I still have tears in my eyes and sore sides (big profanity warning): click
64 Replies to “Brutally Funny”
Bolik: Wait for the big turnaround in Iraq once a Democrat is in power , the entire perspective is going to change, suddenly things will start to work over there.
The one benifet will be not having to listen to people such as yourself, and the left in general spewing your pessimism anymore.
The logic behind your ‘if they lied about WMD they would have planted them to justify the invasion after the fact’ doesn’t hold up.
If I have good reason to think your cat is in a tree but don’t really know, yet state it as a fact in order to launch a momentous event, that isn’t ‘bad intelligence’. That’s the purposeful stating of a falsehood in order to bring about a desired effect. It’s a lie.
How ridiculous. Imagine reducing the situation in 2001 to a cat in a tree. For God’s sake.
Are you seriously suggesting that by his behaviour, Saddam Hussein hadn’t spent many years convincing the world — perhaps having been convinced himself — that he possessed these weapons, or at least was well on his way to developing them? Why did he not allow the UN unfettered access to suspected sites? It’s easy to forget now — and God knows the anti-war left tries to forget it — but all he ever had to do was say, “Okay, you win, come in and look for yourself.” Remember that?
They lied when they magnified the threat of Iraq -speaking of nuclear bombs detonated in America. Cheney said he knew with certainty that Iraq had WMD. Lies.
I’m certainly not a naive fool. I’m well aware that politicians lie in order to advance their interests. If you have any proof other than that your own say-so, which doesn’t seem to me to be based on anything but irrational hatred, I’m open to it.
Further, Paul Wolfowitz one of the architects of the war, has stated WMD was simply pushed forth as a reason “everyone could understand” for the war. That’s one of the involved parties stating straight out it was a bogus reason for the war.
I’d love a link to that quote. I’ll wager you’ve selected a few words out of many and irresponsibly reinterpreted them.
I’d be happy to present you with a long list of quotes — attributed, sourced ones — of the Democratic leadership speaking about their own certainty that Saddam possessed these weapons. Before W was sworn in. Were they lying too? Why? No. They were just badly misinformed.
Your misapprehension about the idea of ‘planting’ the WMDs is typical: people seem to think of the Bush government as either corrupt and sinister, or disastrously incompetent, as though it’s an either/or question – they’re evil or they’re stupid.
You’re not refuting my reasoning, you’re just repeating that you hate all of them.
And anyway, once again, you need to be reminded that Saddam could have avoided the war by submitting to the UN and allowing inspectors unfettered access to suspected weapons development and research sites. That’s all.
The fact is that they’re both. Men like Rumsfeld and Cheney have been proven wrong on everything, have destroyed all they’ve touched, burn with contempt for the people’s will, yet still stride on, arrogant and proud.
This is just you telling me, again, about how much you hate them. I realize that you’re consumed with hatred and while that’s your prerogative, I don’t really care.
In the end, do they really care whether WMDs were found? They got their war. Why should they worry about planting WMDs?
Why would they have used it as a pretext, then, in the first place? If they simply don’t care, why use a pretext at all? And, having gone to the trouble to manufacture all this, why wouldn’t they take the simple step of planting whatever they needed to find? That would have been the simplest component of the entire conspiracy. Remember, repeating that you hate them isn’t really an argument.
In the end, Bush will scoot out the door and go back to his life of privelege – kick back at his dad’s mansion and not give a thought to the horror he’s handed over. Who can blame him? That’s the life he was born to.
And that’s the reason, I’ll wager, that you hate him so much.
The real mystery is people like you who do watusis around the truth to carry water for him, when just about everybody else has moved on. You bring out your hackneyed phrase about ‘Bush Derangement Syndrome’, which doesn’t even make sense now that the vast majority don’t like him, and it’s just sad and embarassing. Really, are you engaging in some sort of intellectual exercise to develop your skill at trying to defend the indefensible?
You brought it up, remember? I didn’t mention anything about BDS, although, since you did, you seem to have a pretty serious case.
I hope that’s the case, because, Darren, and all the rest of you, the alternative is too awful to contemplate. That would mean that you have an unthinking devotion to authority, a need to excuse and justify anything – anything – Bush and crew does. Such a position is antithetical to democracy.
