Woodward on Obama

[Bob Riebe]

It is interesting to read the liberal press posts on Woodwards's new book about Obama and Afghanistan, as they rattle on about most anything but the most important part does Obama want to win the war.

Fortunately I saw Woodward, himself, speak about this on one of the talking head show and he comes right out wondering if Obama is really fit to handle this task as he does not want to win the war,and put no value on winning it, but mostly simply wants out.

As Obama campaigned on how Iraq was a waste of time but Afghanistan is where the good war should be fought, if anyone is paying attention, this should be a major nail in the coffin of his administration.

Woodward also said that Obama has no interest in Mrs. Clinton's opinions which makes her look like either a fool for taking her job or a makes it a grand slam for the next election as far as her ousting Obama as the candidate.

[Rollo]

How will you know if you've won? How do you win a war with no objectives?

[Tazio]

How will you know if you've won? How do you win a war with no objectives?

+1

[Bob Riebe]

How will you know if you've won? How do you win a war with no objectives?
Only a fool does not know if he won a war, that is a bogus question often asked by those who do not want to make a commitment to finish the task.

It is one or the other you win or you cut and run, there is no other.

Obama is the one who campaigned on how foolish Iraq was the all effort should be made on winning in Afghanistan, which he said Bush abandoned, so it is his iwn rhetoric he is running away from, or simply is not fit to deal with.

If you know anything about Bob Woodward he does not say these things out of a politcal bias, one way or the other.
He said in the interview his actions are contrary to his campaign bravado.

[gloomyDAY]

Only a fool does not know if he won a war, that is a bogus question often asked by those who do not want to make a commitment to finish the task.You didn't answer his question.

All you did was scoff at him with arrogance and call him a fool.

[Hondo]

Mrs. Clinton's position is anything but foolish. She stays in the media forefront and public spotlight and will enjoy the credit for successes while any failures will be assigned to following the policies laid down by her boss. She's in the rocking chair.

What are you going to win in Afghanistan? If you set up a democracy and the Afghans vote to go back to the old ways, what have you really done? Eventually, Iraq will have somebody like Saddam back in power because that's what works for them. You go to war with nations to defend your own nation from danger and aggression or to TAKE AND KEEP real estate from another nation. If you fight and win a defensive war, you are under no obligation to return any real estate gained from the enemy during the conflict. If you are forced into a defensive war and push the aggressor back, the war stops when the aggressor surrenders or otherwise seeks to end hostilities, not at your former borders. We have no business in Afghanistan. We are not going to claim and keep Afghanistan. Afghanistan has not attacked us. An organization operating in Afghanistan, as well as other countries, has attacked us. You cannot go to war with an organization. You deal with those by "covert" methods, not masses of conventional military force.

There is nothing for the US to gain in Iraq or Afghanistan and we should exit both, now.

[Bob Riebe]

You didn't answer his question.

All you did was scoff at him with arrogance and call him a fool.
I did not call him a fool, I said only a fool would not know whether or not he won his war.

It is a childish question on a good day, the equivalent of a some continually answering a questions answers with "Yea but what if...", only a fool would waste time engaging in a fools debate.

As the post was written because of Obama and what Woodword said about him after writing the book on him, what he said about this war, and how he is handling his war, I have no intention in engaging childish debates based on- yea but....

[F1boat]

How will you know if you've won? How do you win a war with no objectives?

Well said.

[Dave B]

How will you know if you've won? How do you win a war with no objectives?
Don't you just erect a huge banner on a battleship?

[ShiftingGears]

Don't you just erect a huge banner on a battleship?

LOL

[ArrowsFA1]

Don't you just erect a huge banner on a battleship?
Simples :laugh:

[Rudy Tamasz]

How will you know if you've won? How do you win a war with no objectives?

A classic definition has it that you've won the war if your enemy is no longer in a position to defend himself against you. To rid you enemy of the ability to defend is the objective of any war. If Americans ever achieve it in Afghan they will know it.

Winning any war is only a means to achieve some political ends and that's where the U.S. has a problem. I bet they have a vague idea of why they need to win in Afghan. Do they want to shag and kill Afghanis (in either sequence)? Do they want to beat them just to hug and kiss them, tell them that Islam is a religion of peace and Afghanistan is a multicultural society that needs to be supported with a few bilion of development $$$?

I haven't heard a convincing answer so far...

[glauistean]

It is interesting to read the liberal press posts on Woodwards's new book about Obama and Afghanistan, as they rattle on about most anything but the most important part does Obama want to win the war.

