Jump to content

NoCalMike

Members
  • Posts

    10094
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by NoCalMike

  1. NoCalMike

    Wii

    If you have friends over a lot who like to get drunk and play party games..... Super Monkeyball Banana Blitz is sweet. Super Smash Bros. Brawl Mario Kart when it comes out on the 27th
  2. Your point would be? I think the labeling of Obama as an intellectual lightweight who only succeeded due to race is particularly poignant coming from someone who has been such a vocal supporter W. Bush--an incredible mediocrity who clearly was successful only because of his father's name. ...and father's money, and connections to saudi money.
  3. The thing with Obama though is that most of the "Obama fever" is from new, young voters. It's not like the democratic establishment or long-time voters are overwhelmingly supporting Obama or anything. I mean for all this "Obama fever" bullshit, he is still polling even with McCain....McCain for christsakes, a guy who is running on Bush's platform of "staying the course" I fail to see how Obama is getting anymore support from the base then any other "flavor of the month" candidate. This isn't to say I think he is a horrible candidate or that he can't win, but I don't think this upcoming Presidential election will be decided by that much more then the previous two. If Obama wins the nomination is polling 10-15 points ahead of McCain in October/November, then come talk to me about "Obama Fever"
  4. There is usually a fair share of crazies at my party. Not "crazies" in the sense of trouble-makers, but as in drinking until they are passing out all over the place, including the front and backyard. I have a small 2 -bedroom house but a good size yard in the front and back(which reminds me I have to mow the fucking lawns friday), and then a huge field across the street, so needless to say it is a good location to get plastered and not have the wrong people notice.
  5. A Sunday? That's weird, but hey if it's true, cool.
  6. How 'bout the government stops borrowing from the social security fund to pay for other things?
  7. Here in America it comes out on 29th......I've got my copy reserved, I can't wait!!!
  8. No. No, I'm a rational American whose worst nightmare is a brainless twit with a chance to gain the most powerful office in the world. It's more then just a nightmare, it actually happened in 2000 and again in 2004.
  9. Dangerous_A & Ced usually come to my house......Dangerous_A's wife is expecting in a few weeks though so he might have to stay in the bay and sit this one out......I am still waiting on Ced to make a decision, but besides board members, about 15 people will be here.
  10. So anyone that is willing to bring beer or a bottle can come to my UFC Party....
  11. Well considering Bret Michaels is 44, it was probably a smarter choice to pick Amber if he is truly "looking for love" Of course, who knows how many of the girls he banged during the taping of the show, because if the Reunion show this sunday is anything like the first season's reunion show was, we are going to find out a lot of shit that they didn't show on TV....oh and the clip of Heather giving Daisy a beating is awesome. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa-rLbCjjVI
  12. You'd think once the police were called about a cougar, animal control would have been called/dispatched who would definately have the tools to tranqulize and take the animal back to the wild. I could understand if the Cougar was going on some killing spree or had already harmed/killed a person, but a cougar randomly wandering around is most likely way too scared of it's surroundings and the people to attack.
  13. So is no one for sure about the PPV or not PPV? I didn't account for the Liddell factor being a reason to keep it PPV, but still....I hate the thought of buying a tape delayed PPV....especially with me not being able to not get online and see who won ahead of time.....
  14. Rapid Withdrawal Is Only Solution By William E. Odom, lieutenant general, USA (retired) Information Clearinghouse Wednesday 02 April 2008 Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Iraq. Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is an honor to appear before you again. The last occasion was in January 2007, when the topic was the troop surge. Today you are asking if it has worked. Last year I rejected the claim that it was a new strategy. Rather, I said, it is a new tactic used to achieve the same old strategic aim, political stability. And I foresaw no serious prospects for success. I see no reason to change my judgment now. The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity as the president claims. Last year, General Petraeus wisely declined to promise a military solution to this political problem, saying that he could lower the level of violence, allowing a limited time for the Iraqi leaders to strike a political deal. Violence has been temporarily reduced but today there is credible evidence that the political situation is far more fragmented. And currently we see violence surge in Baghdad and Basra. In fact, it has also remained sporadic and significant inseveral other parts of Iraq over the past year, notwithstanding the notable drop in Baghdad and Anbar Province. More disturbing, Prime Minister Maliki has initiated military action and then dragged in US forces to help his own troops destroy his Shiite competitors. This is a political setback, not a political solution. Such is the result of the surge tactic. No less disturbing has been the steady violence in the Mosul area, and the tensions in Kirkuk between Kurds, Arabs, and Turkomen. A showdown over control of the oil fields there surely awaits us. And the idea that some kind of a federal solution can cut this Gordian knot strikes me as a wild fantasy, wholly out of touch with Kurdish realities. Also disturbing is Turkey's military incursion to destroy Kurdish PKK groups in the border region. That confronted the US government with a choice: either to support its NATO ally, or to make good on its commitment to Kurdish leaders to insure their security. It chose the former, and that makes it clear to the Kurds that the United States will sacrifice their security to its larger interests in Turkey. Turning to the apparent success in Anbar province and a few other Sunni areas, this is not the positive situation it is purported to be. Certainly violence has declined as local Sunni shieks have begun to cooperate with US forces. But the surge tactic cannot be given full credit. The decline started earlier on Sunni initiative. What are their motives? First, anger at al Qaeda operatives and second, their financial plight. Their break with al Qaeda should give us little comfort. The Sunnis welcomed anyone who would help them kill Americans, including al Qaeda. The concern we hear the president and his aides express about a residual base left for al Qaeda if we withdraw is utter nonsense. The Sunnis will soon destroy al Qaeda if we leave Iraq. The Kurds do not allow them in their region, and the Shiites, like the Iranians, detest al Qaeda. To understand why, one need only take note of the al Qaeda public diplomacy campaign