I hate to use the words "logic" and "sense" in a post about those people, but it makes logical sense that no one would keep doing something that isn't working for them in some sort of fashion. I know that someone is going to pull out some pop-psychology thingamabob pointing out that people do things that are bad for them all the time, to which I will point out that on some level it usually makes them feel better, so they are getting some benefit out of it.
So since Bush & company are determined to keep this war going, it must be working for them. The question I've had for a while now is, what exactly is it that is working? What part of this is good for them?
So far the best working theory I've come up with is based off one from the guys over at Stratfor, for what it's worth. Their idea, in a nutshell, is that while there is no one country left in the world that could take on the US, if enough little countries and /or groups got together they might have a shot. Ergo keeping the Shia and Sunni (or whoever it is over there, I've lost track) fighting each other keeps them, and the countries associated with them, from forming a coalition to come after us.
I don't like it though. It strikes me that if those groups wanted to come together and turn on us they would anyway, that we couldn't keep the bee hive that riled up. Besides, I can't see those groups working together anyway, so odds are we didn't need to rile that bee hive to begin with.
So does anyone else have a theory? Why keep it going? It's got to be succeeding in something, anyone have an idea what?
HS--I'd call that an accurate analysis.
Friedman ignores another way we could end terrorism.
We could get the hell out of that part of the world and stay the hell out. Better yet, we could shut down our hegemonic bases in other countries and come home and mind our own damn business as the Founders intended.
But too many powerful interests in our own country don't want that.
The petroleum industry doesn't want that because they want political control of the petroleum of these countries rather than paying an honest market price for it. They'd prefer that we, the taxpaying citizens of the USA, continue to shoulder the burden in tax money--and blood--as an extra subsidy to the petroleum predators, in addition to the massive amounts of tax breaks and subsidies the PPs already receive.
The "defense" industry doesn't want that because the actual amount of tax money required to defend the USA and ONLY to defend the USA would mean MUCH slimmer pickings for the defense parasites.
The Elephascist Party [aka Evil GOP Bastards] doesn't want that because they need the "War on Terra" as an excuse to continue their conversion of the USA into a dictatorship. I am NOT certain of this, but I would not be surprised if someday we learn that the Busheviks KNEW the 9/11 attacks were coming and decided to let them happen for the nefarious purposes of themselves and their partners in crime.
The Israel-First lobby doesn't want the USA withdrawing its "moral" and financial support for Israeli expansionism.
The Corporate Holodeck Media gets horse-choking wads of money from these interests to peddle their propaganda.
Alas, so far this War Lobby has proven stronger than the will of the majority of the citizens of the USA.
When that is true, can we still call this country a democracy?
I think someone, someday, should do a video with a loop of Tommy Boy screeching "Suck on this!", intercut with some of the results of our "kicking in the doors" in Iraq. It would make for a vivid indictment of the madness and corruption of the punditarchy.
Ah yes...the billionaire who writes his best-selling musings on how best to send American manufacturing jobs to places where trade unionists are re-educated through death. He is certainly a credible analyst on this.
His analysis is as follows:
1) Blowing people and shit up on the street with a bomb strapped to you or in your car, or using an airplane isn't OK.
-My take: Yeah, I'm with him on this one. I don't want to get blown up by religious crazies either. Sounds good.
2) Bomb the shit out of a country and harass people that had nothing to do with number 1. Put a 19 year old grunt in front of an old Iraqi woman with his M16 in her face saying "Suck on this!"
-My take: Friedman is the biggest fucking moron in the universe. The racist prick just wants to go take out a country cause some of them share the same ethnicity as the 9/11 hijackers. Hey fuckwad, how about you put your money where your mouth is and forego your wealth and try and get a commission. You're an old fuck but I hear that the military is being lenient these days.
Saddam Hussein was a lot of things but one thing he was not was a supporter of al Qaeda. Bush's adopted oil family, the Saudis? Not so much.
