Irish Quiz Bomb Week Starts Tonight

Ireland_flagIrish Quiz Bomb starts tonight. All questions this week about Ireland, though as I said before, that covers a lot of territory. In addition to the Bounty Bowl at O’Neals tonight, there will be a dollar off Guinness at the Bards and plenty of Guinness giveaways. The Bards has been kinda quiet on Tuesdays lately, so you should have a good shot at a table. And be sure to get your Quizzo Bowl tix tonight. If you wait until the day of, the price goes up $5. Hope to see ya tonight!

29 thoughts on “Irish Quiz Bomb Week Starts Tonight

    1. Well, you got your debate, BMT, you damn troublemaker. I hope you and Dmitri and Sergei and all those other steppe-stepping, Slavic, borscht, beet and turnip suckers are satisfied. Go mailine some vodka, you little terrorist.

  1. Must be a slow news day.

    PalestraJon isn't interested in debating me anymore. I just bring up his many repeated pronouncements about how the Iraqi war was totally lost and about how the surge was doomed to complete failure and would simply make the situation worse, and, well, he doesn't really have much to say to that. It's hard to maintain any sort of creditability when one has shown himself to be so completely utterly absolutely 100% totally wrong.

    As for your Texas textbooks, if you think I'm going to come out in favor of creationism or some sort of fundamentalist crap or some mindless doctrinaire approach to U.S. history, well I'm sorry to disappoint you guys but that isn't my way of thinking. I could care less what Texas puts in its schoolbooks.

    1. bob, the reason I refuse to debate with you is that you don't debate. You merely echo talking points. Look, if you want an admission from me, here it is….it appears that there finally may be an exit from Iraq, one that leaves in place a weak and unstable government which is not likely to be friendly to the United States in the future. If the so-called “surge” (which really was a change in strategy to engage the former Saddamites) was responsible, congratulations. As for the war itself, I won't say anything but refer you to this link—after all, you do like Neil Young, don't you?

      1. First, you repeat your usual line that I simply parrot other people's opinions with no independent thought processes of my own. Then, you refer me to a link which is supposed to impart some sort of magisterial wisdom about the Iraqi war, and includes an article about a pop singer, of all things, and his political opinions. This reference to the supposed authority of others is done with no apparent sense on your part of the irony involved in accusing me of parroting others and then immediately and forthwith proceeding to do the same thing yourself. Absurd.

        1. The only irony was how prescient I was to predict your response. That website does indeed have some commentary and damn good music, but mostly it is FACT, from 3rd party sources….such as the over 4000 U.S. killed, the over 30,000 U.S. wounded, over 52% of which have “Traumatic Brain Injury”, with suicides at a record high well over double the national rate, over $750 billion spent and while it may not be important to you, over 1 million Iraqis killed.

          Now while your rhetoric on the success of the “surge” may make you feel exonerated in some strange way, these facts are the fruits of this war, which has not made us any safer in any way. The likelihood in the long run is a government unfriendly to the United States and very likely, the rise of another strongman. Meanwhile, we have eliminated the main enemy of a seriously unfriendly country in Iran.

          So take Neil Young's thoughts for whatever they are worth, they simply give you something to read the fact by. Then try and develop your own thoughts.

          1. I really don't need any lectures from you, or Neil Young for that matter, on the horrors and costs of this war, or any other war. What you are overlooking in your little screed– which as I point out, perfectly illustrates how you are parroting other people's ideas, and, Hell, you even give us a handy reference for the source of the ideas you are parroting– is that the “costs” of doing nothing about Iraq and allowing the continued rule of Hussein could well been much much higher. He was an avowed enemy of the U.S., as well as constant source and sponsor for terror against the U.S. and its allies. Despite the costs of the war, the world is a better and safer place without Hussein. I also doubt that you would get any argument on that score from the vast majority of the Iraqis themselves. And I might also point out that a high percentage of the Iraqis who have been killed were killed by al Qaida and its allies. Perhaps you should lay the responsibility for their deaths where it rightfully belongs, at the feet of a muderous ideology and not the U.S. military.

            I would also make the additional point here that In all my many posts about the Iraq war over the course of several years , I always stated that I had not been at all sure about the overall wsdom of invading Iraq in the first place, and that I felt so at the time of the invasion. But, and it is a very large and important but, I argued that having made the initial commitment the U.S. could under no circumstances abandon Iraq and leave a failed state at the heart of the Middle East. In this view, I differed completely from your opinion, as well as, I might add, the opinions of the current president and vice-president of the U.S. You and they were vociferous in your opinions that the war was completely lost and that the U.S. should pull out as soon as possible, never mind the fallout from that decision. History has so far proven my opinion to have been the wiser one. Joe Biden recently declared that the successful outcome in Iraq would prove to be one of the great successes of the Obama presidency. Given his and Obama's history of a complete lack of any sort of support for the war– except, of course, in the case of Biden, of having initially voted for it– this statement is, as the Brits would say, a bit thick. But, on the other hand, what better indication of the successful outcome of the surge than the fact that the Democrats are now claiming credit for its success?