over the past year or so on internet blogs. They implore the United States to bomb and invade Iran and destroy this apostate Shiite regime. As an aside, it gives me pause to learn that our vice president and some members of the Senate are aligned with al Qaeda on spreading the war to Iran. Let me emphasize that our new Sunni friends insist on being paid for their loyalty. I have heard, for example, a rough estimate that the cost in one area of about 100 square kilometers is $250,000 per day. And periodically they threaten to defect unless their fees are increased. You might want to find out the total costs for these deals forecasted for the next several years, because they are not small and they do not promise to end. Remember, we do not own these people. We merely rent them. And they can break the lease at any moment. At the same time, this deal protects them to some degree from the government's troops and police, hardly a sign of political reconciliation. Now let us consider the implications of the proliferating deals with the Sunni strongmen. They are far from unified among themselves. Some remain with al Qaeda. Many who break and join our forces are beholden to no one. Thus the decline in violence reflects a dispersion of power to dozens of local strong men who distrust the government and occasionally fight among themselves. Thus the basic military situation is far worse because of the proliferation of armed groups under local military chiefs who follow a proliferating number of political bosses. This can hardly be called greater military stability, much less progress toward political consolidation, and to call it fragility that needs more time to become success is to ignore its implications. At the same time, Prime Minister Maliki's military actions in Basra and Baghdad, indicate even wider political and military fragmentation. We are witnessing is more accurately described as the road to the Balkanization of Iraq, that is, political fragmentation. We are being asked by the president to believe that this shift of so much power and finance to so many local chieftains is the road to political centralization. He describes the process as building the state from the bottom up. I challenge you to press the administration's witnesses this week to explain this absurdity. Ask them to name a single historical case where power has been aggregated successfully from local strong men to a central government except through bloody violence leading to a single winner, most often a dictator. That is the history of feudal Europe's transformation to the age of absolute monarchy. It is the story of the American colonization of the west and our Civil War. It took England 800 years to subdue clan rule on what is now the English-Scottish border. And it is the source of violence in Bosnia and Kosovo. How can our leaders celebrate this diffusion of power as effective state building? More accurately described, it has placed the United States astride several civil wars. And it allows all sides to consolidate, rearm, and refill their financial coffers at the US expense. To sum up, we face a deteriorating political situation with an over extended army. When the administration's witnesses appear before you, you should make them clarify how long the army and marines can sustain this band-aid strategy. The only sensible strategy is to withdraw rapidly but in good order. Only that step can break the paralysis now gripping US strategy in the region. The next step is to choose a new aim, regional stability, not a meaningless victory in Iraq. And progress toward that goal requires revising our policy toward Iran. If the president merely renounced his threat of regime change by force, that could prompt Iran to lessen its support to Taliban groups in Afghanistan. Iran detests the Taliban and supports them only because they will kill more Americans in Afghanistan as retaliation in event of a US attack on Iran. Iran's policy toward Iraq would also have to change radically as we withdraw. It cannot want instability there. Iraqi Shiites are Arabs, and they know that Persians look down on them. Cooperation between them has its limits. No quick reconciliation between the US and Iran is likely, but US steps to make Iran feel more secure make it far more conceivable than a policy calculated to increase its insecurity. The president's policy has reinforced Iran's determination to acquire nuclear weapons, the very thing he purports to be trying to prevent. Withdrawal from Iraq does not mean withdrawal from the region. It must include a realignment and reassertion of US forces and diplomacy that give us a better chance to achieve our aim. A number of reasons are given for not withdrawing soon and completely. I have refuted them repeatedly before but they have more lives than a cat. Let try again me explain why they don't make sense. First, it is insisted that we must leave behind military training element with no combat forces to secure them. This makes no sense at all. The idea that US military trainers left alone in Iraq can be safe and effective is flatly rejected by several NCOs and junior officers I have heard describe their personal experiences. Moreover, training foreign forces before they have a consolidated political authority to command their loyalty is a windmill tilt. Finally, Iraq is not short on military skills. Second, it is insisted that chaos will follow our withdrawal. We heard that argument as the "domino theory" in Vietnam. Even so, the path to political stability will be bloody regardless of whether we withdraw or not. The idea that the United States has a moral responsibility to prevent this ignores that reality. We are certainly to blame for it, but we do not have the physical means to prevent it. American leaders who insist that it is in our power to do so are misleading both the public and themselves if they believe it. The real moral question is whether to risk the lives of more Americans. Unlike preventing chaos, we have the physical means to stop sending more troops where many will be killed or wounded. That is the moral responsibility to our country which no American leaders seems willing to assume. Third, nay sayers insist that our withdrawal will create regional instability. This confuses cause with effect. Our forces in Iraq and our threat to change Iran's regime are making the region unstable. Those who link instability with a US withdrawal have it exactly backwards. Our ostrich strategy of keeping our heads buried in the sands of Iraq has done nothing but advance our enemies' interest. I implore you to reject these fallacious excuses for prolonging the commitment of US forces to war in Iraq. Thanks for this opportunity to testify today.
  15. Why is St. Pierra mad at Serra, is it all just pre-fight hype. I must have missed a news-cycle or two because it seems Serra did something to piss George off.....
  16. Question: Is UFC 85 in June going to be free on Spike? It is the Liddell/Evans show. I noticed on UFC's events layout that is the only show not listed as "Live on PPV" it just says "International Show 12pm/3pm" and I know in the past when shows have been in Europe they show it here on Spike for free.
  17. NoCalMike