Hubris, you know what really made them shit their pants on 9/11? The US government/media/corporate power to shape world events, tell everyone else what was going to happen and when it is going to happen was challenged if not destroyed. Bush and company were either hopping around the country or secluded deep underground trying to figure out what the hell was going on. Even though for many of us 9/11 wasn't a surprise, but rather a deeply terrible and troubling expectation, to the corpormediagoverners it made them shit and call for the blood of billions to get their power to set the agenda back.
Everything that has been done since then is furthering this fetishism of power and control. 9/11 was like the city of Rome getting sacked by invaders after 1,000 years of seeming invincibility. Dropping gigantic daisy cutters and MOABs on a pre-industrial society in Afghanistan doesn't make you feel like a big man again. But making a coordinated strike and having the newsmedia treat it like a fireworks display on someone who stopped following your orders long ago... well you are the big dog again in your mind. Except that Iraq was never as tough as you made him out to be and even though you're walking down the street with your dick swinging freely, it turns out Iraq had some relatives that ain't so happy at what you did.
If you look at the relatively small expanse of American history there is a definite theme that develops as you examine the good and bad that exists here. Tom Friedman is one of the bad guys. The land grabbers. The robber barons. The guys whose single question is "Why won't you just submit?"
These are the ones that don't see their application of violence as immoral and therefore any adverse reaction to that violence is in fact one of the greatest evils that ever befouled the Earth. In their estimation the truncheon and the whip serve the same purpose as words and ideas. "If they cannot understand that they are incorrect, then we will demonstrate our correctness in other ways."
These are the people that were surprised when their slaves deserted them the first chance they could during the Civil War. "But I provided them with so much! Why I built them their houses and gave them a safe place to live." Needless to say the sawing, the nailing, the roofing and all the other backbreaking work was done by the slaves, not only on their own house, but on the master's. But I digress...
To these people only one reply is necessary when the inevitable accusation of "you want us to lose in Iraq" comes bumbling out of their mouths like a verbal cinderblock upside the head. And that simply is: "We conquered Iraq, we already lost".
They won't know what the hell you are talking about at the time, but if they have any kind of intelligence located deep in that peabrain of theirs they might someday figure out what you are saying.
Their idea, in a nutshell, is that while there is no one country left in the world that could take on the US, if enough little countries and /or groups got together they might have a shot.
That sort of thing pretty much sums up why I don't spend much time over at Stratfor.
Coalition wars are particularly ugly to manage. We did decently with the Gulf War because it was pretty much a US show from Day 1.
I could present our ongoing fiasco in the Sand Trap as an example of a failed coalition war, but that would be a little too much like killing fish in a barrel with dynamite.
The Western European Theater of WW II is good example. The Eastern Front wasn't really a coalition war, it was Soviet Union vs Germany. But the Western Front had the US and the UK as major players, with minor but important roles played by Canada, members of the soon-to-be-defunct British Empire, and refugee troops from occupied countries like Poland and France.
The big BIG problem with a coalition war is that there is NO logical choice for civilian supreme commander. State sovereignty kills this off pretty quickly; it never gets to the table. And that particular job just HAS to be done.
What we ended up doing in the ETO was making Eisenhower the equivalent of a civilian supreme commander. I have seen him criticized as a "political general", but that was his job.
This kinda sorta worked. But we also got lucky: we didn't face the Wehrmacht on the continent until it was already nearly bled to death.
And the only reason we even tried to do things this way was that we really didn't have any choice. Hitler's regime had to be expunged. Even if we had to do our surgery with a Rube Goldberg monstrosity for an organization.
The idea of a whole bunch of smaller countries successfully taking on the US ignores this question, and it would be an overriding one. It also ignores the question of motive, which this organizational problem clearly begs. Even the suggestion, let alone the successful assembly, of such a coalition would require an existential motive, to transcend the enormous practical difficulty.