All you’ve presented, as far as I can tell, is “Bush is a liar, Cheney is a liar, I hate them, anybody who doesn’t hate them is unthinking,” blah blah blah. I think you’re the one who has a bit of difficulty forming independent thoughts. Not one example, save for the poor kitten in the tree — which doesn’t exactly cause me to think that you have a serious grasp of international affairs.
I’m entirely open to the possibility that lies were told, and if it turns out that 9/11 was an inside job, and the administration knowingly misinformed the world about the situation in Iraq, then they should indeed hang. Certainly they exploited the situation. But that’s a long way from manufacturing it, and nothing I’ve seen so far proves to me that they did that.
OK. I concede that comparisons between Bush’s imperial agenda and Hitler’s were no better, but by what bizarre contortions of reason and history do Hillary Clinton and Adolf Hitler become associated?
I confess I don’t much understand rightard humour, but I’m willing to learn. First, if anything, I would think your immediate reaction would have been to defend the wounded honour of Hitler. I mean isn’t comparing a democrat, a woman no less, to Hitler, sheer defilement of his reputation?
So I’m left wondering what’s the connection? And what’s so funny? Perhaps it was millions massacred in the name of ethnic nationalism? Perhaps it was the Third Reich’s gross and distorted misappropriation of leftist politics (just barely more distorted than Stalin’s)?
Perhaps you folks just get off on this fascist stuff and will use any excuse to revel in it, even if disguised as satire. I mean if you wanted to make fun of progressives’ penchant for organics, birkenstocks, tofu, camp fires, non-violent resistance, communitarianism… perhaps use Jesus. If the point is to highlight a politician’s contempt for his/her supporters, I don’t think such contempt to be exclusive to Hitler and Clinton. It seems to me sadly endemic to politics itself. In which case we’re back to why Hitler as the source of comparison? Surely, there’s no shortage of fictional scenes where leaders blow their stack.
Again, perhaps you rightards just get off on it. If you want to have a circle jerk around Hitler, knock yourselves out. After all, in the liberal democracy that you all hate so much, you’re free to do so. Just don’t come home drunk afterwards and beat your spouses, or swarm some faggots on the way home, or drive your pick up truck into oncoming traffic and you’re good to go.
jethro:
“Um, Gerry Hawke, who exactly put the toothpicks in your eyes and is holding you by the scruff of the neck forcing you to read this blog?”
I’ll admit my weakness jethro. It’s difficult to look away from this train wreck. Perhaps a better metaphor would be watching a convention of Village Idiots where harmonious stupidity spontaneously combusts throughout the banquet hall.
Perhaps you could be the keynote speaker?
Hey you guys, this insulting stuff is kind of fun. Perhaps you’re on to something.
Bill Stewart:
Maybe it is because so called champions of the left refer people on the right as Hitlerian in nature and scope.
Given that Angela Merkel represents the Christian Democratic Union I fail to see Chavez’s alleged Hitlerian parallels.
See for example todays news report: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,552797,00.html
BERLIN IGNORES VERBAL ATTACK
Chavez Says Merkel a Political Descendant of Hitler
The German government has shrugged off a verbal attack on Chancellor Angela Merkel by Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez who called her a political descendant of Adolf Hitler and stopped just short of telling her to go to hell. The two leaders might meet at an upcoming summit in Peru.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez made his comments on Sunday during his weekly broadcast “Alo Presidente.”
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has joined a long list of government leaders to receive a verbal savaging from Venezuela’s outspoken President Hugo Chavez, but she appears to be intent on ignoring the abuse.
Chavez, speaking on Sunday in his weekly TV and radio program, said of Merkel: “She is from the German right, the same that supported Hitler, that supported fascism, that’s the Chancellor of Germany today.”
“Ms. Chancellor, you can go to …” said Chavez, before pausing. Then he added: “Because you are a lady, I won’t say any more.”