Fortunately I saw Woodward, himself, speak about this on one of the talking head show and he comes right out wondering if Obama is really fit to handle this task as he does not want to win the war,and put no value on winning it, but mostly simply wants out.

As Obama campaigned on how Iraq was a waste of time but Afghanistan is where the good war should be fought, if anyone is paying attention, this should be a major nail in the coffin of his administration.

Woodward also said that Obama has no interest in Mrs. Clinton's opinions which makes her look like either a fool for taking her job or a makes it a grand slam for the next election as far as her ousting Obama as the candidate.

"Liberal press". Here we go again. The press has been so tilted towards the party of NO for the past number of years it is getting increasingly difficult to ascertain other than partisanship, why the "liberal press" is brought up by Republicans and Conservatives who do not but smear, lambaste and cause dissent. If a liberal Democrat did half of what has gone on over the past ten years they would be in jail.

As for "wanting to win the war". That is such a damn stupid statement. Of course every president wants to win a battle that he is involved in but it takes a brave man to realize that the cost far out weighs the objective.

The British Army in 30 years were unable to defeat the IRA in an area of country about as big as 25% of Cook county Illinois. They left. Blair was smart enough to realize that these groups, IRA (Nationalists) and UDA (loyalists) would only continue to conduct this scenario for years ad finitum.

The same is true for this area. A massive country with so many tribal issues it is impossible to win. These people, whether they be warlords or civilians and enemies of one another will and have united to expel the forces that occupies their country. Then when the troops leave they will be at it again. Tit-for-tat. There is no ending or winning.

Why didn't Bush get Bin Laden when he was in Tora Bora? Makes you wonder. Eh?

[Bob Riebe]

Why didn't Bush get Bin Laden when he was in Tora Bora? Makes you wonder. Eh?
Does not matter, he is no longer president.

Your point is pointless, but you would be a good pr man for the DNC.

[glauistean]

Does not matter, he is no longer president.

Your point is pointless, but you would be a good pr man for the DNC.

Doesn't matter??? Boy, you're a very sympathetic person. All the lives lost and still being lost due to Bin Ladens evasiveness.

Tell you what. Why not go to Pat Tillman's mothers house and tell her that his death was pointless because it occurred during the George Bush presidency.

"My point is pointless" So Bin Laden running around trying to evade the troops is a useless exercises. Man, he should just walk out and say "Hey, everything is okay.Bob Riebe from an INTERNET forum says that my escape from Tora Bora is of no significance because President Obama is now in charge".

Let's see. Was the bombing of Hiroshima that ended the Pacific war and thus WWII because it occurred under the presidency of Trumann and therefore had no effect at all for Eisenhower?

You Mr Riebe have no idea what it is you are talking about. History has a profound effect upon the course of civilization. Decision making and for what reason have a ripple effect. You ought to know that but alas you don't.
When you have finished visiting the Tillman home you should go to the homes of Army PFC Scott Fleming, Eric Yates (same rank) and SSG Jaime Newman. They were all killed last week in Afghanistan along with 20 others. Since Obama is president you can tell them that they died in vain because you only care about who is in power and not what happens to the troops.

You people make me sick.

[Jag_Warrior]

An old pal of mine used to say, "Some people are like geese. When they land at night and they wake up the next day, it's a brand new world to them. What happened yesterday has no meaning to them, and they're incapable of learning from past mistakes. Every day is a brand new day in a brand new world..."

[Bob Riebe]

Doesn't matter??? Boy, you're a very sympathetic person. All the lives lost and still being lost due to Bin Ladens evasiveness.

Tell you what. Why not go to Pat Tillman's mothers house and tell her that his death was pointless because it occurred during the George Bush presidency.

"My point is pointless" So Bin Laden running around trying to evade the troops is a useless exercises. Man, he should just walk out and say "Hey, everything is okay.Bob Riebe from an INTERNET forum says that my escape from Tora Bora is of no significance because President Obama is now in charge".

Let's see. Was the bombing of Hiroshima that ended the Pacific war and thus WWII because it occurred under the presidency of Trumann and therefore had no effect at all for Eisenhower?

You Mr Riebe have no idea what it is you are talking about. History has a profound effect upon the course of civilization. Decision making and for what reason have a ripple effect. You ought to know that but alas you don't.
When you have finished visiting the Tillman home you should go to the homes of Army PFC Scott Fleming, Eric Yates (same rank) and SSG Jaime Newman. They were all killed last week in Afghanistan along with 20 others. Since Obama is president you can tell them that they died in vain because you only care about who is in power and not what happens to the troops.

