This is what happens when an angry young man is left to his own devices for far too long. Take a dab of uncertainty, a couple of drops of frustration, fold in some fury and finally add a nip of scarcasm and this is what you get. It still it winds up being nothing more than just grist for the mill, and for that all I can say is "You're welcome..."
Saturday, January 28, 2006
This was Fantastic...
There was a video post here... but it drove me crazy. I have left the comments for posterity.
Marcus you and I disagree on the US in general so it should be no surprise that I think this whole interview was a load of crap and you instead enjoyed it.
It is BULL SHIT for Cindy Shehan or anyone else to tout the honor of the terrorists/”Freedom Fighters” in Iraq. These people rarely even target US military personnel and more often than not kill Iraqi civilians, Iraqi Police (the ones trying to rebuild Iraq into a democracy) and aid workers. I feel bad for Cindy. She lost someone very important to her in a cause that she doesn’t support and that’s tough. I can barely imagine what that would be like. But I don’t think that gives her the right to spout bull shit.
By the way, O’Reilley never proposed to speak for her and the fact that Dave called him on that clearly shows that he wasn’t listening and this was simply a pathetic attack.
O’Reilley made a brilliant point about all the other folks who have lost loved ones and how Cindy’s comments effect them and instead of admitting that O’Reilley had a point Letterman simply shrugs it off as if it’s ok to hurt those people because they aren’t on his side. Talk about callous!!!
Dave next pulls the classic topic jumping move and brings it all back to the ubiquitous "why are we there?" question which in my opinion is now moot point. Yes the reasoning used was a load, yes everyone knows that now, yes more than just the CIA thought they were telling the truth and yes that doesn't make it right. However, in the end that doesn't make kicking Saddam's ass a bad thing. Continually ignoring the fact that Saddam was a murderous pansy is far worse a sin than going into Iraq for the wrong reasons. I guess it’s ok to wish for freedom in the world as long as you don’t actually do anything to bring it about.
In the end Letterman proceeds to attempt to win back over us war supporters by saying the troops “are the best and the brightest of this country” but I, for one, consider it too little too late.
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing about the war and there is nothing wrong with being vocal about it but try and do it with a little class and respect for the others out there who are effected by your words. Both Dave and Cindy should try it next time.
PS – I think Dave IS smart enough to debate point to point with O’Reilley (he’s a comedian after all) and that was the saddest cop-out of the whole clip.
Cindy has the right to object. Bill O’Reilley has tried to demonize her for speaking out about her loss. He has dragged her reputation into the dirt even though she is just trying to make sense of a person tragedy.
What kind of a bully pounces on a grieving mother? (Let's not forget that she was a republican before she lost her son. She initally supported the war.)You should have seen the way he attacked the son of a man who died in the trade towers because he questioned America's own culpability.
O'Reielly's integrity is less that spotless. He touts a neo conservative agenda, and is a liar. A proven bold face liar. He has made openly public bigoted comments about women, Jews, Blacks,and homosexuals. He represents everything that is wrong with America. He is a hate monger. If you want to talk about class, then this piece of trash should dominate the conversation.
Besides, What's wrong with giving him a little taste of his own medicine? Lord knows he deserves it. But it's a bit of a one way street. Neo Cons can kick the shit out of liberals all they want, but when the tables are turned they whine and call it fowl play. What utter rot.
It boils down to whether or not you support the war, and the reasons for the war. Regardless of her comments, It should be questioned. What is the point of this war? Americans have been lied to from the start. Bold face lied to.
There was no yellow cake, no weapons of mass destruction, nothing. This war was supposed to cost 50 billion dollars. Now it looks more like a trillion before America can even think about pulling out. MOre lies...
Cindy Shehan is a hero. She has the courage to question a war that makes no sense. She is loud when everyone on earth wants her to be quiet. I wonder how many mothers agree with her? How many soldier's mothers clutching that letter from the military that says her son / daughter is dead agree?
The more she asks questions, and makes bold statements, the more likely other voices will be heard.
