In 2007:

Discussion in 'The Future' started by Flight From Ashiya, Oct 12, 2006.

  1. MaximusXXX

    MaximusXXX Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,929
    Likes Received:
    5
    I'll say the first option even though I believe Iran will be invaded sometime in 2008 and North Korea will not be touched.


    I was going to pick the Mel Gibson one but I don't think there's many Tranny Cops.
     
  2. themnax

    themnax Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,693
    Likes Received:
    4,507
    america will eventualy remember how to do something besides destroy everything, that or dry up and blow away, just like ever other bullying tyranny eventualy does.

    i don't have any great enthusiasm for lots of people dying, not that it isn't probable, i just don't see any sense of bennifit or gratification in it, but a lot fewer of them being born would certainly be a very good thing.

    =^^=
    .../\...
     
  3. mynameisjake07

    mynameisjake07 Banned

    Messages:
    3,927
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well I dont think it'll be George Bush invading Iran and Korea because ol' Georgey is gonna be outta office soon.

    I went with Michael Jackson
     
  4. bandbeyondescription

    bandbeyondescription Nothertimesforgottenspace

    Messages:
    1,376
    Likes Received:
    2
    bush would probally plan to attack iran. that fucker. good thing hes is gone in 08.
     
  5. themnax

    themnax Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,693
    Likes Received:
    4,507
    well the year's only half over with and he DOES have the media and the lobbists pimping overtime for doing so.

    iran has problems, but trying to fix them, or north korea's, or any place else's, other then maybe darfor, with a military invasion, is like trying to preform brain surgury with a sledge hammer and a cold chissle.

    just that shrubery the simple doesn't seem to care. the army's his toy and his sugar daddies in the rand corporation, heritage foundation, et al, seem to want him to make them world dictators.

    couple of years they WILL have to give us someone else, that or pull a hitler. but you can bet the'll only let us have someone they think they can still control once they get in.

    they'll probably want us to choose between hillary and gouli-onions. i, of course, would rather see obama and edwards faced off with, i don't know, do the repubirubes have anyone sane anymore?

    hey at least the brits managed to dump blair.
    and the u.s. congress is no longer entirely a rubber stamp for right wing loonacy.

    i just wish they'd have made bush come to them on the budget and withdrawal thing. so what if they couldn't have gotten a 2/3. making him come to them would still have been a major moral victory.

    i wounder what really would have happened if they had stuck to it. besides it was nonbinding anyway, so he would have just ignored it anyway. like he does with the constitution anyway.

    but i think the precident would have been much more useful then the one of knuckling under that was unfortunately actually set.

    =^^=
    .../\...
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice