|
|
Post by Jason Cashe on Apr 10, 2013 19:43:48 GMT -4
Say WHAAA???
|
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 10, 2013 20:04:32 GMT -4
I suspect something's got lost in translation here. |
|
|
|
Post by Nathaniel Havok on Apr 10, 2013 23:22:58 GMT -4
I suspect something's got lost in translation here. You're not speaking "Texan" enough. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Cashe on Apr 10, 2013 23:42:26 GMT -4
^ THIS...No, I wasn't RAISED in Texas dick! I'd have graduated High School in Texas, EASY. I've just never heard that phrase used that way before.
|
|
|
|
Post by "The Real Deal" Ellis Graham on Apr 11, 2013 10:34:43 GMT -4
What's wrong with Texas?!?  |
|
Pepsi
Semi-Main Eventer
Posts: 605
|
Post by Pepsi on Apr 11, 2013 12:03:11 GMT -4
What's wrong with Texas?!?  Need I say more. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Cashe on Apr 11, 2013 20:50:51 GMT -4
Perfect answer Pepsi! Him and his Daddy...Why couldn't we have had Bill Clinton as a Texan? Just wrong..
|
|
|
|
Post by Nathaniel Havok on Apr 11, 2013 21:15:07 GMT -4
What's wrong with Texas?!? Need I say more. Fuck each and every last one of you, if you have a problem with "Dubya"! |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Cashe on Apr 12, 2013 1:47:12 GMT -4
He was cool on "Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay" but outside of that? Ehhh
|
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 12, 2013 5:16:43 GMT -4
Need I say more. Fuck each and every last one of you, if you have a problem with "Dubya"! Does that include the hundreds of thousands of people who have died because of his illegal war on Iraq? |
|
|
|
Post by Nathaniel Havok on Apr 12, 2013 6:09:38 GMT -4
Fuck each and every last one of you, if you have a problem with "Dubya"! Does that include the hundreds of thousands of people who have died because of his illegal war on Iraq? Says who? You? A court of law? Who? |
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 12, 2013 6:33:14 GMT -4
Does that include the hundreds of thousands of people who have died because of his illegal war on Iraq? Says who? You? A court of law? Who? Er, according to Kofi Annan. I'll quote an article from the time, with a quote from the then UN Sec-Gen. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134. I'm sure you'll argue no (domestic) court of law deemed it illegal, but it's acknowledged the war was in breach of the UN charter Article 2(4) www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art2www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0321-10.htmI'm sure you're going to say since congress passed the Iraq resolution and the appeal was deemed 'not fit now for judicial review' the legality was fine, but that's just technicalities. One may argue that judgement was tantamount to stonewalling the appeal. The Iraq resolution was based on the notion that Iraq was a threat to US national security, but the invasion and its aftermath has since proven that was a load of cobblers. There were no WMDs, there was no serious international threat coming out of Iraq. Maybe they harboured terrorists, but then what major government in the world can say they are innocent of that? |
|
|
|
Post by Nathaniel Havok on Apr 12, 2013 6:52:33 GMT -4
Technicalities... Everyone hates them, until they get to use one. I know where you're coming from, brother. And believe me, I understand. However, I view it differently than you. Remember, I'm a conservative from Indiana. Lol
|
|
|
|
Post by "The Real Deal" Ellis Graham on Apr 12, 2013 8:26:31 GMT -4
As an actual US Army Soldier since 2003 & a conservative from Texas, I was always a fan of Bush. As far as the whole war thing goes, I've always shrugged my shoulders about it, even when I deployed. I honestly could care less about intervening in others' problems (especially in the Muslim world where our help - good intentions or not - will never be truly accepted) but I also feel like you have to trust your political system to put in place patriots who will do what is right for your country and their allies. All doubt does is stress me out so I try to avoid it. |
|
Pepsi
Semi-Main Eventer
Posts: 605
|
Post by Pepsi on Apr 12, 2013 9:57:31 GMT -4
You can't just blindly trust politicians, and trust the system. You have to constantly challenge the system otherwise dictatorships form. America was founded by people who weren't willing to trust the system. Patriotism is good, but to question your leaders is not being unpatriotic.
As for the legality of the war, I am no fan of the UN. I don't believe they have a right to tell other countries what to do, and it bothers me that the UN was far more concerned with what the Americans were doing in Iraq than genocides that have gone on in the world. The problem I have with Bush is if you are going to ignore the UN's decision, don't ask for there approval.