You people make me sick.
Did you play Bungholio in the Beavis and Butthead movie?

You may flatulate with your keyboard if you wish and live in the past , but look at the title of the thread and try to stick with the topic.

IF you want to start a Never-Land, Flat Earth Society thread go ahead, you and Jag can post there till hell freezes over.

[anthonyvop]

How will you know if you've won? How do you win a war with no objectives?

Plenty of objectives.

Objective #1: Kill Islamic Terrorists

Objective #2: Kill Islamic Terrorists

Objective #3: Kill Islamic Terrorists

[glauistean]

Did you play Bungholio in the Beavis and Butthead movie?

You may flatulate with your keyboard if you wish and live in the past , but look at the title of the thread and try to stick with the topic.

IF you want to start a Never-Land, Flat Earth Society thread go ahead, you and Jag can post there till hell freezes over.

Problem with you Riebe is that you can dish it out but you can't take it.

I am on topic. You brought up the issue of the conflicts we are engaged in.

You have no response to the reply I gave except to make schoolyard juvenile comments.

Why are you in here anyway? You are useless. Without Google you would not know where Tora Bora is nor for that matter as was stated in a renowned newspaper, citing a poll that suggested that people like you learn geography when America is at war.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ah yes...slagging Riebe because he is asking the question that Bob Woodward asked: THAT is, If Obama thought Iraq was stupid but Afghanistan was the war the USA needed to be engaged in, then what defines victory and how is leaving at a predetermined date well known in advance leaving any one with the illusion that the USA has won?


It isn't a silly question at all, and I am not sure there is a good answer for it. Bob Woodward is one of the smartest and most insightful writers in America and he is posing this question because Obama hung his foreign policy hat on it.....and no one wants to answer the question, especially anyone who really thought Obama cared about what happens to the "peace"......

It is clear to me that there was no end game here, just like Iraq's end game was sort of defined by nation building once Bush realized he broke it and he therefore bought it.....

Afghanistan is a murkier mess...and I think the USA defines how the West has no clue on what is next when fighting Islamic radicals who are not bound to one regime.....

A lot of NATO blood has gone into this nation, and a lot of Afghans were looking for continued support to allow the infrastructure of Afghanistan to reach a point where they could support a stable nation. THAT to me was the only viable goal left, and the cost of that obviously has been determined as too high by the Obama administration.

Say what one will of Iraq, it runs as its own nation now....and it is more of a democracy than all those nations around it.....so lets just be realistic and say Afghanistan isn't there yet.....and wont be apparently...

[Hondo]

The Afghanistan war will be settled and over once Obama is convinced he will not need "boots on the ground" for any reason, in Iran.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The Afghanistan war will be settled and over once Obama is convinced he will not need "boots on the ground" for any reason, in Iran.

You keep beating this idea that Obama is going to go after Iran..and I am telling you the man doesn't have the stones for it.....and on this one, I hope I am right because if radical Islam doesn't hate the USA enough now, just start putting troops into a nasty cat fight in Iran...

[Hondo]

I don't think Obama or Israel or the UN will go into Iran. At least I hope they don't. On the other hand, I laughed at people that said we would invade Iraq because I couldn't and still don't see any point to it, based on traditional American intentions.

The point is, if you look at a map of Iran, bent upon possibly invading the country, launching from Afghanistan gives a mechanized force the clearest run through relatively thin population areas without having to jack with mountains. Even Iran has begun to appreciate that scenario and has started increasing it's defences along that line of attack. Until the "invade Iran" option is completely off every body's table, there will be forces in Afghanistan.

It's a strategic option you keep open until a final decision is made.

[Rollo]

Going to war is an excellent economic stimulus pack because it uprates Aggregate Demand and therefore causes production to rise. Not only has going to war been the pratice of the USA since the end of WW2 it's also one of the cornerstones of the US economy.

The US will more than likely be at war with Iran if not during the 2012-16 presidency, then there is a very good chance that there will be war during the 2016-20 presidency (and more so if a Republican happens to be President).

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't think Obama or Israel or the UN will go into Iran. At least I hope they don't. On the other hand, I laughed at people that said we would invade Iraq because I couldn't and still don't see any point to it, based on traditional American intentions.

The point is, if you look at a map of Iran, bent upon possibly invading the country, launching from Afghanistan gives a mechanized force the clearest run through relatively thin population areas without having to jack with mountains. Even Iran has begun to appreciate that scenario and has started increasing it's defences along that line of attack. Until the "invade Iran" option is completely off every body's table, there will be forces in Afghanistan.

