Larry Pubes
-
Posts
644 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Larry Pubes
-
-
that wiki entry for penn is extremely light on the company he heads/represents. burson-marsteller have rocked some gnarly "public relations" campaigns for some even gnarlier clients.
-
..and now penn is out and clinton is using it as a springboard to attack obama's-own-handling-of-his-campaign-drama's. politically a good call maybe, but she really is a try-hard these days..
-
i didn't know that. i don't seek out brzezinski sound bites, hence 'some of what he's been rocking'...which would be how he warned that the international community would view the invasion of a country that was no threat to the US as an illegitimate act of aggression and noting that it would also threaten america’s leadership, saying that without a respected and legitimate law-enforcer, global security could be in jeopardy. his establishment peers/pals were singing quite a different story, but in any case, he's still a goofball, so there you have it.
-
you don't here any talk about obama/brzenzinski either.
true, but let's not get too into the knee jerk obama hate just yet..
first of all, clinton's team is demonstrably worse than obama's, even with brzezinski in the mix. who's whispering in clinton's ear? well she's got real swell dudes like holbrooke, a fine man who thought suharto's aggression in east timor was gnarley town, and a guy who gets a boner over the thought of fucking with iran. then she's got that old jingoist hag madelaine albright and sandy berger, both of who think we need, yup, more billions for the military. they also think globalization is super fun and, if my memory serves me, also think iran could be a good time. her team is straight up about hard power, and if some of the retarded ass positions many of her advisors were taking before iraq, during iraq, pre-surge and post-surge are any indication of what a 'new' administration of old hat, establishment, washington insiders is going to be like...uh oh! it's not like her whole team are retarded hawks, just the real close important ones.
obama on the other hand also happens to have some general, i forget his name, who was also super hyped on the fun the indonesians had with the east timorese. but aside from him, the majority of his team, as far as i'm aware, are fairly young(relatively speaking) and progressive, and nearly all of the positions (of importance) they have taken during this administration's staggering retardedness are still holding up nicely. i'm sure you could find and twist something out of some position in there, but generally speaking his team is more on the soft power tip, and from what i can tell from their respective pasts and positions on things, they would be a little more measured in world affairs and perhaps more willing to try new ideas, something i think is sorely lacking. as for brzezinski, i hate to admit it, but some of what he's been rocking about iraq has been more insightful than all of his peers combined. and really, he's so old it's not even funny how little he'll be influencing an obama administration.
-
i recently found out clinton's chief strategist mark penn is a burson marsteller man, the greatest propaganda corporation on earth. alot of potential for political uncomfortableness right there, although i highly doubt anyone, either obama or mccain/repubs, would make any noise about it.
-
hell no i don't want you to go on...
i don't think it's 'copping out' making your vote actually count though. it's like when nader runs, yea i agree with a fuckload of what he represents, and it would be great if a guy who brings that amount of weight to real issues had an actual chance...but he doesn't. i'm talking actual vote time here, not support time, which i think is alot different. so voting for the guy doesn't do a damn thing and all it does in the end is allow me to say i was apart of teh democratic process whilst washing my hands of any real shit that comes down the pike. no? but i guess if you're like you, mccain is just as bad as obama who is just as bad as hillary, who is just as bad as bush...
-
so you don't confuse: i'm still writing in ron paul.
what's the point dude?
-
grow up fag.
his wife is CFR and i hear that he is, as well. *edit: confirmed
CFR is notorious for being the servant of the elite.
ah, so he is apart of the NWO clique looking to take over earth. my my we get pissy easily. it's okay casek, we all know you're so dialed in maahhnn!
-
you guys know obama voted in favor of real ID, right?
ah, so he's a wolf in sheeps clothing? he's apart of the nefarious NWO clique?? it all makes sense now...
-
watching the pundits is amusing, although it's akin to somebody clawing their nails down a chalkboard sometimes. yesterday on cnn that rick sanchez hotshot had viewers go to the site to answer the following question: "should sen. obama talk about america's blemishes?". the fact people actually find this to be a legitimate question alone is scary, despite the responses invoking the whole 'unpatriotic' thing.
-
clinton is no as well. i liked bill but i dont like her. i also dont like her because of all the
dumb women that are voting for her simply to see a woman president.
you can totally apply that logic to mccain as well as obama. in any case, it's a pretty weak complaint.
-
here's a little something i've learning over the years at 12oz...bitching and moaning about obam-daddy (or anything else for that matter) on the internet is about as useful as a 3-legged cat covering up shit on a hardwood floor.
and while every hater is sitting back putting forth much effort to hold the candidates to some unheard of barometer of morality & splitting hairs for any potential candidates words/actions/campaign/pastor, george bush and dick cheney are still in office and still sitting atop a massive pile of shitscuzz that nobody seems to really have the energy to do anything about.
whatever pops yer zits though...
-
it's amusing to see a guy like spitzer, with his background, being crucified for what are pretty puny crimes in relation to what the executive branch has been getting away with for 8 years. how does that work? granted he fucked up unbelievably bad, and for something so mind numbingly stupid at that. the sad part is that i think spitzer is probably a genuinely decent guy at heart, but like all of us, he's human and made such a sickeningly stupid follie that he'll spend the rest of his days in crushing regret and humiliation while his family is left to wallow in the knowledge their own flesh and blood betrayed them in the worst possibly way.