I leave the nature of such an existential motive to your imaginations.
But the original question was
It's got to be succeeding in something, anyone have an idea what?
The only thing I can see "succeeding" in this war is the funneling of truly vast sums of money into the hands of an incredible rogue's galley of hustlers, con-men, looters, thugs, torturers, killers for hire, and other assorted psychopathic gallows-bait.
In effect, this is a war aqainst two targets. The overt target is Iraq. The covert target is America.
The war against the overt target is a transparent failure.
The war against the covert target has been a roaring success right from Day 1 until today.
Of course, most of the people who would logically oppose this covert war are in fact quislings. This has something to do with its success.
to think i used to like Thomas Friedman --- now i think he is a complete asshole - complete. i cannot even listen to him
bubble -- there is a bubble over his head
No real surprise here.
Friedman is a columnist for the NYT. He owes fealty to those who pay him.
And we're closer to feudalism these days than we are to a nation-state. Hence, fealty usually trumps patriotism. While wrapping itself disingenuously in a flag.
Friedman's a fucking wanker. That's enough.
The recent GAO report that basically stated that we have no plan to go after al Qaeda and bin Laden reveals one thing - we have surrendered in the War on Terror. Homeland Security has nothing in place to prevent another attack, the terrorist watch lists are bloated so badly that it defeats the monitoring process.
As to 9/11, I think that it was a massive blow to the nation's (nation as the entire population; I'm generalizing like nobody's business here) collective psyche. Many of us are still traumatized by the event and are willing to seize upon any scapegoat.
But using military force against what is essentially a social problem isn't working.
Two points:
1. To the commenter who called Friedman a "billionaire." I don't think so. A millionaire, certainly.
2. Have we ever seen a screed like the one in Hubris's original message talking about Christians after the OKC bombing?
Can we start referring to DHS as Abteilung der Heimat-Sicherheit.....
As for the reaction to 9/11; a combination of national psychological trauma constantly emphasized by a national security state itself traumatized by the real loss of control on that day in September. The system which provides for and enriches the few was found definitely wanting. Hence, kill somebody, anybody........ along the lines of the Moustachioed One's ravings.
Bolox, I prefer Heimatsicherheitsamt.
How about "Organs of State Security"?
"1. To the commenter who called Friedman a "billionaire." I don't think so. A millionaire, certainly."
He's married to a real estate heiress whose family's assets are in the billions. Technically it's not his money, but he lives like a billionaire on a huge estate, and his military-aged daughters are most assuredly not in Iraq.
When his butler serves him breakfast in bed, Friedman knows which side of his toast has been buttered. Unlike the low-info wingnut who wrote the letter, Friedman didn't shit his pants on 9/11. He saw it as an opportunity. Smooth-talking Harold Hills.can dine out on audiences like that for decades.
I'm not going to dignify the 'Stache's smug and empty screed with a rebuttal, since HS has already done that. But I'm glad to see Stormcrow explaining so clearly the true goals of the so-called War on Terror, and this "thoughtful" columnist's role in the Cheney administration's propaganda machine.
Bolox, I prefer Heimatsicherheitsamt.
Wanderer,
Works for me. Mine was just a quick Babelfish attempt. The whole Homeland crap is just creepy........ so it might as well be nazified.
a grunt's eye view of the last quagmire
not a lot of philosophy or political science. just an old soldier who realized that vietnam was decades of senseless and stupid carnage.
So many excellent comments for a Sunday morn'!
No doubt, OI(L)F was primarily about US domestic politics - namely, gaining and cementing the GOP majority as a permanent majority in 2002 (deepened in 2004). Why it continues today? Well, without the war, the profiteers could not get their share of the public's money. Money that COULD be used to help lift the lowest from their stations and for the public good.
Oh well. Mnay of the lowest love "teh war". Armchair Rambos most of them. I'm afraid their thinking about "teh war" and war in general will only change when it arraives on their doorstep in all its bloody glory.
When will it end? When our Chinese and Arab bankers start to get tired of our schtick. And they have sufficiently bled our economy dry enough to achieve the neutering they need to make America(TM) a more compliant team playa in the world's affairs. Instead of a stupid frat-boy bully.
Hopefully, it will be soon. The troops need it.
SP
Obama til Denver -
The spouse's assets only count if you are a Democratic candidate. If you are a columnist or McCain, they don't. HTH. :D
Bollox, the instant I heard the freakin' NAME back in 01 or so I felt a chill go up my back.
"The spouse's assets only count if you are a Democratic candidate. If you are a columnist or McCain, they don't. HTH. :D"
Excellent point, Cynicor. If you were less honest about making such distinctions (what, no wealthy spouse?), you might even be allowed to moderate a debate on ABC News. 
"Bollox, the instant I heard the freakin' NAME back in 01 or so I felt a chill go up my back."
You weren't the only one, Wanderer. The shamelessness is what really got to me. I mark it as the point where they finally stopped pretending to placate people who studied history.
"How come they care less about ... Iraq or Iran than they do about Pakistan?"
Which of these countries has nuclear weapons? Only one that we know of.
Did you notice that North Korea magically became LESS important as a component of "The Axis Of Evil" as soon as it got the Bomb? Odd, that - considering the US looked like it was willing to attack Kim to stop him from getting just such a capability. Now it's totally off the news-radar, 100%.
Must be Bush's dyslexia again.
The official version of 9/11 is roughly on a statistical parallel with someone with a crossbow hitting 20 consecutive bullseyes in a windstorm, blindfolded, at 200 yards. Bush actively neutralized FBI action that would've likely stopped 9/11 from happening, by making their domestic anti-terrorism investigations illegal - that's in the public record. As is the firing of Sibel Edmonds when she tried to reveal (successful) executive FBI action to squelch both anti-terrorism & anti-black-market-nuke activities within its own ranks in 2002-3(the man who fired her was promptly PROMOTED to head the FBI's Near/Middle East Division). So too is the FBI's own role in the 1993 WTC bombing, despite intense effort to kill that story. The delay of serious investigation into 9/11 for more than 400 days is itself a crime, as is the literal mountain of destroyed evidence.
From "My Pet Goat" to Tora Bora & beyond, the guilt is blatant & manifest. Until at least the early 1990s, W & Osama were fucking BUSINESS PARTNERS - can it possibly get more in-your-face than that? 9/11 an inside job? Why bother, if you have outside friends who'll do it for you? Yet pointing out the obvious is now considered both treasonous & paranoiac activity. The hallmark of a successful coup d'etat.
For people said to be screamingly incompetant, they sure are good at getting away with murder while raking in millions if not billions per annum.
Please note that NONE of their would-be successors has as yet expressed any intention to bring any of them to a court of law to answer for any of this, ever.
"Olly olly oxen free, suckers."
Lockheed - Grumman - GM - SAIC - Halliburton - Carlysle Group. THESE are the reasons they're still in it.
Not a Billionaire?
From Wikipedia:
"Friedman's wife, Ann, is a graduate of Stanford University. Her father, Matthew Bucksbaum, is the chairman of the board of General Growth Properties, the real estate development group that he co-founded with his brother in 1954. The Bucksbaums helped pioneer the development of shopping centers in the United States. As of 2007, Forbes estimated the Bucksbaum family's assets at $4.1 billion, including about 18.6 million square meters of mall space. Ann and Thomas Friedman live in Bethesda, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, D.C. The July 2006 issue of Washingtonian reported that they own "a palatial 11,400-square-foot house, currently valued at $9.3 million, on a 7½-acre parcel just blocks from I-495 and Bethesda Country Club."
Maybe I could believe the official story of 9/11 if the hijackers HAD been Iraqi, or Iranian, or from one of the other advanced Muslim countries.
But--most of them were Saudis. Wahhabis. The Wahhabis are basically the Muslim equivalent of our viper-fondling hillbilly fundamentalists. I'm supposed to believe the Muslim equivalents of Jethro and Carl from "Sling Blade" and Larry The Cable Guy pulled off that spectacular stunt ALL BY THEMSELVES, without any help from traitors in our own government?
Sh'yeah, right.
If I'm wrong and they DID manage it all by themselves, then the attack was not another Pearl Harbor, it was another Little Big Horn--a freakish victory by a technologically weaker culture over a technologically stronger culture, due to incompetent leadership on the advanced side.
Maybe Dubya should be called "President Custer".
"When will it end? When our Chinese and Arab bankers start to get tired of our schtick. And they have sufficiently bled our economy dry enough to achieve the neutering they need to make America(TM) a more compliant team playa in the world's affairs. Instead of a stupid frat-boy bully."
Our very own plutocrats are the ones who gutted manufacturing here.
As for the war/occupation, the goal has already been achieved: America has been LOOTED
Interesting discussion here. Looking for precedents in the past, there's a school of thought that says FDR's chief motivation in creating the New Deal was essentially to save the Ruling Class from itself, seeing as the evil fuckers simply could not resist over-reaching themselves. (As little inconveniences like the Great Depression go to show.) Now, I don't know if I buy that theory, but it's pretty undeniable that that was indeed one of the principle results of the New Deal...
These days, there's no one of FDR's caliber who intends to put a halt to destructive bullshit, even for perfectly sound business reasons, even for selfish reasons that'll ultimately benefit scumbags like Mr. Friedman in the long run. The "leaders" running the country intend to let the top 1% grab everything and to hell with the consequences. And as Jim points out, no one on the Democratic side of the ledger has said a fucking thing about correcting any of this, let alone hold those responsible for, oh, breaking the law...
And as Jim points out, no one on the Democratic side of the ledger has said a fucking thing about correcting any of this, let alone hold those responsible for, oh, breaking the law...
I tend to think Obama's heart is in the right place. The thing is, the system is set up so that sleazy scumbags are vastly more likely to end up in the Oval Office, so he has to be very careful what he communicates to the electorate and to the media, both explicitly and implicitly. The recent debate debacle on ABC demonstrates all too well the lengths to which they'll go to smear a potential leader who might actually be good for this people of this country.
Ivory Bill Woodpecker, I don't agree with isolationism being the answer. But a global interaction with the idea that we are all human and dependent on each other would be a start. Lots of good has come of cross cultural interaction.
As someone who lives a broad, I think most Americans are too close minded BECAUSE of isolationism. everyone should spend a year somewhere else if not to learn about the world then to learn about our own country by comparison and contrast.
distributorcap, I agree. I really respected him. And early on he was saying that our dysfunctional relationship with Iran was going to end. That the Iranians were coming around to not hating us and that both governments needed to work together...
then 9/11
turned him into a raving wing-nut lunatic.
sheesh
A huge chunk of the population really did lose its shit because of 9/11, didn't it? If we're going to avoid utterly destroying ourselves as a nation and as a society, then people are going to have to be made to understand that fear isn't the answer. To anything. Ever.
I was a regular on the bulletin board at Michael Moore's website (before Moore was forced to dump it because of right wing trolls' sabotage, thus spoiling the forum for everyone). Another of the regulars at the time was this crusty old Texan named Frank. Nice old thing, bit of a windbag, but he had liberal values, often pontificated at length about tolerance, compassion and the like.
The day after 9/11, he was like a different person. "Kill Them All" was his new motto. It was really quite chilling to watch him change so completely. And very sad.
Gator, I think the rest of the world would be ecstatic if we DID pull in our horns and come home. As for travel, working stiffs like me don't get to travel. Also, nowadays, I would not want to face the hassle of air travel, plus I would fear to leave this country now that Bushevik folly has made us a pariah state.