It's a strategic option you keep open until a final decision is made.

Your Logistics train is too long and too vulnerable under the scenario you are putting on the table....It would be a militarily stupid idea....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Going to war is an excellent economic stimulus pack because it uprates Aggregate Demand and therefore causes production to rise. Not only has going to war been the pratice of the USA since the end of WW2 it's also one of the cornerstones of the US economy.

The US will more than likely be at war with Iran if not during the 2012-16 presidency, then there is a very good chance that there will be war during the 2016-20 presidency (and more so if a Republican happens to be President).

Rollo, I think after these last two conflicts, no Republican will advocate an Iranian invasion and MEAN it. That said, lots of posturing is part of the game now....

[Hondo]

Your Logistics train is too long and too vulnerable under the scenario you are putting on the table....It would be a militarily stupid idea....

No it's not. And it's safer than the mountain routes. The only action that hasn't been militarily stupid since Vietnam was Desert Storm. A strong coalition with a specific objective that boldly achieved that objective and ended as planned beforehand.

[janvanvurpa]

Don't you just erect a huge banner on a battleship?

You forgot, you have to curl your lip and sneer "Mission accomplished" and encourage your minions and stooges to ridicule anybody who dares ask what the fawk is the point.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

No it's not. And it's safer than the mountain routes. The only action that hasn't been militarily stupid since Vietnam was Desert Storm. A strong coalition with a specific objective that boldly achieved that objective and ended as planned beforehand.

I am thinking the risk is pretty great...and our man Barack doesn't carry that sort of stones around....

I think many are hoping, and I do too, that the Iranian people rise up and deal with this loon. They don't want war, and I don't think the majority really want to be the world's pariah, but in a limited nation where the right to speak, the right to disagree and the right to dissent is so stifled, that the only real option will be almost an open rebellion. We saw signs during the last election, but no one really gave those people the hope the west really cared about their plight....

[glauistean]

I am thinking the risk is pretty great...and our man Barack doesn't carry that sort of stones around....

I think many are hoping, and I do too, that the Iranian people rise up and deal with this loon. They don't want war, and I don't think the majority really want to be the world's pariah, but in a limited nation where the right to speak, the right to disagree and the right to dissent is so stifled, that the only real option will be almost an open rebellion. We saw signs during the last election, but no one really gave those people the hope the west really cared about their plight....
That is the second time you have inferred that President Obama does not have the "stones" to attack Iran. Pretty lame on your point while trying to make your argument sound logical. "Wow, look at how little the stones that Obama has are" then I would counter. Wow, pity President Obama was not president in 2001 through 2008. We would have at least 1 million more innocents alive. Hussein would probably still be in power but on a tighter leash. The country would not look like a scene from one of those disaster movies.

You admonish the president while flying your Canadian flag. How ironic. Tell me this. Did you have the reservations aginst invading Iraq based on lies and call Bush a war monger? Rumsfeld telling the troops to suck it up when they had no armor on their vehicles and the utter and absolute lie perpetuated by the minions in the WH that allowed Powell to go before the UN to lie to the world.

Why should the US invade Iran Mr Canada? Is it because they MIGHT be getting ready to create a nuclear weapon, and that would be illegal? Oh, Israel has nuclear weaponry. Why is there no alarm at the prospect of Israel launching a strike against Iran , provoking a response by the Russians and Israels non-nuclear neighbors? There is as much to fear from the ultra right wing Nethanyahu as there is from the little tyrant Ahmadinajad in Iran. But, you won't point that out.

Have you ever heard the adage "it takes more courage to sheath your sword than it is to advance on your enemy for little or no gain"?

[Rollo]

Rollo, I think after these last two conflicts, no Republican will advocate an Iranian invasion and MEAN it. That said, lots of posturing is part of the game now....

2016 is six years away.

To put that in perspective, think about your comment in relation to Iraq circa 1997. Would anyone then have advocated an Iraqi invasion and meant it, considering that there'd been a war in 1991? Would anyone have contemplated a war in 1933?

As seen on other threads, provided the Islamic boogeyman can be whipped up just like the Communist boogeyman was, there will be people who will swallow the story hook, line and sinker.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

[tstran17_88]

2016 is six years away.You're aiming too high. 2012 is two years away.