-
i'm not holding my breath for any cheney indictments. cheney is on some upper echelon elite power shit. they may try to burn him, but he'll slick out of it. a guy with his background will never end up in the slammer.
-
It is probably a minority who thinks that, Israel clearly has military superiority in a conventional sense. It isn't a conventional war so it isnt that simple, the Israelis don't have a large monolithic entity they can attack at their leisure and then disappear back into the populace. I'm not blindly defending israel because they arent free from blame in all of this, but if the military roles were reversed and hamas was in control of the airpower and nuclear weapons, do you think there would be any israelis left alive?
Compared to the other side who's first automatic reaction is to downplay or deny all israeli casualties. You are right, douchebaggery abounds.
stereotype, i'm not looking to get into a tiff over this, but i would like to point out a couple of things and leave it at that. while you say it isn't that simple on the one hand, you can't very well turn around with a speculative 'what if' and generalize that it is as simple as hamas killing every israeli, roles reversed. perhaps it would be fair for me to then turn around and say that, roles reversed, israeli's would commit heinous suicide bombings as well?
also, the lack of symmetry to the situation is hardly what i would call 'probably a minority view' and following that statement by acknowledging the clear military advantage seems a little contradictory. you seem to be playing down the fact israel has the upper hand with superior tools for usage of force, which is in no way a minor facet of the conflict since the perpetuation of the grievances on both sides revolves around the usage/misusage of brutal force.
-
Maybe its just me but whenever someone posts up the tally of the dead like it is the score of a game, I immediately think "DOUCHEBAG". It trivializes the deaths on both sides, and shows how detached from reality you are. What is your point, that if one side has less dead people that number is less important or not significant? When you basically show you dont give a fuck about the dead civilians on one side, your moral outrage for the deaths on the other side seems very ridiculous. I guess admitting its a fucked up situation all around, for everyone, is just too far of a leap for some folks.
i don't wanna speak for dude, but i'd say it's not so much about 'trivializing' the deaths of these poor fuckers, it's to show there is absolutely no symmetry to the situation. the palestinians, whether they are justified or not, are outgunned in every facet of the conflict, something many pro-israeli people refuse to acknowledge because they are too busy strutting around like they are the only victims in this conflict. douchebaggery is heavily present on both sides of the argument, 'detached from reality' or not.
-
I want to make some that say OBEY instead of hope/change/magicalpixiedust.
naw dude, really? that would suck worse than getting your balls smashed with a 'spiked fuckin bat, bhwaaaaoow!'. spice it up. make it really edgy, you know, somethin' like givin' him pointy ears and having it say 'SPOCK NIGGA' or somethin'. it wouldn't make any sense, but that's kinda what you're getting at anyhow. and on a personal note, i think 'MAGICALPIXIEDUST' would rule.
-
well i'm not as sophisticated as casek or stereotype, i keep shit peanut butter & jelly. candidate 'a' is selling a pretty depressing line of shit, while candidate 'b' is selling an upbeat line of shit. awesome eh?! the sheer breadth of variety is making my hemorrhoids itch! so much to choose from!..and sooo much to argue about!
-
i have a feeling most of you hating on nader have been sucked into a vortex of spin and not facts. do some research from BOTH sides of the argument first, i think you'll find it's rather inconclusive and based more on butt hurt feelings. it's certainly not rock solid from the research i've seen.
personally i'm a fan of nader, despite his flaws(which are pretty cosmetic anyhow). he's got bigger balls than every candidate, except for maybe kucinich(who incidentally was banned from the first democratic debates by the wonderful corpo's at nbc), and what he brings to the table in terms of issues blows every candidate out of the water.
-
some cuban should assassinate the whole family
whew, that's some pent up animosity!
-
sure, anything but "dr. paul". in fact i'd prefer if you called him ronald, or ernest, or ronnie ernest or ron-ron-mc-ronnie-ron. do it. dooooo it.
-
casek, i love how you insist on referring to him as "dr. paul" all the time.
i also dig the 'fuhrer' comment...very nutshellish of you.
-
behold the wise sage named optick, whose all seeing wisdom has been channelled through the body and vernacular of a 14year old dropout.
-
1
-
-
Vote for Obama.
imagine obam-daddy blasting
, struttin' his victory dance come november..fuck yea.as i said earlier in this thread, i'm really not too versed on either hillary or obama, but from the small amount i've researched, the notion they are virtually identical doesn't seem very well weighed. those small differences could potentially translate into large differences on a global scale. another thing that doesn't seem to get too much play is if you look at their crews...the people that are whispering in their ears...take a look at their policy advisors and each ones respective background and general policy stance. seems to be quite a difference to me, but what do i know..
good news for mccain
in News
Posted
i don't mean to get nitpicky, but i don't think this opinion is rooted in any factual evidence. i guess 'mostly' is the operative word i have a problem with. it's entirely possible i suppose, but i tend to think that maybe many get into service because they come from a family that's in the service and it's sort of the chosen path, a way to carve out a longterm living that's fairly solid. the patriotism thing is secondary. that along with what seems to me to be a possibly high number of people that enter the military out of necessity rather than some notion of being a splendid american serving the greater good. i could be totally wrong and this opinion is also rooted in zero evidence.