I am a Canadian, and neutral on my opinion of American politics. I think both parties are stale and more concerned with clinging to power than doing what is best for there country. As for Bush, he was not a great President, the war in Iraq was a disaster, there were no great things accomplished during his time in office. History will not remember him as poorly as people view him today, but it will not be kind to him either?
P.S. I love ow I turned this into a political debate with nothing but a picture. That Mr. Havok is how you highjack a thread. You have to work at it, for me it's effortless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 12, 2013 10:03:03 GMT -4
You can't just blindly trust politicians, and trust the system. You have to constantly challenge the system otherwise dictatorships form. America was founded by people who weren't willing to trust the system. Patriotism is good, but to question your leaders is not being unpatriotic. As for the legality of the war, I am no fan of the UN. I don't believe they have a right to tell other countries what to do, and it bothers me that the UN was far more concerned with what the Americans were doing in Iraq than genocides that have gone on in the world. The problem I have with Bush is if you are going to ignore the UN's depiction, don't ask for there approval. I am a Canadian, and neutral on my opinion of American politics. I think both parties are stale and more concerned with clinging to power than doing what is best for there country. As for Bush, he was not a great President, the war in Iraq was a disaster, there were no great things accomplished during his time in office. History will not remember him as poorly as people view him today, but it will not be kind to him either? P.S. I love ow I turned this into a political debate with nothing but a picture. That Mr. Havok is how you highjack a thread. You have to work at it, for me it's effortless. Whether you are a fan of the UN or not is irrelevant to the question of legality of the war in terms of International Law. In fact you make the point precisely, if you are going to accept the UN charter, you have to act in accordance with it (otherwise opt-out). You can't go along with or ignore that system as and when it suits you. That is the point that damns Bush/Blair and their decision irrespective of what we learned afterwards (although as a Brit, Blair is more culpable since he effectively LIED to our government about evidence of WMDs; I don't believe Bush did(?)); where you stand on the purpose and value of the UN has no bearing on the case. It's a completely different discussion. |
|
Pepsi
Semi-Main Eventer
Posts: 605
|
Post by Pepsi on Apr 12, 2013 10:10:01 GMT -4
I agree, I was just making the point that I don't care for the UN, showing that I am a neutral party. I didn't word my argument properly. The point I was trying to make is the US is a part of the UN and therefore helped form the international law, therefore they don't have a right to ignore it.
That being said, I still believe the UN is a joke, but our countries made them the disaster they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 12, 2013 10:45:38 GMT -4
That being said, I still believe the UN is a joke, but our countries made them the disaster they are. I can agree with you to a large extent on that one. As an actual US Army Soldier since 2003 & a conservative from Texas, I was always a fan of Bush. As far as the whole war thing goes, I've always shrugged my shoulders about it, even when I deployed. I honestly could care less about intervening in others' problems (especially in the Muslim world where our help - good intentions or not - will never be truly accepted) but I also feel like you have to trust your political system to put in place patriots who will do what is right for your country and their allies. All doubt does is stress me out so I try to avoid it. To say the US is helping Muslim and Islamic countries is highly condescending to say the least. These countries never asked you or anyone for help, so that's why they see it as so offensive - it's interfering at best, occupation at worst. But I want to be wary of saying this is just the US, since our govt. is just as much at fault. Pepsi is correct, the second Iraq War has been a total disaster. It's chief outcomes are a lot of unnecessary death, increased debt, the total destruction of a country and the probability it will collapse again no coalition forces have gone, which could lead to further de-stabilisation in the region; the region isn't any safer, nor is the western world at large since anti-western militant groups will continue to plot and spread terror for years (wasn't this the raison d'etre?). All for what - to oust one tyrant who was a threat to nobody. I can't remember who said it at the time, but Hussein was an Iraqi problem, it was down to the Iraqi people to remove him, not anybody else. |
|
Pepsi
Semi-Main Eventer
Posts: 605
|
Post by Pepsi on Apr 12, 2013 11:02:46 GMT -4
It's funny that the Western World seems to think Democracy will make any country better. Egypt became a more Democratic country after the removal of Mubarak, then elected a far more extreme and oppressive regime. I think that countries should only intervene in other nations problems, i.e. cases of genocide. Otherwise, let people deal with their own problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Cashe on Apr 12, 2013 18:21:18 GMT -4
[/i] about intervening in others' problems (especially in the Muslim world where our help - good intentions or not - will never be truly accepted)[/quote]
So then you DO care? If you could care less then you care some. The proper term and so many overlook it is: I couldn't care less. Then there is no more room not caring. Can't go any lower. Sorry, nothing against you I just noticed this and decided to comment on this instead of pretending to think I can jump into the much more involved discussion of politics cause I hate them all equally. Failed system, everything needs change and less wormholes to change rights and rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nathaniel Havok on Apr 12, 2013 19:45:36 GMT -4
The UN always has been, and always will be a joke. Rulers will do what rulers WANT to do, regardless.