Hey, Hubris, etc., one of your kids is out speaking your brand of truth to power.
Aren't you proud?
Hey, Hubris, one of your kids is out speaking your brand of truth to power.
Aren't you proud?
*yawn*
serr8d:
The blog to which you linked speaks of "a new phase in a very old war" in its masthead. This, of course, implies in a rather heavy-handed fashion that we're at war with the entire Islamic world, as opposed to being at war with a mere network of religious-nutter terrorists who cling to the fantasy of restoring the medieval Caliphate. It's exactly that sort of thinking that caused us to shift our priority from Afghanistan, where there were still Taliban elements (you know, the ones who gave a base of operation to the crazy freaks who attacked our country on 9/11) that needed to be fought, to Iraq, a country that did not attack us and was in no position to be a threat to anybody.
Now look at the results. Iraq is in chaos and probably will be for a very long time, with dire implications for the whole region as a result. And the Taliban is on the march again in southern Afghanistan, whereas had we focussed our resources on helping to rebuild that war-ravaged country, the people who lived there would probably would have gladly helped us defeat the Taliban. A lot of Afghanis rather disliked living under their iron-fisted rule, after all. But those same people who might have helped us are probably helping the Taliban because our neglect of the situation gave that country back to warlords and chaos (not to mention opium-poppy bumper-crops for the world heroin-markets that these warlords eagerly supply).
My point is, there is something to be said for evaluating dangerous geopolitical situations without being consumed by paranoia and prejudice. I would venture a guess that you realize this on some level because I've noticed for the past year that your ideological ilk are reduced to sophmoric behavior such as the straw-man baiting that characterized your comment.
serr8d, speaking of kids. Did your mother have any that lived?
L&L, serr8d's ilk are reduced to sophomoric behavior because that is where their intellectual and ethical development was arrested.
And I mean high school sophomore, not college sophomore.
Apologies to any actual teens reading this. 
L&L, serr8d's ilk are reduced to sophomoric behavior because that is where their intellectual and ethical development was arrested.
I know. It's interesting that serr8d chose the phrase "truth to power" because I still remember the troll of the same ilk we had of that very name. "TTP" reminded me of those unpopular boys in high school whose favorite thing to do was advertise the fact that they were insecure because their penis was small. You could actually have pitied them were it not for their utter lack of class and decorum.
Is there any sign that Friedman has come to realize what a fool he's been?
Can we start referring to DHS as Abteilung der Heimat-Sicherheit.....
Bolox, I prefer Heimatsicherheitsamt.
Neither, please, they're too hard to pronounce. Stick with DHS.
Almost said with a straight face. Almost
Not one of you can address the video. Prattle on about mastheads and makehate points, but ignore that child.
Address the video! Address the child! Address that hate! Your hate; collectively, that child is as much you as he is your future.
Put up a post and address that child. Because ignoring a thing like that is on you, buddy.
Loveandlight,
"serr8d" (more like dullRd) is a white supremacist, so paranoia and prejudice are built in. There's no point in trying to reason with that kind of hateful loser. Mockery is the only answer, as he brandishes his bargain bin Army surplus knife and then proceeds to give himself a tetanus-laced scrape.
In your earlier comment at 4:12, you made the key point. It's worth repeating, especially for IBW:
"people are going to have to be made to understand that fear isn't the answer. To anything. Ever."
The MSM thrives by spreading empty fear. The Cheney administration has spent 8 years exploiting it. Petty bullies and trolls are driven by fear (mainly of their own inadequacy). But working stiffs or millionaires, liberals don't have to be fearful.
Someone mentioned FDR above. We all know what he said about this kind of fear.
Gator, I guess I should have been more specific. I did not mean we should isolate ourselves culturally or economically, but we damn well need to bring our brothers and sisters in the military home, and not just from the war zones--if not for humanitarian reasons, then because the expense of maintaining a globe-girdling military machine is bankrupting our country. 
