chris817

should be called paris overexposed.. I really can't stand this girl and i have no idea why young girls look up to her.. its a sad world

Thats b/c you have a brain.. Your best bet is too erase those logical thoughts, and whatever you do never share them..

Hey man this is from the Wall Street Journal not exactly a lft leaning paper.. Its on the negative side b/c things are negative over there...

I respect your comments also.. But who wants to lose their life over something that we have no control over anymore? thats a lot to ask someone fighting for someone elses freedom. They are asking for help in Darfur but no one cares.. except george clooney.. i just dont see how 20k more troops is going to solve anything? with the same policies.. Here is an interesting article i found in the WSJ.. http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009521 Two Alliances President Bush has managed to divide and conquer the Middle East. BY EDWARD N. LUTTWAK Sunday, January 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST It was the hugely ambitious project of the Bush administration to transform the entire Middle East by remaking Iraq into an irresistible model of prosperous democracy. Having failed in that worthy purpose, another, more prosaic result has inadvertently been achieved: divide and rule, the classic formula for imperial power on the cheap. The ancient antipathy between Sunni and Shiite has become a dynamic conflict, not just within Iraq but across the Middle East, and key protagonists on each side seek the support of American power. Once the Bush administration realizes what it has wrought, it will cease to scramble for more troops that can be sent to Iraq, because it has become pointless to patrol and outpost a civil war, while a mere quarter or less of the troops already there are quite enough to control the outcome. And that is just the start of what can now be achieved across the region with very little force, and some competent diplomacy. On Dec. 4, 2006, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, head of Iraq's largest political party, went to the White House to plead his case with President Bush. The son of an ayatollah, and himself a lifelong militant cleric, Mr. Hakim is hardly a natural partner for the U.S.--while living in Iran for 23 years he must have declaimed "death to America" on many an occasion. But as the chief leader of Iraq's Arab Shiite population, he has no choice. Each day brings deadly Sunni attacks, and just as the Sunnis are strengthened by volunteers and money from outside Iraq, the Shiites, too, need all the help they can get, especially American military training for the Shiite-dominated army and police. For President Bush, the visiting Mr. Hakim brought welcome promises of cooperation against his aggressive Shiite rival Moqtada al-Sadr as well as the Sunni insurgents. It no longer even seems strange that the best ally of the U.S. in Iraq is Mr. Hakim's party, the Sciri: the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, whose very title evokes the Iranian model of radically anti-Western theocracy. Just as the Sunni threat to majority rule in Iraq is forcing Sciri to cooperate with the U.S., the prospect of a Shiite-dominated Iraq is forcing Sunni Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Jordan, to seek American help against the rising power of the Shiites. Some Sunnis viewed Iran with suspicion even when it was still under the conservative rule of the shah, in part because its very existence as the only Shiite state could inspire unrest among the oppressed Shiite populations of Arabia. More recently, the nearby Sunni Arab states have been increasingly worried by the military alliance between Iran, Syria and the Hezbollah of Lebanon. But now that a Shiite-ruled Iraq could add territorial contiguity to the alliance, forming a "Shiite crescent" extending all the way from Pakistan to the Mediterranean, it is not only the Sunnis of nearby Arabia that feel very seriously threatened. The entire order of Muslim orthodoxy is challenged by the expansion of heterodox Shiite rule. Although it was the U.S. that was responsible for ending Sunni supremacy in Iraq along with Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, it remains the only possible patron for the Sunni Arab states resisting the Shiite alliance. Americans