Secondly they are freedom fighters. Their country is occupied. THey are fighting to remove the occupational forces. (This needs to be addressed outside of the box. We assume they aren't for two reasons 1) Because we are told they are not by media outlets, acting as a government mouthpiece, and 2) Because we disagree with their agenda.
It boils down to whether or not you support the war, and the reasons for the war. Regardless of her comments, It should be questioned. What is the point of this war?
I don’t honestly pay a lot of attention to Bill O’Reilley so I won’t argue your opinion of him and from what I have heard of the guy I actually somewhat agree that he’s a bit of a tool.
My disappointment in this clip came from Letterman’s reactions and attacks. I feel as if I just watched a guy that I had respect for completely stoop to a different level. Letterman could have engaged O’Reilly in banter and actually listened to the answers given and still won but instead he let his emotions get to him and ended up sounding like another one of the political asses that sit in Washington. Yes he turned the tables but it was a sad thing to watch.
As I said before I agree that Cindy should question this war if she has an issue with it but doing it in a way that supports terrorist is not acceptable. And they are terrorists!!! People who kidnap, murder, and maim other people from their own country are terrorist, it’s really quite simple. You can’t seriously tell me that you can look at Jill Carrols face and say that the people holding her aren’t terrorists. Those are the same people who set off car bombs on election day and kill their countrymen who are waiting to vote. They are the same people who kill Iraqi police officers on daily basis. They are the same people who videotape them selves brutally cutting of the heads of other victims and not all of them from the US. They don’t care who they hurt as long as they get attention and delay the process of having a fully elected Iraqi government.
Wikipedia - Terrorism The exact definition of terrorism is highly controversial. According to one of the primary working definitions, it is the unconventional use of violence against civilians for political gain. It is a strategy of using coordinated attacks that fall outside the laws of war commonly understood to represent the bounds of conventional warfare (see also unconventional warfare). Merriam-Webster - Terrorist
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Dictionary.com - Terrorist
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
Dictionary.com – Terrorism
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.
By every definition I found these people are terrorist. Maybe it’s just easier to call them freedom fighters because then you don’t have to feel bad for all the innocents being killed. I can understand that. But then you would be as bad as good ole Bill wouldn’t you?
As for supporting the war, I do support it and always will. I don’t support the reasoning used to go into Iraq and I really don’t support the lies. I think we all know a good part of the real reason was oil and the rest of the reasons I’m not sure we’ll ever know. But I will always support anyone with the balls to finally go in and get rid of Saddam. And any way you look at it the point of the war was to get rid of Saddam even if it was for their own purposes.
Saddam could have been taken care of with a cruise missle or a Navy Seal strike.
Too many people have died for oil. How sad is that? Especially since there is a whole bunch of it here.
Supporting the war does little to help the Alberta oil industry. IF America is willing to kill someone thousands of miles away for control of oil when essentially there is a huge stockpile in it's friendly neighbour's yard, then there must be a little more to it...
Saddam could have been taken care of with a missile but his son’s would have still been around and even if they had removed the boys too you still have a whole Baathist party waiting in the wings. With out invasion there was no way to change what was going on in Iraq.
Your point about oil is very interesting to me. Although, with China’s recent foray’s into our oil patch maybe it gives the US good reason to head somewhere else for their oil. This definitely calls for more thought.
If you’re going to fight the core reasons for terrorism in Iraq then you must identify them. It would be easy to say that occupation is the reason in Iraq but I believe this would be inaccurate. The real problem is that the Baathist’s lost power and are pissed about it. On top of that you have a collapse of power in a middle eastern country that any terrorist organization would think looks inviting and therefore people like Al-Qaeda move in.
I don’t know how you can fight these core reasons. You have a large group of people who don’t want democracy to succeed and there’s not really anything you can do to please them except maybe put Saddam back. I think we would both agree that is not a solution.
The problem with China's interest in Alberta's oil is this... There is almost no existing infrastructure to sell it to the chinese. They know it, we know it, and America knows it.
The time required, in addition to America's generally favoured trading status would certainly give them a leg up in the situation. (not to mention the heavy American investment in our industry.