[BDunnell]

Well, one thing hasn't changed, namely the desire of the US authorities to induce a state of fear in the more simple-minded American citizen. These pointless terror alert statuses, about which no-one needs to know other than the terminally paranoid, are now telling American citizens to 'be vigilant' while visiting Europe owing to the risk (supposedly also foiled by Coalition actions) of a terror attack. It is funny how everyone here goes about their business without a care in spite of this alleged threat. Maybe it's a sign of greater emotional and intellectual maturity. I'm sure the moronic American right would cite it as an example of how we are all walking headlong into Muslim dominance of Europe, but I prefer my version, largely on the grounds that it's accurate and I'm not, as far as I'm aware, utterly simple-minded.

[Roamy]

My new War deal - "If you ain't gonna make it glow - don't go"

[Bob Riebe]

Well, one thing hasn't changed, namely the desire of the US authorities to induce a state of fear in the more simple-minded American citizen. These pointless terror alert statuses, about which no-one needs to know other than the terminally paranoid, are now telling American citizens to 'be vigilant' while visiting Europe owing to the risk (supposedly also foiled by Coalition actions) of a terror attack. It is funny how everyone here goes about their business without a care in spite of this alleged threat. Maybe it's a sign of greater emotional and intellectual maturity. I'm sure the moronic American right would cite it as an example of how we are all walking headlong into Muslim dominance of Europe, but I prefer my version, largely on the grounds that it's accurate and I'm not, as far as I'm aware, utterly simple-minded.he solution.
No it is Big Brother Washington trying to make people believe they are the solution, not the problem.

[Bob Riebe]

The US will more than likely be at war with Iran if not during the 2012-16 presidency, then there is a very good chance that there will be war during the 2016-20 presidency (and more so if a Republican happens to be President).
So you are proclaiming that the Iranian military is as much a cluster-fuc- as Iraq; therefore you are putting the muslims running Iran in the same nut-job self-serving category as Saddam?

Based on what?

[Mark in Oshawa]

2016 is six years away.

To put that in perspective, think about your comment in relation to Iraq circa 1997. Would anyone then have advocated an Iraqi invasion and meant it, considering that there'd been a war in 1991? Would anyone have contemplated a war in 1933?

As seen on other threads, provided the Islamic boogeyman can be whipped up just like the Communist boogeyman was, there will be people who will swallow the story hook, line and sinker.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

Rollo, to respectfully disagree, the only reason Clinton DIDN'T go to war in 97 was he knew he would lose his base if he did it electorally. Plus, as a student in the 60's, he knew that this would likely not be a good thing for him with his intellectual buddies who all were anti war types for Nam.

The Islamic bogeyman has been more resilent and resitive to being contained yes, but I do think in the case of Iran, many, including many of the hawks understand that Iran is a far more complex situation than Iraq ever was. What is more, Iran has a cadre of leadership as fanatical but far more clever than that clown Hussein.

Iran is a larger nation, more complex in its geography, and has a large middle class that is likely more pro American than any other Muslim nation. I think the best course of action would be for the US to help the dissent groups in country. What is more, I think after Iraq, no American president can justify an attack of this nature. Iraq has become a nation again in spite of the American occupation in some ways. I think Iraq proved that Washington trying to do the right thing will still often screw up and I think even the more hawk like Republicans recognize that there is no point going into Iran without a better plan than the half baked peace Bush tried to pass off as progress....

I don't see that plan, and I don't see people falling for it this time Rollo. Americans are smarter than that...

[BDunnell]

No it is Big Brother Washington trying to make people believe they are the solution, not the problem.

How does this differ from the previous administration's issuing of alerts? They are always unnecessary, no matter which party is in power.

[BDunnell]

Americans are smarter than that...

This is a country in which a fair number of people will vote for Sarah Palin when she runs for President. Therefore, I beg to differ.

[Bob Riebe]

How does this differ from the previous administration's issuing of alerts? They are always unnecessary, no matter which party is in power.
It does not, Pres. Bush and his Patriot Act, started this asinine bs.

[BDunnell]

It does not, Pres. Bush and his Patriot Act, started this asinine bs.

My genuine apologies — I thought you would think otherwise. I couldn't agree more.

[Garry Walker]

This is a country in which a fair number of people will vote for Sarah Palin when she runs for President. Therefore, I beg to differ.
Americans proved their stupidity when they elected BO as their president. They are hard to take seriously after that.

