Snoop Dogg? Whatever happened to the time he was charged with murder? I guess he got off? In any case, Chrysler can take Snoop Dogg and Lee Iacoaca and shove them up their a--. I will never buy a car from a company that uses such a repellent character to sell their cars. But it doesn't surprise me, seeing the Charger.
Hate to say this but in general, nobody cares... especially, it seems, among the younger set, who seem to think as long as you make a lot of money, rub elbows with the rich and famous, and don't get caught, you're a hero to be adored and idolized. And it's the younger set with all that spendable loot that advertisers go after.
Ever since television and movies started making some bad guys heroes against other bad guys (think Charles Bronson in Death Wish) the line which marked the difference between the two has been erased. People have been desensitized by the likes of Gangsta rap, and national leaders who set poor examples.
Pimps are now to be idolized... think Pimp My Ride. A mafia family gets it's own show where the kids act like animals, talk back to the mother, and generally set a bad example. A wealthy heiress has an X rated flick passed all over the place and, whether it was her fault or not, she gets more popular and gets a Tv show.
It's a w>Snoop Dogg? Whatever happened to the time he
Of all the examples (think Charles Bronson in Death Wish)??? Defending oneself Does Not define a "BAD GUY"!!! How you get in a situation to have to "defend" yourself is purely academic.
Your points were pretty right on, until you selected Charles Bronson in Death Wish as your example of a bad guy, you might as well have chosen Shane, or any of Clint Eastwoods man with no name characters. Self defense IS NOT BAD! If more people exercised a formidable self defense in the face of "bad guys", there would truly be less "bad guys", they would pick an easier occupation.
Considering Dubya started a war based completely on two false pieces of evidence (weaps of mass destruction and links to Al Qaeda), IO would say he is just as likely to be accused of murder as some other people.
And as far as Lee I goes; who the f*ck do you think was behing the release of a certain american sports car in 1964 1/2??
(Disclaimer: I am not a snoop doggity fan, In fact I cant stand his stuff, nor am I much of a Dubya fan - and I'm about as right wing as they get in Canada).
That's funny, when I saw the thread title I said to myself, when are they going to stop beating up on Uncle Lido about the Pinto? What's a few hundred dead and a several hundred more horribly burned when you're talkin' corporate profits? A two-bit punk like Calvin Broadus has A LOT of catching up to do to make it into Iacocca's league. "Safety doesn't sell" vs. "Murder was the case" -- what's the diff, except that Iacocca's motto made a lot more money?
Ok, ya know HankWB, This has zero to do with the group or the thread. And more importantly WMDs were already found along with Russian fighter buried in the sand, and EVERYthing was linked to al qaeda. If you don't like it, Move to Iraq and live with the ones you so dearly love. I'm sick of hearing all the pansy excuses for not removing a murderer who BROK the treaty that he signed at the end of his loss after the Kuwait invasion.
Do a search. Chemicals were found but just a small amount and there were pictures of the Russian planes being un covered. Pictures you certainly wouldn't see from Dan Rather or Peter Jennings. Anyway, this is over. I'm not getting roped into another kook debate about how W is a murderer. With that thinking we should have no right to go into Germany in WW2 since it was Japan that attacked us.
On the other hand, the Duelfer report, which was commissioned by the CIA (not Dan Rather or Peter Jennings), states that Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them. The report states that Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.
Are you denying the UN reports that he did have them....
and that the destruction of them was not fully documented so there is no proof they were totally destroyed or not?
Are you denying the UN reports that he used them on his own people? Or the UN reports that he used them in the war with Iran?
If you admit he did have them....
and that it is not provably known if he actually destroyed them all as the UN reports stated....
and that he was willing to use them on his own people....
as well as his neighbors....
and if you relied on the advice of intelligence agencies of the US....
and many other nations....
and were led to believe that he still had them....
and was attempting to developer more....
and had plans to use them....
and that he provided support for terrorists....
who had just killed thousands in NYC....
and that he repeatedly refused or stalled compliance with UN mandates....
and that he maintained the illusion that he had them....
What would you have done? Just WHAT would you have done? Would you have waited until they were set off in the middle of NYC or Des Moines, or wherever?
No president under such circumstances would be correct no matter what course of action was selected. If he did nothing and WMDs were used against us, he'd have been hanged. If he acted and it turned out he was wrong, he's have been hanged, as people like you are doing today. AND, if he had been right, many would still have wanted him hanged for the financial cost, or the numbers of troops lost, or whatever.
YOU can't PROVE what you say, no matter who you quote. All you can do is spew rhetoric. The opposite view can't be proven either. So, take this line of thought and shove it.... What is done is done and can't be changed. All your whining will not restore the lives lost, the money expended, or change who is president.
Now, show me where I can get some affordable fuel for my car, and how I'm going to afford to heat my home this winter, and I'll pay attention.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.