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP
Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Bolik
Guess how the UN found out about Saddam’s nuke program, because his brother inlaw defected with the information. Did you ever bother to read any of Han’s Blixe’s reports to the UNSC? All of them (except for the very last one, where he tried to avert the invasion) speculated as to what Saddam was hiding, Saddam was playing for time, the sanctions where collapsing and China, Russia and France were chomping on the bit to grab the oil reserves in return for the Billions he owed them. Saddam was caught building offensive missiles as well, if his plans were peaceful, why did he need them? Saddam’s WMD may have been mis-calculated, but he had been given ample time to show the world he had given up, he never did because he needed the threat because he has made so many enemies. His plan like most of his plans backfired on him. The US tried many different strategies to contain him over the years, they didn’t work. The biggest failure the US can be accused of is not finishing the job in 91, that would have saved countless suffering on the part of the people, but in order to “appease” the UN and the world, they stopped and had to watch while Saddam’s henchman murdered civilians begging the US soldiers to help them. But I am sure you are fine with that scenario. Your outrage is paper thin, you care nothing for these people and use their suffering to bolster your own ego.
Boy, a lot of people missed the point of the piece.
Hillary seems to be oblivious to the fact she can no longer win the nomination (as Hitler was oblivious to his imminent demise). Hillary seems to be pulling her party down around her (as Hitler did with his country). Hillary’s staff seem to be humoring her with good news (as did Hitler’s staff).
This video deserves an academy award, at least. It’s hilarious and accurate at the same time. It’s not comparing Hillary with Hitler at all. Just their situations. Come on, who could come up with a line like “the second coming of Jimi Hendrix”? Even Michelle Obama would crack a smile at that one.
dp:
you left out that HRC and her hubby have famously volatile tempers – that they are prone to sessions of maniacal screaming at their minions – no unlike the last moments of hitler in the berlin bunker. (Looks like an excellent film BTW, I would like very much to view it.)
darrell:
The diversionary tactics throughout your post attest to the fact that you don’t have much confidence in your arguments. One wonders why you even bother to make them, considering that much of your energy is spent trying to divert attention to irrelevancies in the hopes no-one will examine your words closely.
Case in point: your faux outrage over my ‘cat in tree’ analogy. I presume you’re intelligent enough to know that the real point there was that presenting supposition as fact in service of creating a desired outcome is a lie. The ‘cat in tree’ analogy was irrelevant in that any analogy could have been chosen to illustrate the same point. You choose to focus on it to divert from the real point.
I don’t know how to paste the link, but if you visit whitehouse.gov and glance at a speech Cheney made to the VFW on August 26, 2002, you’ll find he makes the following statement:
“Simply put, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”
Cheney had no basis on which to make the statement. It was a baldfaced lie made to convince people to go to war.
Soldiers are sworn to sacred duty and leaders are sworn to sacred duty in the momentous decision to send them to war. This, along with all the other lies and insinuations, is an abrogation of that duty.
You say you’re “aware that politicians lie to advance their interests”. This was a lie that’s led to the deaths of over 4000 Americans. Perhaps to you they’re not important because they were volunteer soldiers. It seems to me, though, that a basic morality would disapprove their being sent to their deaths for suppositions presented as facts – lies. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/29/1053801479971.html
Here is the link in which Paul Wolfowitz says that WMD was presented as a rationale for war for ‘bureaucratic’ reasons because it was a rationale ‘everyone could agree on’. Gee, it seems as though they weren’t so concerned about the ‘imminent danger’ Saddam presented – this was just a rationale they settled on as being the most convincing.
Your canard that UN inspectors were denied access is troubling to me in that I’m no sure whether you actually believe it or are retailing it knowingly to falsely bolster your case. UN inspectors were in Iraq from Nov 2002 to March 2003, when the US advised them to get out because they were going to start bombing anyway (before it was announced no weapons existed?). Bush himself has repeated the lie that Saddam wouldn’t let them in several times so maybe that’s where your ‘confusion’ stems from. In any case, UN inspectors have certified that the war wasn’t justified.
Your sad attempt to conflate my description of the failures of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld with some sort of unreasoning ‘hate’ on my part is another example of your diversionary tactics. You have no argument, so you muddy the waters and try to impugn my motives. Hey, I was just presenting facts. If you can point to an unqualified success these guys have accomplished I’d be glad to hear it.
But along with the majority, I only see failure, disaster, and incompetence. That’s why Bush is the most disliked President in the history of the US.
But again, what’s really troubling is your need to excuse and justify everything – everything – Bush does. Even if, as I’ve shown here, you really don’t know what you’re talking about. Such a need, such a blind allegiance to authority, really isn’t reconcilable with democracy. It’s the compulsion which fascist dictators have always depended upon in their populace.