            Do I really think you are merely parroting other people's ideas? No, I don't. I think that your ideas represent a synthesis of information and opinion from a variety of sources. My opinions are the result of the same sort of analysis. It is a shame, however, that you cannot bring yourself to pay me the same sort of respect about my opinions, but must constantly make your asinine as well as intellectually lazy and unsupported charge that I parrot the opinions and talking points of other people.

          2. I'll be quick about it. If you had trumpeted the surge for what it actually was, a change in strategy to work the various ethnicities and political groupings to our advantage, I would give you full credit for advocating a successful (given where we were at the time) strategy. But that's not what you said….you were in favor of a concentrated display of American power involving more pitched battles over a short period of time (thus a “surge” rather than a strategic buildup) which defeated “the enemy.” Instead, by having more troops to protect Sunni tribal elders, we allowed them to play more of a role which placated them. I was in opposition to more “war” as it was getting us nowhere. It really doesn't matter if I called our position a defeat or as you put it, it may have been a mistake to go in initially. The fact is that the “Shock and Awe” and “Mission Accomplished” plan which envisioned a short war with relatively few troops was a huge mistake and to the extent that strategy was utilized, we were indeed defeated. The situation required a political solution and we eventually moved in that direction.

            So if your fervent support of the surge was really in support of a change from an attack to a diplomatic strategy, then I congratulate you. It improved a terrible situation, from which we can now withdraw and declare victory. Why don't we leave it to future historians whether it was in fact a victory.

          3. I don't dispute that the Bush administration persisted for far too long with a failed strategy. That was certainly one of their major failures. Your analysis that the “surge” was more a diplomatic than a military success strikes me as a quibble and a “distinction without a difference.” The Sunni Awakening would have been impossible without the improved security that resulted from the increase in military strength on the ground. This is a chicken or egg type of argument.

            My point all along was that it is better to win a war than to lose it, despite any mistakes made along the way and even if the inception of the war was in balance a mistake. That may sound simplistic, but it is nevertheless true.

          4. Is true. Winning always better than losing. Dmitri wins hearts and minds of sluts everywhere like me. Avoid his protocols at own risk and risk of not curing your own cowardly blueballs.

          5. Is rumor that Dmitri has ticket for Quizzo Bowl and will be trolling for sluts with large breasts to bewitch with magic of secret protocols. Is good idea to leave girlfriend and sister at home.

  2. Textbook nyet. Dmitri created all creation when his blueballs exploded all over hapless sluts. Secrets to laying lonely Toronto women belong to Dmitri. Ending blueballs is everything.

  3. My main beef is with “demoting” Jefferson. Not crazy about the minimalizing of Ross Perot's candidacy either. Yeah, he was a nutcase, but it is important to learn that it is possible for a third party candidate be viable in our country (provided of course, that he has billions of dollars.)

    1. I haven't really been following the debate, but I would agree that “demoting” Jefferson would be a bad move if that's what's going on. He was pretty influential in American as well as world history, and if he spent too much time hanging out in the slave quarters, well that's not real cool and should be discussed along with his (and America's) slaveholding in general, but those matters don't really change his influence and importance.

      1. Silly American blueball man. Dmitri owns many slaves. They are the women of Toronto. You can come there to end blueballs if you subscribe to his methods of enslaving female sluts.

        1. Is not at all same thing. Dmitri has many many sluts who willingly throw themselves at his smelly feet because of his secret protocols. Is probable that low self-esteem of sluts may also contribute.

          1. Is same thing. Sluts from Winnipeg all over Toronto now with low self esteem. They contribute to the draining of Dmitri's nodes. Enslavement not easy. Blueballs gone.

  4. You mock the great Dmitri, you silly callow American eunuch man with tiny tiny very very blue balls. I study at Dmitri's smelly feet and never lack for sluts with large breasts.

  5. Dmitri has been filling the women of Toronto with creation for some time. You can't find large breasts in textbooks but you can find Dmitri's smell on sluts all over Toronto and Oakville.

  6. Dmitri once stuck the pages of a Toronto phone book together with the produce of his loins. Let's see Ross Perot try that with his millions of blue balls.

  7. Is true. Study and learn Dmitri's secret protocols and no more blue balls!

    I know nothing about this Mr. Perot but suspect he had tiny tiny blue balls much like Mr. BMT.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.