Example: Majority of Americans opposed Obamacare... However, it still went through.
|
|
|
|
Post by President Jeff on Apr 12, 2013 19:56:01 GMT -4
How about that Monday Night Raw show this week huh |
|
Pepsi
Semi-Main Eventer
Posts: 605
|
Post by Pepsi on Apr 12, 2013 20:07:44 GMT -4
How about that Monday Night Raw show this week huh In comes Jeff with the back on topic post. Don't make me post another politician's picture to re jack the thread. We are one Margaret Thatcher pic away from an explosion here. |
|
|
|
Post by Nathaniel Havok on Apr 12, 2013 22:04:58 GMT -4
And on that note... [img src="http://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/jjacksonmug.jpg?w=592&h=642 "] |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Cashe on Apr 13, 2013 0:38:14 GMT -4
On topic, I think Ryback as a heel is what the character needed. Although I wanted to see another Henry/Ryback match because it was a decent match other than the seemingly botched ending at Mania. I just like Mark Henry, such a beastly wide dude and so much strength. Good character now with his "Hall Of Pain" and I was happy to see him as World Champion so I'm a fan. We'll see how far Ryback goes as a heel who gets cheered for beating down the Face Cena who gets booed...
|
|
|
|
Post by "The Real Deal" Ellis Graham on Apr 13, 2013 1:20:54 GMT -4
On topic, I think Ryback as a heel is what the character needed. Although I wanted to see another Henry/Ryback match because it was a decent match other than the seemingly botched ending at Mania. I just like Mark Henry, such a beastly wide dude and so much strength. Good character now with his "Hall Of Pain" and I was happy to see him as World Champion so I'm a fan. We'll see how far Ryback goes as a heel who gets cheered for beating down the Face Cena who gets booed... I'll give Cena/Ryback a chance, if for nothing else the double-turn potential, but I would LOVE Cena vs Henry in a multi-week build to a match. With Punk gone, the best person to match up with Cena's clowning is Henry, as proven by how he handled it on Raw. I'm imagining Cena coming out and doing one of his Cena Raps or something, and then Henry walks out and is like "I got a rap for ya!" Then punches Cena's lights out, and just says something like "I just knocked you out foo', cuz THAT'S WHAT I DO!" |
|
Pepsi
Semi-Main Eventer
Posts: 605
|
Post by Pepsi on Apr 13, 2013 2:02:39 GMT -4
When Raw started with Cena and then Henry interrupted I was psyched. I hope Henry gets another run at the top. His run at the end of 2011 was one of the highlights of the last few years for me.
Ryback on the other hand I am less than excited about. He is another Batista to me. He is decent in the ring, below average on the mic. The only thing that stands out is an impressive physique. There's worse guys out there, but I just don't see him having longevity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nathaniel Havok on Apr 13, 2013 2:36:03 GMT -4
Henry to me, is pretty stale. He's been a face (Arms up, arms down) (Sexual Chocolate) (Fathering a hand), he's been a heel (Nation of Domination) (I demand respect) (Hall of Pain), and he's never been able to do anything that would make you say "He's special!"...
I say this, because he's got EVERYTHING it takes to be both a top face, and a top heel. Worlds Strongest Man, Former Olympian, Big and Black (WWE loves those guys who can bring in a particular demographic), but he's still just barley floating along. He was signed by WWE when he first started to a TEN YEAR contract! TEN YEARS! Vince McMahon went on record saying that he'd never sign anyone to that long of a contract EVER again. Why? Because nothing they've EVER done with Henry has stuck, or made a huge impact. Hell, they considered letting him end the streak, just to give him an "over the top" push! Vince nixed that idea, and thank God he did!