I also quite enjoyed your intimation that the idea of 9-11 being an inside job was a subject of discussion here when it never has been. You try to join that extreme idea with the provable fact that WMDs were lied about. Nice try.
OK OK who is defaming the left? As someone in my past said, the left in Canada is more gauche than sinister.
Truly, as a left-handed person (who is in her right mind) I resent all this malinment directed towards my dexterity of choice. Please, this is not the middle ages, or even the pre-enlightened times of the modern centuries when people of the left were forced to write with their right hands – because the left was the sign of the devil and his work.
Have a good day, eh!
Sorry…it IS spelled malignment. The spell check on this blog said it was wrong….
I thought the analogy of Hitlers act was comparable to Clinton’s act, as far humour could take it. The great thing about now and how 99% of us was raised, is that we could laugh about this stuff now because we don’t have thin skins.
How did this ever relate to GWB and the war in Iraq?.
Uh….Darrell……Darrell……?
(*crickets*)
Guess Darrell’s collision with the reality-based community was a bit too much for him!
Bolik: Wait for the big turnaround in Iraq once a Democrat is in power , the entire perspective is going to change, suddenly things will start to work over there.
The one benifet will be not having to listen to people such as yourself, and the left in general spewing your pessimism anymore.
How ridiculous. Imagine reducing the situation in 2001 to a cat in a tree. For God’s sake.
Are you seriously suggesting that by his behaviour, Saddam Hussein hadn’t spent many years convincing the world — perhaps having been convinced himself — that he possessed these weapons, or at least was well on his way to developing them? Why did he not allow the UN unfettered access to suspected sites? It’s easy to forget now — and God knows the anti-war left tries to forget it — but all he ever had to do was say, “Okay, you win, come in and look for yourself.” Remember that?
I’m certainly not a naive fool. I’m well aware that politicians lie in order to advance their interests. If you have any proof other than that your own say-so, which doesn’t seem to me to be based on anything but irrational hatred, I’m open to it.
I’d love a link to that quote. I’ll wager you’ve selected a few words out of many and irresponsibly reinterpreted them.
I’d be happy to present you with a long list of quotes — attributed, sourced ones — of the Democratic leadership speaking about their own certainty that Saddam possessed these weapons. Before W was sworn in. Were they lying too? Why? No. They were just badly misinformed.
You’re not refuting my reasoning, you’re just repeating that you hate all of them.
And anyway, once again, you need to be reminded that Saddam could have avoided the war by submitting to the UN and allowing inspectors unfettered access to suspected weapons development and research sites. That’s all.
This is just you telling me, again, about how much you hate them. I realize that you’re consumed with hatred and while that’s your prerogative, I don’t really care.
Why would they have used it as a pretext, then, in the first place? If they simply don’t care, why use a pretext at all? And, having gone to the trouble to manufacture all this, why wouldn’t they take the simple step of planting whatever they needed to find? That would have been the simplest component of the entire conspiracy. Remember, repeating that you hate them isn’t really an argument.
And that’s the reason, I’ll wager, that you hate him so much.
You brought it up, remember? I didn’t mention anything about BDS, although, since you did, you seem to have a pretty serious case.
All you’ve presented, as far as I can tell, is “Bush is a liar, Cheney is a liar, I hate them, anybody who doesn’t hate them is unthinking,” blah blah blah. I think you’re the one who has a bit of difficulty forming independent thoughts. Not one example, save for the poor kitten in the tree — which doesn’t exactly cause me to think that you have a serious grasp of international affairs.
I’m entirely open to the possibility that lies were told, and if it turns out that 9/11 was an inside job, and the administration knowingly misinformed the world about the situation in Iraq, then they should indeed hang. Certainly they exploited the situation. But that’s a long way from manufacturing it, and nothing I’ve seen so far proves to me that they did that.
OK. I concede that comparisons between Bush’s imperial agenda and Hitler’s were no better, but by what bizarre contortions of reason and history do Hillary Clinton and Adolf Hitler become associated?
I confess I don’t much understand rightard humour, but I’m willing to learn. First, if anything, I would think your immediate reaction would have been to defend the wounded honour of Hitler. I mean isn’t comparing a democrat, a woman no less, to Hitler, sheer defilement of his reputation?
