Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski


a week ago you post a "joke" that you had sex with my underage daughter..... coincidentially posted a few moments after I had posted an actual photo of her. Given how bothered you get when Fringey posts such things, it is beyond belief that you would be so dense as to have posted that, but there you are.

Let me also note that I posted a joke about someone's daughter, and then realised it was outable or offensive or something, and deleted it. Does not the liberal hate know any bounds of social decorum?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

For gatti.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
For gatti.

The blonde behind her is not bad for 60.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The blonde behind her is not bad for 60.

I'm surprised she charged you that little. I guess the Harris campaign is hard up for cash?

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
I forget. Was it Goebbels or Goering who said that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth?

Like "Bush lied, People died"? That sort of thing????

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
What I find so ironic is that the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism is it really is not as much of a problem for us as it is the rest of the developed and developing world. Because of 9-11 and Iraq we have become intertwined in the Middle East but if we totally screw up it is not that much skin of our backs.

We are a whole ocean away from the Middle East. We need the oil but we produce a ton of oil ourselves and as the price climbs we will adopt other forms of energy.

China and India however are just starting to industrialize so they have to go through a phase where they will have to suck up a lot of oil. We have a developed service economy so our oil in take can be adjusted with much more ease.

China has a serious Islamic population in Sinkiang with all the Uigurs that want to secede, and with all their Turkish brethren right across the border with their own countries this is just going to get worse. They also have a significant Han Muslim population in Western China that also poses a problem.

India does not get along well with Pakistan and has over a hundred million Muslims with in its own borders.

Russia has got Chechnya and all the Muslims in Tartarstan. The rest of Europe has lots of Muslims in their countries that are not assimilated (and won't be), and they are right above North Africa and next to the Middle East. The idea that Muslims will take over Europe is absurd (at least not for a few hundred years) but they have domestic populations that can do a lot of damage where we don't.

When Pakistan and Saudi Arabia get taken over by fanatic organizations, and the Iranians get the bomb, all these countries are going to be in the firing line. We will still be oceans and continents away.

We are going to be out of firing range and are going to have a constantly improving missile defense system. When all these countries realize that it is more there problem that the US's problem it may be too late.

All these countries think they are sticking it to us when they don't fully cooperate with the war on terror; the ironic thing is that they have a much bigger stake in our success than we do.

I realize Al Queda was able to break through our ocean protection but that is because we weren't paying attention. We can shield ourselves much better from the problems in the Middle East than all those other bozos on the Security Council.

Am I wrong?

Related question: Will we bail out the French this time?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I heard that from Penske.

Penske, Goebbels, Goering -- three of one, quarter-dozen of the other.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Penske, Goebbels, Goering -- three of one, quarter-dozen of the other.

can you rank those three in order from thinnest to fattest? I don't mean the head, body size.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
can you rank those three in order from thinnest to fattest? I don't mean the head, body size.

No. I look only at the inner person.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• If in fact Iran is the Maximum Enemy, wasn't the invasion of Iraq obviously (at least in retrospect) a huge mistake? After all, it (predictably):
  
  1. Strengthened the lunatic anti-American party in Iran and weakened what had been very substantial pro-U.S. sentiment there;
  
  2. Eliminated Iran's most potent regional adversary;
  
  3. Gave Iran substantial power in Iraq through its influence over the Shi'a there;
  
  4. Made U.S. forces in Iraq virtual hostages to the threat that Iranian-influenced Shi'a leaders could call for jihad against the foreign occupiers.
  
  I supported the invasion of Iraq, (though with bunches of reservations and caveats) given the apparent threat that Iraq would soon acquire nuclear weapons. But of course we now know that there was no such threat in reality. The notion that seriously aggravating the threat from Iran, including the very real possibility that Iran will join the nuclear club, could be justified by finding a bunch of rusty nerve-gas artillery shells left over from the Iran-Iraq war doesn't pass the giggle test.

Mark Kleiman (several links omitted)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• If in fact Iran is the Maximum Enemy, wasn't the invasion of Iraq obviously (at least in retrospect) a huge mistake? After all, it (predictably):
  
  1. Strengthened the lunatic anti-American party in Iran and weakened what had been very substantial pro-U.S. sentiment there;
  
  2. Eliminated Iran's most potent regional adversary;
  
  3. Gave Iran substantial power in Iraq through its influence over the Shi'a there;
  
  4. Made U.S. forces in Iraq virtual hostages to the threat that Iranian-influenced Shi'a leaders could call for jihad against the foreign occupiers.
  
  I supported the invasion of Iraq, (though with bunches of reservations and caveats) given the apparent threat that Iraq would soon acquire nuclear weapons. But of course we now know that there was no such threat in reality. The notion that seriously aggravating the threat from Iran, including the very real possibility that Iran will join the nuclear club, could be justified by finding a bunch of rusty nerve-gas artillery shells left over from the Iran-Iraq war doesn't pass the giggle test.

Mark Kleiman (several links omitted)

We followed a bit of a "jump off one bridge at a time" plan with Iraq. Could've gone many ways... Wound up going the way Churchill predicted it would 50 years ago. It's kind of frightening when the ultimate Hawk warned that the peoples of Iraq could never be melded together.

But then, WTF did the British make those stupid fucking borders?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop

• If in fact Iran is the Maximum Enemy, wasn't the invasion of Iraq obviously (at least in retrospect) a huge mistake? After all, it (predictably):
  
  1. Strengthened the lunatic anti-American party in Iran and weakened what had been very substantial pro-U.S. sentiment there;
  
  2. Eliminated Iran's most potent regional adversary;
  
  3. Gave Iran substantial power in Iraq through its influence over the Shi'a there;
  
  4. Made U.S. forces in Iraq virtual hostages to the threat that Iranian-influenced Shi'a leaders could call for jihad against the foreign occupiers.
  
  I supported the invasion of Iraq, (though with bunches of reservations and caveats) given the apparent threat that Iraq would soon acquire nuclear weapons. But of course we now know that there was no such threat in reality. The notion that seriously aggravating the threat from Iran, including the very real possibility that Iran will join the nuclear club, could be justified by finding a bunch of rusty nerve-gas artillery shells left over from the Iran-Iraq war doesn't pass the giggle test.

Mark Kleiman (several links omitted)

the important words there are (i) "at least in retrospect" and (ii) "given the apparent threat"

Too many folks are trying to rewrite history here and forget that everyone wanted to get Hussein out.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Serious question, why is that the liberals on this board consistently seek to invoke the politics of personal destruction on our fellow communitarians whilst the Rs and other assorted conservatives, libertarians and independents are discussing ideas and debating policy considerations?

On a grander scale, I often wonder this same thing irl. I know a lot of pacifists and other humanistic activists in my liberal nape of the neck of the woods, and yet despite their anti-bias, multicultural, peace, love and respect for all admonitions, they have no problem with putting a "Fuck Bush" bumper sticker on their respective Range Rovers. And these are people with young children (5-10) whom I'm sure must sound out the first word, which is a word I would not want my 7 year old using or reading on the back of my car. While I was no fan of Clinton, I never had any profane Clinton stickers on my car, nor did I know anyone who did, nor did I take his name in vane. I critiqued his policies, but I have always said Clinton would be a fine chap to have a beer and share a hooker or two with.

Why is there so much hate on the left? Are y'all scared of progressive ideas?

Self-assurance is a helluva drug.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Penske, Goebbels, Goering -- three of one, quarter-dozen of the other.

Given my long time status within the Jewish community, that is really offensive.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
No. I look only at the inner person.

Denial is a helluva drug.