Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Iran deal has never looked better...
Comments
-
I'll wait for @CuntWaffle to weigh in first.YellowSnow said:
A infamous non UW poster here once told me that do to over use "pressing" is now pressing. Seems legit.BearsWiin said:
PressingYellowSnow said:
Hell, I might of just done one of the greatest chin cock blocks of all time in this place. But fuck, if I can't get a Chin with a bad ass gif of Captain Ahab as played by the most famous Cal Rowing Alums of all times, then no one gets one.BearsWiin said:
Ima ChinTeasesalemcoog said:
Just when I thought I had validation too.YellowSnow said:
Holy shit, it's the white whale of chins- i.e., @BearsWiin .salemcoog said:
Carter was a shitty President no doubt. He wouldn't Print money to save the economy which some may have thought as a good thing and hadn't a clue on how to handle the hostage situation. But Carter was the by product of Nixon and the stiff that Was Gerald Ford. Just as Trump is the by product of Black Carter.Southerndawg said:
Good philanthropist yes, good statesman? Only if you believe America's interests should be sacrificed "for the greater good" or some other such nonsense. On the statesman front he's been more of a meddler and worse. That douchebag has played a central role in brokering shitty deals like the nuclear arms deal Clinton made with North Korea. We'd? all be much better off if he stuck to peanut farming and building houses. Regarding Iran, no doubt there was no appetite for war at the time, but the role of a leader includes making tough decisions in the face of adversity. On Iran parts I and II he has only shown that he is a fuck up and has no balls.salemcoog said:
Carter has proven to be a good statesman and philanthropist in his years after being President but they had not a clue how to handle that situation at the time. And Iran demanded nothing short than the Shahs head on a stick at the time. After Vietnam the US had no appetite nor solid local infrastructure to send troops to Iran at that point. Reagan wasn't afraid to get greasy by playing Iraq and then deal with Iran at the same time by providing arms. It's possible that Carter could have done the same thing as the war with Iraq was imminent. Carter just wasn't greasy like that though.YellowSnow said:We should have offered them a deal in 1979 and by that I mean free the hostages within 72 hours or declaration of war. They needed to be made an example of and should have never gotten away with that bull shit.
-
tyfys*YellowSnow said:
Instant classic gifs this belongs.dnc said:
DISAGREEYellowSnow said:
Hell, I might of just done one of the greatest chin cock blocks of all time in this place. But fuck, if I can't get a Chin with a bad ass gif of Captain Ahab as played by the most famous Cal Rowing Alums of all times, then no one gets one.BearsWiin said:
Ima ChinTeasesalemcoog said:
Just when I thought I had validation too.YellowSnow said:
Holy shit, it's the white whale of chins- i.e., @BearsWiin .salemcoog said:
Carter was a shitty President no doubt. He wouldn't Print money to save the economy which some may have thought as a good thing and hadn't a clue on how to handle the hostage situation. But Carter was the by product of Nixon and the stiff that Was Gerald Ford. Just as Trump is the by product of Black Carter.Southerndawg said:
Good philanthropist yes, good statesman? Only if you believe America's interests should be sacrificed "for the greater good" or some other such nonsense. On the statesman front he's been more of a meddler and worse. That douchebag has played a central role in brokering shitty deals like the nuclear arms deal Clinton made with North Korea. We'd? all be much better off if he stuck to peanut farming and building houses. Regarding Iran, no doubt there was no appetite for war at the time, but the role of a leader includes making tough decisions in the face of adversity. On Iran parts I and II he has only shown that he is a fuck up and has no balls.salemcoog said:
Carter has proven to be a good statesman and philanthropist in his years after being President but they had not a clue how to handle that situation at the time. And Iran demanded nothing short than the Shahs head on a stick at the time. After Vietnam the US had no appetite nor solid local infrastructure to send troops to Iran at that point. Reagan wasn't afraid to get greasy by playing Iraq and then deal with Iran at the same time by providing arms. It's possible that Carter could have done the same thing as the war with Iraq was imminent. Carter just wasn't greasy like that though.YellowSnow said:We should have offered them a deal in 1979 and by that I mean free the hostages within 72 hours or declaration of war. They needed to be made an example of and should have never gotten away with that bull shit.