In terms of Baathist regimes... Why didn't America go after Syria? they have Baathists... Ones that are equally as nasty as Iraq's... Ones that are more able to mobilize clandestine attacks against American interests. Especially given that UN inspections, American no fly zones, and sanctions had pretty much tied Saddam's hands anyway... and would have just as easily contained Uday and Quesay.
America didn't want to deal with Saddam's nasty ways... If that had been their motivation, they would have it under Clinton, or the previous Bush admin. (He even had the ability after he liberated Kuwait...)
There are oil pipelines to Vancouver and from there they can ship the oil in tankers. What more infrastructure would the Chinese need? I guess they could build north onto the new NorthWest Pipeline and go through Russia if they really wanted to but I’m not sure that’s a viable solution. I doubt the Chinese would be here without an idea of how they were going to make use of the oil.
I think the reasons for the US choosing Iraq over Syria are simple. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait take up a large portion of Iraq’s borders and both of these countries are US friendly. The US has a staging ground for land based troops next to Iraq but nothing close for Syria.
What ever the reason might be for choosing Iraq, that still doesn’t solve the underlying reasons for terrorism. How do you stop terrorism in Iraq?
PS - I think the biggest mistake ever made in Iraq was not finishing the job in the first Gulf War and instead leaving the Kurds to attempt it with no back up. What a gong-show!!! The Elder Bush should have been held accountable for the thousands of deaths suffered by the Kurds after they were left high and dry.
You stop terrorism in Iraq by not being there in the first place. You stop it by not lying to the Iraqi people. You stop it by admitting your mistakes and by rebuilding their shattered country. You stop it by not making deals with war lords and placing an interim government on your payroll. By not picking leaders that used to work for american oil interests.
You stop terrorism by catching the people responsible for 9/11 and making an example of them. Last time I checked we were being told that Bin laden was the man. Not Saddam.
By your defintions of Terrorism, it could be said that George Washington was a terrorist, or Nelson Mandela. But history tells us they were freedom fighters. I guess it just depends on who wins.
George the senior has a lot to answer for. George jr. has even more to answer for.
as for China, infrastructure also has to be negotiated. China historically can be a very difficult nation to negotiate with. It will be a decade before any Canadian oil would flow that way.
If you’re going to stop terrorism by not being there in the first place then you must also be ok with the regime that was in place and the fact that they continually broke international laws and were all round bad guys. You leave Saddam in power and you watch as he and his boys massacre a couple thousand more humans and when someone asks “Isn’t anyone going to stop him?” You reply with, “Well, maybe, but it won’t be us. Wouldn’t want to get involved in that kind of shit! Hell, can you imagine what would happen if we went in there and tried to start a democracy? All those Baathist fuckers would attack us for years to come.” And then we all sit down with a beer and try and forget that we’re kind of spineless. For me that’s not acceptable. There was no other way to get things changed in Iraq, someone had to go in there.
I agree that lying to anyone is a bad idea. Not only do you undermine yourself but also any good you’ve ever done. Neither the US public the Iraqi public or the world in general should ever be lied to.
The US has admitted they were wrong about their intelligence and they are trying to rebuild the country but it’s kind of hard to hold elections when you have people scared to come vote because they think they’re going to die while waiting in line. It’s hard to rebuild a country when you have terrorists intimidating, threatening and outright murdering the people who are running for office.
If the US doesn’t pay the Interim Government in Iraq then who does? You can’t expect these politicians’ families to go hungry because their wives and husbands are too busy trying to rebuild a country and can’t have a “real job”. Someone has to pay them and with no other fee structure available at the time someone had to step in.
I agree that Bin Laden needs to be caught, everyone agrees with that. And the US is still doing their best to find him. But, let’s say the old bastard dies or is captured, do you really think that terrorism will stop? There are many men waiting in the wings to take over when he’s done. Even more important is the fact that Al-Qaeda has been so effective in building their organization that it doesn’t even need a leader to run. That’s why they have cells and cell leaders so that if one piece gets wiped out the rest of them keep on trucking. Bin Laden might be a great moral victory but he’s not the answer to ending terrorism.
Washington and Mandela and their organizations used terroristic tactics to accomplish their goals. They were terrorists. I could sit here and defend this statement but in the end most people instantly hated me after reading it.