OtD, even if I did not fear dying for Corporate Amerikkka's sins if I left its borders [I assume that's why you singled me out], I turn 45 next month and feel twice that. I have a hobbitish distaste for even safe adventures, and I expect I will make only one long journey--on the day my soul leaves its fleshly prison in this beautiful hell called the natural universe, and seeks its true home.
IBW,
I "singled you out" because, like Gator, I thought your earlier post indicated the kind of fearful left-wing isolationism that lies just around the corner from Wingnutville.
I have no problem with personal risk aversion, especially if you're ill or disabled or just plain exhausted; as long as you don't let it devolve into fatalism and hopeless victimhood, because American liberals can't afford that.
Put up a post and address that child. Because ignoring a thing like that is on you, buddy.
Very well. Let me explain to you what a "straw man" is. A "straw man" is a disingenuous and perhaps deliberate misrepresentation of the positions of those with which one disagrees to make those people appear to be something they are not. Maybe I should have explained why that video is a straw man because it really is too easy to just say "straw man", as too many people do on the Internet when some other person says something that they doesn't want to deal with.
I pity the kid in that video because he (and the likely older sibling who put him up to saying those terrible things) obviously has anger-issues that motivate him to wallow in a victim mentality. While we might sympathize with him about whatever conditions and events so alienated and enraged him, we won't condone the resulting attitude of victimhood that makes him do things like call for the assassination of public officials. The same could be said of the inflammatory comments made by that preacher at Obama's church that got so much attention in the media, and that's pretty much what Obama said in his speech addressing the matter.
And that poor lost kid in that video (who reminded me of the little girl at the end of the Rev. Fred Phelps's infamous "God Hates the World" music video) is not typical by any stretch of the imagination of Barack Obama supporters. Obama would probably pray for that kid and urge him to get counseling at his school if he really believes those violent things he said. If somebody came here to the GNB and called for the assassination of George W. Bush or Dick Cheney, they would be roundly criticized at least and possibly even banned from further posting at most. That kind of crap doesn't wash around here.
That's why presenting the kid in that video as a typical Obama-supporter is a straw man, and a rather obvious straw man at that. Presenting him as a typical progressive or Obama supporter is as crappy a misrepresentation as skeptizealot PZ Myers implying that the Phelps cult typifies Christians by posting their awful music video on his blog. That, my dear trolling friend, is on you. Beyond that, I really don't know what else to say to get through to you.
that they doesn't want to deal with.
That they don't want to deal with. Sorry, my proof-reading bad.
"The day after 9/11, he was like a different person. "Kill Them All" was his new motto. It was really quite chilling to watch him change so completely. And very sad."
what's amazing is how many people who lived nowhere near NYC or DC shat their pants on 9/11. I lived in DC, from the roof deck of my condo I saw the smoke pouring out of the Pentagon. And no, I did not feel fear and I did not lose my mind like so many of our fellow citizens.
"serr8d" (more like dullRd) is a white supremacist, so paranoia and prejudice are built in. There's no point in trying to reason with that kind of hateful loser. Mockery is the only answer, as he brandishes his bargain bin Army surplus knife and then proceeds to give himself a tetanus-laced scrape.
Obama til dawn, you've managed to beclown yourself. Such commentary as you've posted is more projection than fact, and even if true (it's not) you would be yourself be sitting exactly opposite on that teeter-totter, providing perfect balance.
I pity the kid in that video because he (and the likely older sibling who put him up to saying those terrible things) obviously has anger-issues that motivate him to wallow in a victim mentality.
Thus, the purpose of this blog, succinctly explained, as a wallow.
I pity you all.
Thus, the purpose of this blog, succinctly explained, as a wallow.
Stormcrow sure wasn't blowing smoke when he said that wingnuts lose all sense of irony along with their brains upon becoming wingnuts, was he?
Commenting by HaloScan