*suggestion -
I don't know that I've ever used it before, so I don't know if using it once can be overusing it. Seemed appropriate here tho, all thing cunsideredYellowSnow said:
A infamous non UW poster here once told me that do to over use "pressing" is now pressing. Seems legit.BearsWiin said:
PressingYellowSnow said:
Hell, I might of just done one of the greatest chin cock blocks of all time in this place. But fuck, if I can't get a Chin with a bad ass gif of Captain Ahab as played by the most famous Cal Rowing Alums of all times, then no one gets one.BearsWiin said:
Ima ChinTeasesalemcoog said:
Just when I thought I had validation too.YellowSnow said:
Holy shit, it's the white whale of chins- i.e., @BearsWiin .salemcoog said:
Carter was a shitty President no doubt. He wouldn't Print money to save the economy which some may have thought as a good thing and hadn't a clue on how to handle the hostage situation. But Carter was the by product of Nixon and the stiff that Was Gerald Ford. Just as Trump is the by product of Black Carter.Southerndawg said:
Good philanthropist yes, good statesman? Only if you believe America's interests should be sacrificed "for the greater good" or some other such nonsense. On the statesman front he's been more of a meddler and worse. That douchebag has played a central role in brokering shitty deals like the nuclear arms deal Clinton made with North Korea. We'd? all be much better off if he stuck to peanut farming and building houses. Regarding Iran, no doubt there was no appetite for war at the time, but the role of a leader includes making tough decisions in the face of adversity. On Iran parts I and II he has only shown that he is a fuck up and has no balls.salemcoog said:
Carter has proven to be a good statesman and philanthropist in his years after being President but they had not a clue how to handle that situation at the time. And Iran demanded nothing short than the Shahs head on a stick at the time. After Vietnam the US had no appetite nor solid local infrastructure to send troops to Iran at that point. Reagan wasn't afraid to get greasy by playing Iraq and then deal with Iran at the same time by providing arms. It's possible that Carter could have done the same thing as the war with Iraq was imminent. Carter just wasn't greasy like that though.YellowSnow said:We should have offered them a deal in 1979 and by that I mean free the hostages within 72 hours or declaration of war. They needed to be made an example of and should have never gotten away with that bull shit.
-
It's OK; it was my maiden voyage with "pressing" as well.BearsWiin said:
I don't know that I've ever used it before, so I don't know if using it once can be overusing it. Seemed appropriate here tho, all thing cunsideredYellowSnow said:
A infamous non UW poster here once told me that do to over use "pressing" is now pressing. Seems legit.BearsWiin said:
PressingYellowSnow said:
Hell, I might of just done one of the greatest chin cock blocks of all time in this place. But fuck, if I can't get a Chin with a bad ass gif of Captain Ahab as played by the most famous Cal Rowing Alums of all times, then no one gets one.BearsWiin said:
Ima ChinTeasesalemcoog said:
Just when I thought I had validation too.YellowSnow said:
Holy shit, it's the white whale of chins- i.e., @BearsWiin .salemcoog said:
Carter was a shitty President no doubt. He wouldn't Print money to save the economy which some may have thought as a good thing and hadn't a clue on how to handle the hostage situation. But Carter was the by product of Nixon and the stiff that Was Gerald Ford. Just as Trump is the by product of Black Carter.Southerndawg said:
Good philanthropist yes, good statesman? Only if you believe America's interests should be sacrificed "for the greater good" or some other such nonsense. On the statesman front he's been more of a meddler and worse. That douchebag has played a central role in brokering shitty deals like the nuclear arms deal Clinton made with North Korea. We'd? all be much better off if he stuck to peanut farming and building houses. Regarding Iran, no doubt there was no appetite for war at the time, but the role of a leader includes making tough decisions in the face of adversity. On Iran parts I and II he has only shown that he is a fuck up and has no balls.salemcoog said:
Carter has proven to be a good statesman and philanthropist in his years after being President but they had not a clue how to handle that situation at the time. And Iran demanded nothing short than the Shahs head on a stick at the time. After Vietnam the US had no appetite nor solid local infrastructure to send troops to Iran at that point. Reagan wasn't afraid to get greasy by playing Iraq and then deal with Iran at the same time by providing arms. It's possible that Carter could have done the same thing as the war with Iraq was imminent. Carter just wasn't greasy like that though.YellowSnow said:We should have offered them a deal in 1979 and by that I mean free the hostages within 72 hours or declaration of war. They needed to be made an example of and should have never gotten away with that bull shit.