Both George’s have serious issues and I think they should be held accountable. At least the younger one had big enough balls to stay and attempt finish the job instead of pulling a cut and run like his daddy.
I think I lost the first response so let try again...
Yes, Indeed I have noticed that you argue for the sake of it and I do quite enjoy it. I enjoy arguing as well, however, often it's hard to find someone who will banter back. I appreciate it. Thanks!!!
I don't think this Lisa girl has ever heard of a little continent called Africa. In the Sudan babies are tossed in the air and shot at by sub-machine guns. In Zimbabwee, those who oppose "democratically" elected President Mugabe have there houses leveled to the ground. To millions of people who aren't "news worthy" an Iraqi terrorist problem must look like an oasis in the dessert.
16 comments:
Marcus you and I disagree on the US in general so it should be no surprise that I think this whole interview was a load of crap and you instead enjoyed it.
It is BULL SHIT for Cindy Shehan or anyone else to tout the honor of the terrorists/”Freedom Fighters” in Iraq. These people rarely even target US military personnel and more often than not kill Iraqi civilians, Iraqi Police (the ones trying to rebuild Iraq into a democracy) and aid workers. I feel bad for Cindy. She lost someone very important to her in a cause that she doesn’t support and that’s tough. I can barely imagine what that would be like. But I don’t think that gives her the right to spout bull shit.
By the way, O’Reilley never proposed to speak for her and the fact that Dave called him on that clearly shows that he wasn’t listening and this was simply a pathetic attack.
O’Reilley made a brilliant point about all the other folks who have lost loved ones and how Cindy’s comments effect them and instead of admitting that O’Reilley had a point Letterman simply shrugs it off as if it’s ok to hurt those people because they aren’t on his side. Talk about callous!!!
Dave next pulls the classic topic jumping move and brings it all back to the ubiquitous "why are we there?" question which in my opinion is now moot point. Yes the reasoning used was a load, yes everyone knows that now, yes more than just the CIA thought they were telling the truth and yes that doesn't make it right. However, in the end that doesn't make kicking Saddam's ass a bad thing. Continually ignoring the fact that Saddam was a murderous pansy is far worse a sin than going into Iraq for the wrong reasons. I guess it’s ok to wish for freedom in the world as long as you don’t actually do anything to bring it about.
In the end Letterman proceeds to attempt to win back over us war supporters by saying the troops “are the best and the brightest of this country” but I, for one, consider it too little too late.
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing about the war and there is nothing wrong with being vocal about it but try and do it with a little class and respect for the others out there who are effected by your words. Both Dave and Cindy should try it next time.
PS – I think Dave IS smart enough to debate point to point with O’Reilley (he’s a comedian after all) and that was the saddest cop-out of the whole clip.
Cindy has the right to object. Bill O’Reilley has tried to demonize her for speaking out about her loss. He has dragged her reputation into the dirt even though she is just trying to make sense of a person tragedy.
What kind of a bully pounces on a grieving mother? (Let's not forget that she was a republican before she lost her son. She initally supported the war.)You should have seen the way he attacked the son of a man who died in the trade towers because he questioned America's own culpability.
O'Reielly's integrity is less that spotless. He touts a neo conservative agenda, and is a liar. A proven bold face liar. He has made openly public bigoted comments about women, Jews, Blacks,and homosexuals. He represents everything that is wrong with America. He is a hate monger. If you want to talk about class, then this piece of trash should dominate the conversation.
Besides, What's wrong with giving him a little taste of his own medicine? Lord knows he deserves it. But it's a bit of a one way street. Neo Cons can kick the shit out of liberals all they want, but when the tables are turned they whine and call it fowl play. What utter rot.
It boils down to whether or not you support the war, and the reasons for the war. Regardless of her comments, It should be questioned. What is the point of this war? Americans have been lied to from the start. Bold face lied to.
There was no yellow cake, no weapons of mass destruction, nothing. This war was supposed to cost 50 billion dollars. Now it looks more like a trillion before America can even think about pulling out. MOre lies...