have no interest in the secular-sectarian quarrel, but there is a very real convergence of interests with the Sunni Arab states because Iran is the main enemy for both. At this moment, it is in Lebanon that the new Sunni-U.S. alliance has become active. With continuing mass demonstrations and threatening speeches, the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah is trying to force the government of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora to give way to a new coalition which he can dominate. Syria and Iran are supporting Mr. Nasrallah, while the U.S. is backing Mr. Siniora. He has the support of the Druze and of most Christians as well, but it is also very much as a Sunni leader that Mr. Siniora is firmly resisting so far. That has gained him the financial backing of Saudi Arabia, which is funding Sunni counterdemonstrations and has even tried to co-opt Hezbollah, among other things. It was in their Arab identity that Hezbollah claimed heroic status because they were not routed by the Israelis in the recent fighting, but evidently many Sunni Arabs in and out of Lebanon view them instead as Shiite sectarians, far too obedient to non-Arab Iran. That suits the U.S., for Iran and Hezbollah are its enemies, too. The Sunni-U.S. alignment in Lebanon, which interestingly coexists with the U.S.-Shiite alliance in Iraq, may yet achieve results of strategic importance if Syria is successfully detached from its alliance with Iran. Originally it was a necessary alliance for both countries because Saddam's Iraq was waging war on Iran, and periodically tried to overthrow the Assad regime of Syria. Now that Iraq is no longer a threat to either country, Iran still needs Syria as a bridge to Hezbollah, but for Syria the alliance is strategically obsolete, as well as inconsistent with the country's Arab identity. True, Syria is ruled primarily by members of the Alawite sect that is usually classified as a Shiite offshoot. But that extremely heterodox faith (it has Christmas and the transmigration of souls) is far different from the Shiism of Iraq, Lebanon or Iran--where it would be persecuted; and besides, at least 70% of Syrians are Sunnis. That may explain why the Syrian regime has not used its full influence to overthrow Mr. Siniora: His stand against the Shiite Hezbollah resonates with his fellow Sunnis of Syria. But another reason may be the promise of substantial aid and investment from Saudi Arabia and the Emirates for Syria's needy economy, if the regime diminishes its alliance with Iran and Hezbollah, or better, ends it altogether. The U.S., for its part, is no longer actively driving Syria into the arms of the Iranians by threatening a march on Damascus, while even the unofficial suggestions of negotiations by the Iraq Study Group made an impression, judging by some conciliatory Syrian statements. The U.S.-Sunni alliance, which is a plain fact in Lebanon, is still only tentative over Syria; but it would be greatly energized if Iran were successfully deprived of its only Arab ally. At the same time, the U.S.-Shiite alliance in Iraq has been strengthened in the wake of Mr. Hakim's visit. The Sunni insurgency is undiminished, but at least other Shiite groups are jointly weakening the only actively anti-American Shiite faction headed by Mr. Sadr. When the Bush administration came into office, only Egypt and Jordan were functioning allies of the U.S. Iran and Iraq were already declared enemies, Syria was hostile, and even its supposed friends in the Arabian peninsula were so disinclined to help that none did anything to oppose al Qaeda. Some actively helped it, while others knowingly allowed private funds to reach the terrorists whose declared aim was to kill Americans. The Iraq war has indeed brought into existence a New Middle East, in which Arab Sunnis can no longer gleefully disregard American interests because they need help against the looming threat of Shiite supremacy, while in Iraq at the core of the Arab world, the Shia are allied with the U.S. What past imperial statesmen strove to achieve with much cunning and cynicism, the Bush administration has brought about accidentally. But the result is exactly the same. Mr. Luttwak, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is the author of "Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace" (Belknap, 2002).