-
PressingCirrhosisDawg said:
I'll wait for @CuntWaffle to weigh in first.YellowSnow said:
A infamous non UW poster here once told me that do to over use "pressing" is now pressing. Seems legit.BearsWiin said:
PressingYellowSnow said:
Hell, I might of just done one of the greatest chin cock blocks of all time in this place. But fuck, if I can't get a Chin with a bad ass gif of Captain Ahab as played by the most famous Cal Rowing Alums of all times, then no one gets one.BearsWiin said:
Ima ChinTeasesalemcoog said:
Just when I thought I had validation too.YellowSnow said:
Holy shit, it's the white whale of chins- i.e., @BearsWiin .salemcoog said:
Carter was a shitty President no doubt. He wouldn't Print money to save the economy which some may have thought as a good thing and hadn't a clue on how to handle the hostage situation. But Carter was the by product of Nixon and the stiff that Was Gerald Ford. Just as Trump is the by product of Black Carter.Southerndawg said:
Good philanthropist yes, good statesman? Only if you believe America's interests should be sacrificed "for the greater good" or some other such nonsense. On the statesman front he's been more of a meddler and worse. That douchebag has played a central role in brokering shitty deals like the nuclear arms deal Clinton made with North Korea. We'd? all be much better off if he stuck to peanut farming and building houses. Regarding Iran, no doubt there was no appetite for war at the time, but the role of a leader includes making tough decisions in the face of adversity. On Iran parts I and II he has only shown that he is a fuck up and has no balls.salemcoog said:
Carter has proven to be a good statesman and philanthropist in his years after being President but they had not a clue how to handle that situation at the time. And Iran demanded nothing short than the Shahs head on a stick at the time. After Vietnam the US had no appetite nor solid local infrastructure to send troops to Iran at that point. Reagan wasn't afraid to get greasy by playing Iraq and then deal with Iran at the same time by providing arms. It's possible that Carter could have done the same thing as the war with Iraq was imminent. Carter just wasn't greasy like that though.YellowSnow said:We should have offered them a deal in 1979 and by that I mean free the hostages within 72 hours or declaration of war. They needed to be made an example of and should have never gotten away with that bull shit.
-
It's getting to be like revenge of the nerds around here.CuntWaffle said:
PressingCirrhosisDawg said:
I'll wait for @CuntWaffle to weigh in first.YellowSnow said:
A infamous non UW poster here once told me that do to over use "pressing" is now pressing. Seems legit.BearsWiin said:
PressingYellowSnow said:
Hell, I might of just done one of the greatest chin cock blocks of all time in this place. But fuck, if I can't get a Chin with a bad ass gif of Captain Ahab as played by the most famous Cal Rowing Alums of all times, then no one gets one.BearsWiin said:
Ima ChinTeasesalemcoog said:
Just when I thought I had validation too.YellowSnow said:
Holy shit, it's the white whale of chins- i.e., @BearsWiin .salemcoog said:
Carter was a shitty President no doubt. He wouldn't Print money to save the economy which some may have thought as a good thing and hadn't a clue on how to handle the hostage situation. But Carter was the by product of Nixon and the stiff that Was Gerald Ford. Just as Trump is the by product of Black Carter.Southerndawg said:
Good philanthropist yes, good statesman? Only if you believe America's interests should be sacrificed "for the greater good" or some other such nonsense. On the statesman front he's been more of a meddler and worse. That douchebag has played a central role in brokering shitty deals like the nuclear arms deal Clinton made with North Korea. We'd? all be much better off if he stuck to peanut farming and building houses. Regarding Iran, no doubt there was no appetite for war at the time, but the role of a leader includes making tough decisions in the face of adversity. On Iran parts I and II he has only shown that he is a fuck up and has no balls.salemcoog said:
Carter has proven to be a good statesman and philanthropist in his years after being President but they had not a clue how to handle that situation at the time. And Iran demanded nothing short than the Shahs head on a stick at the time. After Vietnam the US had no appetite nor solid local infrastructure to send troops to Iran at that point. Reagan wasn't afraid to get greasy by playing Iraq and then deal with Iran at the same time by providing arms. It's possible that Carter could have done the same thing as the war with Iraq was imminent. Carter just wasn't greasy like that though.YellowSnow said:We should have offered them a deal in 1979 and by that I mean free the hostages within 72 hours or declaration of war. They needed to be made an example of and should have never gotten away with that bull shit.
-
@BearsWiin was right. The Placenta won.
