Quote: chipolata @ March 22 2011, 11:19 AM GMTAnd it still amazes me that neither of us got through to the Sitcom Mission finals.
Well, not me so much. I didn't enter. I'm way to cool. And lazy.
2012 an' all that Page 2
Quote: john lucas 101 @ March 22 2011, 11:31 AM GMTWell, not me so much. I didn't enter. I'm way to cool. And lazy.
You need a Personal Writing Coach, Lucas.
To give your half-arsed writing focus.
Quote: chipolata @ March 22 2011, 11:32 AM GMTYou need a Personal Writing Coach, Lucas.
To give your half-arsed writing focus.
I've got a co-writer, just as lazy. Although we have just finished draft 2 of a script. So not that lazy I guess. Just not as productive as what I was in me yoot, like.
But, yeah, I guess we all need a PWC.
Quote: chipolata @ March 22 2011, 11:26 AM GMTI mean it would be kind of fun having that fruitloop in the White House. Obama's all right but he's far too sensible to be entertaining.
Politicians aren't meant to be entertaining. They are meant to be running the country.
The only people would want her in power are Republicans who support her policies and satirists who would find their jobs a lot easier.
Quote: Ian Wolf @ March 22 2011, 11:41 AM GMTPoliticians aren't meant to be entertaining. They are meant to be running the country.
The only people would want her in power are Republicans
But you could say the only people who'd want Obama in power are Democrats. That's the nature of partisan politics.
Makes sense actually, Palin being the cause of armageddon.
She gets voted in during November, by Christmas everybody has nuked themselves to avoid the horror.
Quote: chipolata @ March 22 2011, 11:43 AM GMTBut you could say the only people who'd want Obama in power are Democrats. That's the nature of partisan politics.
And the satirists?
Quote: Ian Wolf @ March 22 2011, 11:59 AM GMTAnd the satirists?
Satirists will just have to work harder to justify their massive liberal-elite salaries.
Quote: Kenneth @ March 22 2011, 8:47 AM GMTI'll have to be the one to ask: How has Obama "screwed up" Libya? Are you referring to his failure to get Congressional approval to join enforcement of UN-mandated no-fly zone to save Libyan people from slaughter?
A few points to ponder:
1) The president swears that U.S. participation will be limited but we're doing most of the heavy lifting and the other nations won't be able to do it alone. They simply don't have the men, machines nor money.
2) The "civilians" being killed were armed combatants engaged in a civil war. Why no rush to intervene in any of the other uprisings in the region? Or the rest of the world, for that matter?
3) The rebels are a motley band of disorganized individuals. We don't know anything about them or what Libya would look like without Gadaffi. Perhaps an ungoverned mess like Somalia or an Islamist haven? Nobody knows.
4) The UN resolution doesn't allow for removal of Gadaffi so he's likely to remain in power. We're only allowed to "protect civilians" so rebel forces won't be able to use coalition assets to take Tripoli. They'll be slaughtered by loyal forces if we don't intervene.
5) In 1986 we bombed Libya for a few hours and Gadaffi responded with the Lockerbie bombing. He's liable to do something similar in the future.
Quote: DaButt @ March 22 2011, 1:42 PM GMTWhy no rush to intervene in any of the other uprisings in the region? Or the rest of the world, for that matter?
Just makes him no different to any other President, doesn't it? They generally have their own dodgy reasons for picking and choosing.
Quote: DaButt @ March 22 2011, 1:42 PM GMTWhy no rush to intervene in any of the other uprisings in the region?
Yes, we can't have the US becoming embroiled in police actions intended to topple hostile dictators in oil rich Arab countries - get the Republicans back in!
Quote: DaButt @ March 22 2011, 1:42 PM GMTA few points to ponder:
1) The president swears that U.S. participation will be limited but we're doing most of the heavy lifting and the other nations won't be able to do it alone. They simply don't have the men, machines nor money.
2) The "civilians" being killed were armed combatants engaged in a civil war. Why no rush to intervene in any of the other uprisings in the region? Or the rest of the world, for that matter?
3) The rebels are a motley band of disorganized individuals. We don't know anything about them or what Libya would look like without Gadaffi. Perhaps an ungoverned mess like Somalia or an Islamist haven? Nobody knows.
4) The UN resolution doesn't allow for removal of Gadaffi so he's likely to remain in power. We're only allowed to "protect civilians" so rebel forces won't be able to use coalition assets to take Tripoli. They'll be slaughtered by loyal forces if we don't intervene.
5) In 1986 we bombed Libya for a few hours and Gadaffi responded with the Lockerbie bombing. He's liable to do something similar in the future.
We should rename you DaFoxNews.
Quote: chipolata @ March 22 2011, 6:31 PM GMTWe should rename you DaFoxNews.
I've never watched Fox News. EVER.
Them's cold, hard facts -- many of which are now being pointed at by members of Obama's own party. This escapade is unlikely to end well and may cause permanent damage to NATO.
Quote: DaButt @ March 22 2011, 7:50 PM GMTThis escapade is unlikely to end well and may cause permanent damage to NATO.
Most military campaigns these days tend to not end brilliantly, it seems.
This is because our enemies have guns these days.