    HDTV

    Samsclub(which is Wal-Marts version of Costco) has a 720p and 1080p Vizio for some bargain prices along with a bunch of other brand/models. If my wife hadn't made me promise to spend the stimulus package on a damn temprapedic bed, I might have been picking one up in a couple of months
  18. If you move to Sacramento you can come to my UFC parties....
  19. From what I remember, it almost seemed as if HBK was over-selling as a way to mock the "Hogan-style" of wrestling. Which is slow move after slow move where the opponent is supposed to sell and then lay around and wait for Hogan to pose, play up to the crowd etc etc........also he was selling as if he was literally in there with SUPERMAN. That is the way I took it. It was hilarious, but probably the wrong thing to do in their first every matchup.
  20. Well one of the main problems is that you had Vince on one hand saying "ECW isn't going to be about chairshots and blood" then the following Raw you have guys taking massive chair shots and bleeding etc etc etc........it's as if he wanted to protect the RAW/Smackdown brand because he didn't want "lesser workers" doing things usually reserved for the ME guys, which in itself is a total contradiction from the real ECW, because back then you could expect shit to go down anywhere on the card.
  21. NoCalMike

    HDTV

    "Digital" TVs aren't even that expensive if you are just buying a secondary(or third, fourth etc) smaller set for the back bedroom(s). I have a 27inch Insignia in my bedroom and it was a couple hundred dollars. Most people probably already have a "digital" tv and just don't know it because they are beyond standard now. The panic will ensue when people confuse "digital" for "HD" and think they have to go out and spend $999 on a new tv.
  22. I scored a 31...the problem though is a lot of stores you can walk to and back from if you are just browsing, but if you are buying more then a couple bags worth of stuff, you are going to need to drive anyway. I could technically walk to the grocery store but would feel akward pushing a grocery cart full of food down the road to my house. 25 - 50 = Not Walkable: Only a few destinations are within easy walking range. For most errands, driving or public transportation is a must.
  23. I don't understand why these Town Hall threads have to have such a strict format. People should be able to express their opinions on a topic briefly rather than writing an analytical essay. Sure, people discussing things in the same manner and order as each other is nice, but it's stupid to get upset with someone for writing things their own way. These topics should be about content, not form. You don't have to answer every question or provide elaborate answers. But your responses in this thread are meant to evoke discussion. One sentence posts rarely do that -- and especially when it's a single point that's been repeated ad nauseum by many for the past two years. That's why I provided five specific questions, in addition to a general sweeping opinion of the rebirth of ECW as a whole. foleyfan, I don't mind if people leave short answers, but I do mind the quality of those short answers. All I was doing was basically trying to sum my thoughts in a quick to the point way. The reason I didn't answer each question individually is because I think they are irrelevent to the bigger problem of why ECW is/was failing as a brand. Maybe the point has been discussed ad nauseum, but it might be because it is a very valid point. I don't think an extra title belt would have made much of a difference. Of course when ECW was "rebirthed" I think the fans expectations were to see a piece of the world they had seen on all the ECW DVDs and maybe a continuation of the first two ONS PPVs. That isn't what they got. To me THAT is what has hindered the brand to this day more then a lack of titles, or whether this/that wrestler was or wasn't pushed. For anyone who watched and was a fan of the original ECW, there is not much Vince has or can do to ruin that experience. For those that have never seen the original brand, I guess they have never heard of youtube or bit torrents or limewire or hell, online tape traders. It is out there, and not very expensive. Sure, you can buy the WWE-produced DVDs but those are strictly the matches without context and/or storyline. That is fine for those that know the context, but for others it won't be the same. It will make the average matches seem worse without the storyline/emotion/context etc etc etc.
  24. Once it was apparent that Vince brought back "ECW" to show the world HIS VISION of what he thought ECW should be, it was doomed.
×
×
  • Create New...