[ICWS]

Both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are messes because of the lack of understanding who the enemy is. Yes, I know the main target is Al-Queda but in order to get them the U.S. military would have to invade other countries in the Middle East. If that was the case, the U.S. could consider fighting in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen and blow up those countries as well. As President Bush's foreign policy put it, America does not distinguish between terrorist organizations from the countries they may be located in. These perpetual wars have no clear objective and it seems that President Obama is trying to ride out these two conflicts until his planned evacuation of the countries. And even then if the U.S. put some kind of true democratic governments in place there will be a very tiny obstacle for history to repeat itself and both countries may return to their pre-War on Terror stages.

[ICWS]

Americans proved their stupidity when they elected BO as their president. They are hard to take seriously after that.

Obama isn't running this country. There are greater forces in charge of decision making and he simply nods his head when they tell him what to do. Nancy Pelosi, Hilary Clinton, Rahm Emmanuel, Robert Gates, Eric Holder, Timothy Geithner, and Janet Napolitano among others have more power than Obama does. And they too are under control by others of higher power.

What America really needs is a president who will genuinely look to run the country without simply taking orders from others who stand over them. That president should surround himself with people who, like him/her, won't simply fall into the trap of serving the needs of the few. That president should also be willing to question the advice he receives from others and use his/her brain to come up with the best solution to any problem. Lastly, that president would also be unafraid to tell Americans how blind they have been to the havoc that these forces of higher power have placed upon them and the rest of the world. We need a leader who inspires others to become leaders and not followers. It doesn't matter if they're progressive, conservative, black, white, yellow, brown, red, male, female, young or old just as long as they can prove they competent and want to become president in order to lead the nation rather then only helping those they have close ties with. Sadly, a lot of American voters are easily distracted by the superficial elements of candidates that they forget what they actually are voting for. We also face a huge apathy problem which causes people to avoid turning onto politics. But, like my good friend Ralph Nader once said "If you don't turn onto politics, politics will turn on you".

[Dave B]

What America really needs is a president who will genuinely look to run the country without simply taking orders from others who stand over them.
Give it four years and they'll be run by Sarah Palin, then we're all screwed. :(

[ICWS]

Give it four years and they'll be run by Sarah Palin, then we're all screwed. :(

If Palin were to be elected then I think nature will snap in half out of frustration with our population and all these proposed natural disasters will happen: California will sink into the ocean because of a major earthquake creating a beautiful serenity called Arizona Bay, the Yellowstone volcano will erupt and cover the country west of the Mississippi River in ash, the gulf coast will be flooded from hurricanes and the midwest will be torn up from tornados, and the northeast will be subjected to an ice age... all because Palin was elected president.

[anthonyvop]

Americans proved their stupidity when they elected BO as their president. They are hard to take seriously after that.


Then they must be retards considering the last idiot they elected.

[Rollo]

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/people/donald-trump-admits-he-could-run-for-us-president-20101006-166m4.html?autostart=1
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/05/news/la-pn-trump-president
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/10/06/2010-10-06_trump_run_for_president.html

Three sources... Donald Trump to run on the Repulican ticket for 2012?

If that were to happen by the time of the London Olympics, Boris might have a rival for the Olympic Worst Haircut medal.

[edv]

If Palin were to be elected .... California will sink into the ocean because of a major earthquake creating a beautiful serenity called Arizona Bay

Actually, the major strike-slip fault in California - the San Andreas - moves horizontally. There will be no 'sinking'.
In fact, in approximately 30 million years, San Francisco and Vancouver shall be neighbours of each other.

[ICWS]

Actually, the major strike-slip fault in California - the San Andreas - moves horizontally. There will be no 'sinking'.
In fact, in approximately 30 million years, San Francisco and Vancouver shall be neighbours of each other.

Yeah, I know it is myth to think it could sink due to the misunderstanding of seismic forces and how tectonic plates work.

But I have a question for you: Have you ever heard of Bill Hicks?

[edv]

LoL Hicks, Kinneson and Carlin are surely yucking it up in the great beyond...maybe even with Kaufman.

[ICWS]

LoL Hicks, Kinneson and Carlin are surely yucking it up in the great beyond...maybe even with Kaufman.

Getting off topic but... Its great for me to find people (even on forums) who've actually heard of Bill Hicks and his work because, as an American, I personally don't know anyone who's heard of him, but they sure do know who Dane Cook, Adam Sandler, Steve Carrell, George Lopez, and Demetri Martin are.

I think you can take Hicks's jokes from 15-20 years ago and substitute some people he made fun of (George Michael, Rick Astley, Debbie Gibson, George H.W. Bush, etc.) with people that are relevant today (Justin Timberlake, Justin Bieber, Katy Perry, George W. Bush, etc.) and they would still make perfect sense with the world today.