Vince said the main reason he signed Henry to a contract that long, is because he had the absolute highest hopes for him. Thought he would get over enough to become the new Hogan (the American Hero).
FACT: Henry ROBBED Ezekiel Jackson of the "Hall of Pain" idea. Zeke went on record saying that he was talking with Mark about a promo backstage, where he would introduce his "Hall of Pain". However, creative decided to keep Big Zeke as a face, and without permission, Henry used it in a promo, and took off with it. Zeke still had plans of using it once they finally turned him heel. Not a really big deal, but still... Imagine Big Zeke with the "Hall of Pain"... He'd be bigger than Henry is! Henry/Creative isn't doing well enough with it to get Henry over. Yes, he gets booed or cheered, but his promo skills and slow as hell matches, really give him no room to REALLY get over. Right now, he's just a large body that takes up a lot of financial space. They don't market him with shirts and gear, they don't promote him on promotional posters and commercials, nor do they invest any time in REAL storylines with him.
This is JUST my opinion, but honestly, he's just a "time to get a snack" match, every time he wrestles, and a "time to take a piss" promo, every time he's on the mic.
FACT: Mark Henry won the ECW Championship, because Michael Hayes called him "THE N-word". The week after Michael was suspended for calling him "THE N-word", Henry got the push of a lifetime. Hell, then, they gave him TONY ATLAS! Yet, that was the blind leading the blind. Atlas has lost it!
I was VERY happy when he won the World Heavyweight Championship. I even put on Facebook at the time, that he deserved the belt. I was hoping that he was going to really shine with the belt, but all he did was recycle storylines (Breaking the ring with Show), steal an idea made for Big Zeke, and hold the belt until Daniel Bryan's moment (Show winning, Bryan cashing in). His run really didn't give him any credibility, nor did his run in ECW. Let's face it, THAT particular ECW Championship meant NOTHING.
Again, just my opinion.
|
|
Pepsi
Semi-Main Eventer
Posts: 605
|
Post by Pepsi on Apr 13, 2013 2:53:29 GMT -4
I was VERY happy when he won the World Heavyweight Championship. I even put on Facebook at the time, that he deserved the belt. I was hoping that he was going to really shine with the belt, but all he did was recycle storylines (Breaking the ring with Show), steal an idea made for Big Zeke, and hold the belt until Daniel Bryan's moment (Show winning, Bryan cashing in). His run really didn't give him any credibility, nor did his run in ECW. Let's face it, THAT particular ECW Championship meant NOTHING. Again, just my opinion. FACT: When Henry won the WHC ratings for Smackdown instantly increased and remained higher than they were during Randy Orton' preceding reign. That would make his reign a success in the eyes of anyone. FACT: The only reason Daniel Bryan got his moment when he did was because Henry had a pulled groin and was not ale to work a full schedule. I will also disagree with you about the promos. Mark Henry was fantastic on the mic during his 2011 run. His promos leasing up to his match with Orton where he won the title and immediately following his win were great. He has only been back a short time now and has yet to hit his stride again on the mic, but he will get there again if given the opportunity. I will admit, prior to his 2011 run I thought he was terrible. I mean I would have ranked him in the bottom 5 in the whole business for most of his career. I was one of is toughest critics and he won me over. |
|
|
|
Post by Nathaniel Havok on Apr 13, 2013 3:04:25 GMT -4
Your first fact, is complete bullshit. I'm looking at the ratings from Feb 18th (when Ziggles "won" the WHC from Edge) all the way until the end of Henry's run, and the "up-down" of the ratings is the exact same. They floated from a 1.7 to a 2.0 the ENTIRE year. Nothing changed whatsoever. At least, nothing significant. Source: www.gerweck.net/tv-ratings/2011-ratings/And: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Heavyweight_Champions_(WWE)I completely agree with your second fact. He lost the belt due to injury. But at the same time, McMahon already had plans of putting D-Bryan over "one of the big men" aka, Show or Henry. He didn't want the title on Bryan, unless he did some "super hero" stuff to win it. Hence the constant mentioning of Bryan and how big both contenders were up against him, for months leading into it. Not trying to argue with you whatsoever. But Henry was a bad investment by McMahon, and McMahon has admitted that in the past. When the boss admits it, you know it's true. Lol |
|