u might be surprised.. it just depends on the GOP's candidate.. remember dole? I agree with the racism, but i hope we are a better country than that.. I do believe we will have a black man as pres b4 a woman.. There are plenty of blacks in the midwest.. lol.. We are also getting all rev'd up for 2 people 2 years out of the gate, remember dean??? It all depends on how the country is doing in 08.. The economy is strong now, what the first 2 years will bring with this new congress and senate.. Which could also make it a no contest for the GOP.. Either way it should be a fun ride.. Thanks for the open debate without name calling... a rare thing on this board these days

The same can be said about the GOP's boy wonder guliani and mccain.. guliani is pro gay rights, gun laws, anti abortion. not exactly kosher with the middle of this country... Plus you can't say regardless of the war;that is a major issue for 08 depending on how it is going.. If its status quo as now forget any republican getting in

That depends on how the war goes, if it gets worse republicans have no chance to get into office.. Who's good McCain- ? Guilaini? brownback? I would vote for mcCain but he has been courting the christian conservatives a bit too much.. Guliani has done nothing except run NYC no experience at ferdeal levels.. Brownback is ultra conservative from Kansas.. they are grasping at straws also.. Plus we do have over 2 years until the election.. Lets focus on Iraq and worry about this shit in 07

We really should not be there to police a civil war. Either this administration lets the troops do what they can or pull them out.. No more stabilazing an area then pulling out only to have the insurgents come back and occupy the same territory.. I have been for this war since the beg but this administration has lost me.. 1st is was WMD's, then lets get sadam and his sons, then its when they vote, then its stay the course.. now who knows what the catch phrase of the day is.. Why are we the only country in this so called alliance adding more troops and other countries are pulling out? We underestimated the cost, ground war and many other things this administration has done.. I just dont understand after so many f up's the military are still behind bush.. Well at least only active ones.. how do you ask a solider to be the last one killed in Iraq?

your just noticing paula abdul is f'd up? do a search of her on you tube and u see her all f'd up

gr8 time so worth the wait which even was not that bad.. music was banging and the crowd was so cool and friendly.. Got in around 8 and stayed until 230.. def more into the body music than the soul towards the end... everybody there you would talk to would ask if you went to the old party at vinyl

Its not like today where there is the internet and news spreads very fast.. Back then it was word of mouth.. Plus you never saw the typical guido showing up for parties.. i have read on this board of bouncers asking straight guys to kiss other guys to prove they were gay to get in.. And guys did it.. mostly if you went with gay guys you would get in, not too many straights knew or showed up to those parties..

the only thing that worries me is the battery life.. ipods are notorious for losing charge the longer you have it.. all those things in one you will have to carry around a charger with it.. Also apples customer service is the worst

Then please explain the last 6 years with our current republican govt

Do you really think the NYPD has a task force out to try and get people to interview to find out the real deal about clubs?

check your mail

Do you have a link for this?

stop dating dime bag strippers

b/c when a techo club closes its due to underage drinking or finding drug use.. When something goes wrong at a hip hop club it usually involves gun fire.. If a club is attracting that type of person it should be closed down

I don't think that was his point... You should be held accountable for your actions.. I'm pretty sure you grew up here in NYC and you know when and where you should be late at night in this city.. She was underage, wasted and walking along 12th ave late night.. Which is not the safest thing in the world to do..Now did she deseve this no, but just like 10-15 years ago if you heard someone was killed for doing the same thing, peoples first reaction would be what in the world was she doing in that neighborhood by herself.. If this girl was say at a friends house getting f' up and the same shit happend people would not be blaming the club they would blame her.. The politicans do not want any bad press of crime in the papers, and anyway they can divert it to blame it on something else they will.. This is an example of it..

This is all b/c of that dumbass girl who was underage and drunk and got into a cab with some thug on 12 ave... Who later was raped and murdered in some seedy hotel in jersey.. That is NYC nightlifes fault and the politicans are going full on to basically destroy anything fun left in this city

its el nino

I got there around 11am to find a line to get in and at coat check.. Line moved quickly and was inside by 1130 or so.. place was packed but everyone was in a friendly mood.. No drama no problems.. Hung out mostly upstairs w straight friends, but came down to visit gay ones on dance floor.. music was great so was staff.. i left by 6 was so tired.. only thing i dont like about crobar is lack of seats... he played until about 10 or so... a great way to spend new years day

Try the year 1996.. Now forget it unless you have a great ID, but the way they are busting on clubs and bars it better be good

I know he is playing the 30th y not NYE?

dam i need to join myspace