So I’m left wondering what’s the connection? And what’s so funny? Perhaps it was millions massacred in the name of ethnic nationalism? Perhaps it was the Third Reich’s gross and distorted misappropriation of leftist politics (just barely more distorted than Stalin’s)?
Perhaps you folks just get off on this fascist stuff and will use any excuse to revel in it, even if disguised as satire. I mean if you wanted to make fun of progressives’ penchant for organics, birkenstocks, tofu, camp fires, non-violent resistance, communitarianism… perhaps use Jesus. If the point is to highlight a politician’s contempt for his/her supporters, I don’t think such contempt to be exclusive to Hitler and Clinton. It seems to me sadly endemic to politics itself. In which case we’re back to why Hitler as the source of comparison? Surely, there’s no shortage of fictional scenes where leaders blow their stack.
Again, perhaps you rightards just get off on it. If you want to have a circle jerk around Hitler, knock yourselves out. After all, in the liberal democracy that you all hate so much, you’re free to do so. Just don’t come home drunk afterwards and beat your spouses, or swarm some faggots on the way home, or drive your pick up truck into oncoming traffic and you’re good to go.
jethro:
“Um, Gerry Hawke, who exactly put the toothpicks in your eyes and is holding you by the scruff of the neck forcing you to read this blog?”
I’ll admit my weakness jethro. It’s difficult to look away from this train wreck. Perhaps a better metaphor would be watching a convention of Village Idiots where harmonious stupidity spontaneously combusts throughout the banquet hall.
Perhaps you could be the keynote speaker?
Hey you guys, this insulting stuff is kind of fun. Perhaps you’re on to something.
Bill Stewart:
Maybe it is because so called champions of the left refer people on the right as Hitlerian in nature and scope.
Given that Angela Merkel represents the Christian Democratic Union I fail to see Chavez’s alleged Hitlerian parallels.
See for example todays news report:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,552797,00.html
BERLIN IGNORES VERBAL ATTACK
Chavez Says Merkel a Political Descendant of Hitler
The German government has shrugged off a verbal attack on Chancellor Angela Merkel by Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez who called her a political descendant of Adolf Hitler and stopped just short of telling her to go to hell. The two leaders might meet at an upcoming summit in Peru.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez made his comments on Sunday during his weekly broadcast “Alo Presidente.”
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has joined a long list of government leaders to receive a verbal savaging from Venezuela’s outspoken President Hugo Chavez, but she appears to be intent on ignoring the abuse.
Chavez, speaking on Sunday in his weekly TV and radio program, said of Merkel: “She is from the German right, the same that supported Hitler, that supported fascism, that’s the Chancellor of Germany today.”
“Ms. Chancellor, you can go to …” said Chavez, before pausing. Then he added: “Because you are a lady, I won’t say any more.”
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP
Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Bolik
Guess how the UN found out about Saddam’s nuke program, because his brother inlaw defected with the information. Did you ever bother to read any of Han’s Blixe’s reports to the UNSC? All of them (except for the very last one, where he tried to avert the invasion) speculated as to what Saddam was hiding, Saddam was playing for time, the sanctions where collapsing and China, Russia and France were chomping on the bit to grab the oil reserves in return for the Billions he owed them. Saddam was caught building offensive missiles as well, if his plans were peaceful, why did he need them? Saddam’s WMD may have been mis-calculated, but he had been given ample time to show the world he had given up, he never did because he needed the threat because he has made so many enemies. His plan like most of his plans backfired on him. The US tried many different strategies to contain him over the years, they didn’t work. The biggest failure the US can be accused of is not finishing the job in 91, that would have saved countless suffering on the part of the people, but in order to “appease” the UN and the world, they stopped and had to watch while Saddam’s henchman murdered civilians begging the US soldiers to help them. But I am sure you are fine with that scenario. Your outrage is paper thin, you care nothing for these people and use their suffering to bolster your own ego.
Boy, a lot of people missed the point of the piece.
Hillary seems to be oblivious to the fact she can no longer win the nomination (as Hitler was oblivious to his imminent demise). Hillary seems to be pulling her party down around her (as Hitler did with his country). Hillary’s staff seem to be humoring her with good news (as did Hitler’s staff).
