Are you saying Oak’s a washed up pro wrestler?
No, but in the metaphor, Oak is actually playing the Keith David role, which makes him a B-level black actor. Red’s the Roddy Piper character.
It’s been over a decade since I saw that flick, and I was probably high, but I thought Keith David was trying to get Roddy Piper to put on the glasses. Could be wrong or course.
That’s one of the best fistfights in the history of modern cinema. This is one of the silliest tardfights in the history of The Dope. 
Huh. I stand corrected. And even more embarrassing, I never got the They Live/Cripple Fight connection before. (Insert embarrassed smiley that doesn’t look like it’s about to give head.)
Wrong angle. Red is playing Jim Cornette to my Cowboy Bill Watts. I get to slap him on television, next week he has the tag team he manages do a beat down on me–I blade, of course, and sell like Steamboat. Then I bring in a mysterious masked man called Stagger Lee to be my tag partner, and we take the match around the horn. In the blowoff, I pin Bobby Eaton, and then we shave Red’s head in the middle of the ring…except, um…it’s kinda late for that part now.
Coulda drawn money though. Red makes a perfect cowardly heel. I can do the babyface thing.
Larry,
The point is not that it’s “illegal” but rather that it was a bait and switch.
There was nothing in Dubya’s campaign while in the running for the 2000 elections that tied any of his policies to the PNAC. Which, I am sure you’d agree, are far from “compassionate conservatism”. The very platform he ran on.
“Fool me once…you can’t get fooled again.”
Oakie boy, time to put the white trash wrestling action figures back in the box, which I’m sure doubles as the ring in your deranged fantasies – grow the fuck up and find something else to yank your meat to. Like truck-demolition derbies, NASCAR, Dukes Of Hazzard re-runs or whatever else keeps you inbred hillbillies entertained.
There you go with that whole elitist sneer thing again. We’ve already established that you’re a coward and a fuckwit. What other talents can you demonstrate?
But the baiting and switching was Bush’s doing. PNAC’s always been upfront about it’s goals and, IIRC, even tried to get Bill Clinton onboard for regime change. If Bush was dishonest about his true intentions, pretending to be against PNAC’s agenda while actually being for it, the moral onus is on him, not on a bunch of intellectuals who were pumping up policies that anyone should have seen would be a disaster.
Don’t get me wrong, I have no love for PNAC. I think they’re a bunch of arrogant naive ideologues, duplicitous and unscrupulous, who lucked out when America elected (sort of) a President fool enough to take their lunatic vision seriously, and also lucked out when a poorly informed public’s grief and outrage after a horrific terrorist attack gave them the popular support for their designs. However they don’t have the ability to launch a single Cessna against Iraq. That was all Bush’s doing.
PinkFury,
If the above does not penetrate your soggy scotch-soaked skull, nothing will. It’s nothing that hasn’t been offered up already, but perhaps this one paragraph on top of all the others will lead you to surrender you simple-minded, wrong-headed position.
Why am I not optimistic…
Note to Oakminster and PinkFury: If you insist on trading insults, can you at lest step up your respective games. There is the public to think of.
Just for the record, the vitriol in the above post has nothing to do with me.
Not in the least. In fact, I was commending you on your post. I thought that was clear, and apologize if it wasn’t.
Oh, please, don’t get me wrong, Larry. No way, no how, I am excusing Bush for falling in line with e Neocons – in fact, I’d also suggest you watch the PBS documentary I linked to in my OP.
But yet again, that is not the point I am making. Mine matter goes straight to the heart of the matte – like Elvis said, when we were called “conspiracy theorirs” as the only line of defense. The PNAC cabal won the ideological battle that was going on between the two factions in the WH. It wash Bush’s decision to finally make – but unlike you, I really do think that “aavebging” his Father’s decision and the fact that the the PNAC provided a way — half-arssed plan is more like it – to caary it through was what made Bush finally crumble their way. Add that to the fact that IMO, he was always waay over-his-head as a foreign-policy leader and you get the results you’re seeing today.
Am I attacking the PNC? Surely. If only because they were quite a bit more about world-affairs to present such a fantasy-laden scheme to drive US affairs. Am I excusing Bush for listening to them…well, he’s never made a mistake that he’s acknolged to, has he? But fuck yeah, ‘The Smirking Chimp," IHOW, is the “ultimate Decider” of your nations future – even if he is mostly a puppet, which I think he is. No one could be so misinformed and out of touch with reality if they had a properly working noggin’. That much is as clear as daylight.
Say, pardon me for the off-topic, but was I the only one to hear some pointless barking between this post and yours?
Never mind. Rather a rhetorical question. Must have been my scotch-laden mind playing tricks on me. Which reminds me, I best get myself a Justerini and Brooks right-quick. Haven’t had one since at least last Saturday – and then I’m not even sure I had drinks with dinner.
Shit! I can’t even be the successful alkie I’m alledged to be :smack:
Just love it when the 9/11 CTs use the “New Pearl Harbor” as evidence that the U.S. Government was complicit in 9/11. As in, they needed a New Pearl Harbor, and they got it. Yeah, it’s standard protocol to announce ahead of time when you plan to kill 2,700, or so, of your own citizens.
True, as long as it’s a “Space Pearl Harbor.” We haven’t had one of those yet, but when we do, I’m sure the CTs will point their accusing fingers right at old Rummy.
Translation, please? I understood everything else but you got me on this, friend. 
On point: I think Larry Borgia pretty much nailed it. Except I’d assign some guilt to the PNAC gang for continuing to pursue their imperial fantasies when the reality has been so patently disastrous. True, they can’t launch so much as a Cessna against Iran, but they can, and do, go on beating the war drums loud enough to drown out any voice of reason in the White House that might stay this administration from launching everything it’s got.
I expect the average American not to know about PNAC – they don’t give a shit about anything but American Idol or the latest celebrity story. But the average Doper? Or a Doper who argues and puts forth views on Iraq or American foreign policy? In the year 2007? Holy fuck that’s disheartening.
“Avenging.” With my apologies. And what mstay said. That is the part that gets me riled-up.
I figured it was “avenging”, myself, but I’m a bit confused about the meaning of the phrase “avenging his father’s decision.” Did you mean “avenging his father’s [alleged] escape from assassination”?
Or did you mean “vindicating his father’s decision”? And if the second, which decision of Bush41 would you say Bush43’s invasion was a vindication of?