. But it has really failed on that front so no one has anything to gain from the debate anymore.

Too caustic over there. I'll stay here where it's bucolic and safe.

2!!!

2. if we're going to throw out a government it doesn't make sense for it to be one that supports us. that what the Dems do. wasn't ditching the shah the most ShapeShifteryTM of all Carter's bonehead moves? I mean the houses the guy builds probably have terribly thought out flow and feng shui, you know?

Ty and them act like there aren't sides here. "the guy who was going to blow up a mom and kids on the bus did this, so our only response if that...."

They don't get this is war not crime. Doesn't matter really. i mean its about as relevant as what is (not was, is) the Whig party position on free trade?

T-Rex said:

"Spanky seems to think the UN is a good idea. I'm with him."

I don't know where you got this but actually I do think the UN is a good idea. Did a great job in Korea and Gulf War I. I just think it needs to be reformed. I think it would be a tragic mistake to end the UN.

new threat title...
 

is mine, until Burger gives me something else.

:dj:

Or: Pakistan is a nation that supports and harbors terrorists. It actively supported the Taliban and OBL. Its official security agency, the ISI, commits and sponsors terrorist acts against one of our allies, India. It is led by a military dictatorship that seized power from a democratically elected government. Pakistan's record on human rights is one of the most asbysmal on the planet. Public education was virtually abandoned in favor of extremist Islamic madrasses (basically terrorist training camps), of which it is believed there exist about 40,000. Notable alumni include Mullah Omar and John Walker Lindh. Pakistan is a known nuclear power and has admitted to exporting nuclear materials and technology to regimes openly hostile to the U.S., most notably North Korea. OBL is currently believed to be operating in Western Pakistan. However, Pakistan refuses to allow U.S. troops to operate in the area to locate him.

2. I also think the horse and buggy and kerosene lantern were good ideas. they did a great job a couple of centuries ago.

new threat title...
 

Is Savvy misspelled intentinoally?

new threat title...
 

I'm boycotting the board until you fix it.

new threat title...
 

Yes. Also, the term Savvy liberals" would be an oxymoron, and isn't that SS' title?

new threat title...
 

Yes, obviously.

new threat title...
 

No. SS's title is "douchiest".

I am sure that Spanky is not appreciating my diluting the political content of this board. Call it an FB hangover if you like. I will take this movable feast to my new home.

Mend it, Don't End it?

I need TV, but I got T-Rex.
 

Apropos of nothing, Mott the Hoople is now playing on my mental soundtrack.

Carry on.

Shake it (up)
don't break it
it took the liberals two world wars to make it!

"I used to think these guys were cagey and operated on the same page. There appears to be a lot more confusion in this Admin than I thought. Clearly, the marching order memos aren't getting around. Or maybe they're smart enough to realize no one gives a damn what that fat twit says at press briefings?

The Bush Administration, confounding us for five years with the never ending curiosity.... "Lucky idiots or brilliant devious bastards?"

I think both. Perhaps they are divinely guided. If they are, lovely. God loves a scheming inmbecile. Maybe I will get to heaven after all..."

This White House is the most efficiently run White House in a political sense than we have had since Johnson. The people at the top have had a lot experience and good political instincts so that the White House operations are pretty good as far as holding in leaks and keeping things on message. However, having said that, the competition is almost nil. Every administrations white house operations have been crazy and disorganized, and this one is just a little bit better. My friends from the campaign that work at the White House say it is just "insane". I think the rule is that everyone who works or has ever worked at the White House never sleeps well again.

This may all be true. But Musharrif is the best we are going to get. We can't do better so we have to make do with what we have.

Exactly

So the Pakistanis aren't ready for democracy?

Oh, bullshit. I just caught you acknowledging that if Musharaf goes, we might get something worse, an idea that never jumps to mind when the Islamic democracy (scarequotes) at issue is Iraq.

Of course there are sides. We know this because any discussion about how to best accomplish our goals immediately turns into a question of which side you're on.

However, whatever efficiency they have is a very simple efficiency. They know how to whack those who step out of line and stay on simple messages. the problem is, shit ain't always that simple. This Plame mess is embarrassing them. And their idiot move to redo social security, however senseible it is, is politically moronic. Bush is doing an excellent job of biting off more than he can chew in every possible direction. You can't just stay "on message" and hope to sell SS reform. You have to think that shit out years in advance. You can't go trapsing off to Iraq without a strategy to get out later. Shit, all you need to do is read a few British history books to see what a fucking quagmire you'll run into trying to operate that country as one unit and one democracy.

You'll find no bigger fan of "keep it simple, stupid" than me. I loathe policy wonks and think we ought to hang every bureaucrat who can't justify his paycheck in five sentences. BUT you can't apply simple, direct, "CEO" decisions to everything. Bush needs to nuance himself out of Plame, and he's doing a terrible job of it so far. Fuck, the Press has even suddenly regained its ballsack. And thats his worst nightmare. If the Fourth estate wakes up and starts attacking Bush, instead of giving him the continued free ride he's enjoyed, he's in trouble. Scott McClellan can't take bullets forever.

Sooner or later, W has to do what Tony Blair does - stand there and take the beating from his critics in the media. I don't think he has the balls or the fast-wittedness to do it. His inability to fight on the fly is making him look secretive, and that ain't good in the midst of a scandal.

I think Pakistan is the greasy ooze that emerges when you first pop a zit. Think of the Iran/Pakistan/Iraq/Afghanistan area as a zit. China and Inida are Westernizing at warp speed. Russia is Westernising and getting cozy with China and India. And there's the US, Israel and Britain to the West, and the uber-liberal and irreligious EU to the Northwest.

You have three fingers popping a huge zit of backward Islamic Republics jammed in the middle, between Egypt, Turkey and India. My guess is the puss runs into Africa through Egypt after Mubarrak dies and no strong successor is chosen. Pakistan is just that shit that's barely worth squeezing. Its another screwed up, misbordered British colony. It'll be swallowed by India economically. The big pile of white puss... the guts of the pimple, if you will, is Iran. Once that fucker gets Westernized (and it will, given time), I think Radical Islam's last stand will be on the Arabian Peninsula and in Africa.

I don't see Pakistan as the hotbed of Islamic insanity. I think its too close to , and economically tied to, India (even if culturally they hate each other). I think the last stand of Radical Islam is going to be some screwy place in Africa, like the Sudan.

racist!

So... Democracy through Dermatology?

You know, that's just crazy enough that it might work!

As I have said many times on this board, development leads to democracy. It does not necessarily work the other way around. So if a country is growing economically it is better not to mess with it because it will turn into a democracy on its own. However, if the economy is not growing it is time for regime change. Unless of course if it is a democracy like India, then you just have to let them stew in their own incompetance. Although recently India seems to be getting the idea.

That is why we need to take out the Burmese government. The country is not growing economically so that Junta could remain in power indefinitely (same goes for North Korea). If the economic trend continues in China the communist party there does not have a snowballs chance in hell in keeping that country a one party state.

I was going to go with a Chinese Gordon reference, but I like your response better.

There you go again. No one ever said that it is not possible that we will get something worse. Just unlikely. Things were pretty bad under Saddam Hussein so things will really have to screw up badly in Iraq for things to get worse than life under Saddam. Iraq is a paradise right now compared to what it was under Saddam. Your view of how bad things are in Iraq right now are distorted, and your view of life under Saddam is distorted.

Whoa. The Club For Growth does Foreign Policy. Nice twist.

Beautiful. I loled.

When I think of Pakistan, I think of poor Bobo.