This video deserves an academy award, at least. It’s hilarious and accurate at the same time. It’s not comparing Hillary with Hitler at all. Just their situations. Come on, who could come up with a line like “the second coming of Jimi Hendrix”? Even Michelle Obama would crack a smile at that one.
dp:
you left out that HRC and her hubby have famously volatile tempers – that they are prone to sessions of maniacal screaming at their minions – no unlike the last moments of hitler in the berlin bunker. (Looks like an excellent film BTW, I would like very much to view it.)
darrell:
The diversionary tactics throughout your post attest to the fact that you don’t have much confidence in your arguments. One wonders why you even bother to make them, considering that much of your energy is spent trying to divert attention to irrelevancies in the hopes no-one will examine your words closely.
Case in point: your faux outrage over my ‘cat in tree’ analogy. I presume you’re intelligent enough to know that the real point there was that presenting supposition as fact in service of creating a desired outcome is a lie. The ‘cat in tree’ analogy was irrelevant in that any analogy could have been chosen to illustrate the same point. You choose to focus on it to divert from the real point.
I don’t know how to paste the link, but if you visit whitehouse.gov and glance at a speech Cheney made to the VFW on August 26, 2002, you’ll find he makes the following statement:
“Simply put, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”
Cheney had no basis on which to make the statement. It was a baldfaced lie made to convince people to go to war.
Soldiers are sworn to sacred duty and leaders are sworn to sacred duty in the momentous decision to send them to war. This, along with all the other lies and insinuations, is an abrogation of that duty.
You say you’re “aware that politicians lie to advance their interests”. This was a lie that’s led to the deaths of over 4000 Americans. Perhaps to you they’re not important because they were volunteer soldiers. It seems to me, though, that a basic morality would disapprove their being sent to their deaths for suppositions presented as facts – lies.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/29/1053801479971.html
Here is the link in which Paul Wolfowitz says that WMD was presented as a rationale for war for ‘bureaucratic’ reasons because it was a rationale ‘everyone could agree on’. Gee, it seems as though they weren’t so concerned about the ‘imminent danger’ Saddam presented – this was just a rationale they settled on as being the most convincing.
Your canard that UN inspectors were denied access is troubling to me in that I’m no sure whether you actually believe it or are retailing it knowingly to falsely bolster your case. UN inspectors were in Iraq from Nov 2002 to March 2003, when the US advised them to get out because they were going to start bombing anyway (before it was announced no weapons existed?). Bush himself has repeated the lie that Saddam wouldn’t let them in several times so maybe that’s where your ‘confusion’ stems from. In any case, UN inspectors have certified that the war wasn’t justified.
Your sad attempt to conflate my description of the failures of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld with some sort of unreasoning ‘hate’ on my part is another example of your diversionary tactics. You have no argument, so you muddy the waters and try to impugn my motives. Hey, I was just presenting facts. If you can point to an unqualified success these guys have accomplished I’d be glad to hear it.
But along with the majority, I only see failure, disaster, and incompetence. That’s why Bush is the most disliked President in the history of the US.
But again, what’s really troubling is your need to excuse and justify everything – everything – Bush does. Even if, as I’ve shown here, you really don’t know what you’re talking about. Such a need, such a blind allegiance to authority, really isn’t reconcilable with democracy. It’s the compulsion which fascist dictators have always depended upon in their populace.
I also quite enjoyed your intimation that the idea of 9-11 being an inside job was a subject of discussion here when it never has been. You try to join that extreme idea with the provable fact that WMDs were lied about. Nice try.
OK OK who is defaming the left? As someone in my past said, the left in Canada is more gauche than sinister.
Truly, as a left-handed person (who is in her right mind) I resent all this malinment directed towards my dexterity of choice. Please, this is not the middle ages, or even the pre-enlightened times of the modern centuries when people of the left were forced to write with their right hands – because the left was the sign of the devil and his work.
Have a good day, eh!
Sorry…it IS spelled malignment. The spell check on this blog said it was wrong….
I thought the analogy of Hitlers act was comparable to Clinton’s act, as far humour could take it. The great thing about now and how 99% of us was raised, is that we could laugh about this stuff now because we don’t have thin skins.
How did this ever relate to GWB and the war in Iraq?.
Uh….Darrell……Darrell……?
(*crickets*)
Guess Darrell’s collision with the reality-based community was a bit too much for him!