Cindy Shehan is a hero. She has the courage to question a war that makes no sense. She is loud when everyone on earth wants her to be quiet. I wonder how many mothers agree with her? How many soldier's mothers clutching that letter from the military that says her son / daughter is dead agree?
The more she asks questions, and makes bold statements, the more likely other voices will be heard.
Secondly they are freedom fighters. Their country is occupied. THey are fighting to remove the occupational forces. (This needs to be addressed outside of the box. We assume they aren't for two reasons 1) Because we are told they are not by media outlets, acting as a government mouthpiece, and 2) Because we disagree with their agenda.
It boils down to whether or not you support the war, and the reasons for the war. Regardless of her comments, It should be questioned. What is the point of this war?
I don’t honestly pay a lot of attention to Bill O’Reilley so I won’t argue your opinion of him and from what I have heard of the guy I actually somewhat agree that he’s a bit of a tool.
My disappointment in this clip came from Letterman’s reactions and attacks. I feel as if I just watched a guy that I had respect for completely stoop to a different level. Letterman could have engaged O’Reilly in banter and actually listened to the answers given and still won but instead he let his emotions get to him and ended up sounding like another one of the political asses that sit in Washington. Yes he turned the tables but it was a sad thing to watch.
As I said before I agree that Cindy should question this war if she has an issue with it but doing it in a way that supports terrorist is not acceptable. And they are terrorists!!! People who kidnap, murder, and maim other people from their own country are terrorist, it’s really quite simple. You can’t seriously tell me that you can look at Jill Carrols face and say that the people holding her aren’t terrorists. Those are the same people who set off car bombs on election day and kill their countrymen who are waiting to vote. They are the same people who kill Iraqi police officers on daily basis. They are the same people who videotape them selves brutally cutting of the heads of other victims and not all of them from the US. They don’t care who they hurt as long as they get attention and delay the process of having a fully elected Iraqi government.
Wikipedia - Terrorism
The exact definition of terrorism is highly controversial. According to one of the primary working definitions, it is the unconventional use of violence against civilians for political gain. It is a strategy of using coordinated attacks that fall outside the laws of war commonly understood to represent the bounds of conventional warfare (see also unconventional warfare).
Merriam-Webster - Terrorist
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Dictionary.com - Terrorist
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
Dictionary.com – Terrorism
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.
By every definition I found these people are terrorist. Maybe it’s just easier to call them freedom fighters because then you don’t have to feel bad for all the innocents being killed. I can understand that. But then you would be as bad as good ole Bill wouldn’t you?
As for supporting the war, I do support it and always will. I don’t support the reasoning used to go into Iraq and I really don’t support the lies. I think we all know a good part of the real reason was oil and the rest of the reasons I’m not sure we’ll ever know. But I will always support anyone with the balls to finally go in and get rid of Saddam. And any way you look at it the point of the war was to get rid of Saddam even if it was for their own purposes.
Saddam could have been taken care of with a cruise missle or a Navy Seal strike.
Too many people have died for oil. How sad is that? Especially since there is a whole bunch of it here.
Supporting the war does little to help the Alberta oil industry. IF America is willing to kill someone thousands of miles away for control of oil when essentially there is a huge stockpile in it's friendly neighbour's yard, then there must be a little more to it...
Makes me think...
Fighting a war on terrorism is like fighting wind. No matter how much you try and grab through your fingers, there will always be more.
Better to address the core reasons for Terrorism than it's symptoms.
Saddam could have been taken care of with a missile but his son’s would have still been around and even if they had removed the boys too you still have a whole Baathist party waiting in the wings. With out invasion there was no way to change what was going on in Iraq.
Your point about oil is very interesting to me. Although, with China’s recent foray’s into our oil patch maybe it gives the US good reason to head somewhere else for their oil. This definitely calls for more thought.
If you’re going to fight the core reasons for terrorism in Iraq then you must identify them. It would be easy to say that occupation is the reason in Iraq but I believe this would be inaccurate. The real problem is that the Baathist’s lost power and are pissed about it. On top of that you have a collapse of power in a middle eastern country that any terrorist organization would think looks inviting and therefore people like Al-Qaeda move in.
I don’t know how you can fight these core reasons. You have a large group of people who don’t want democracy to succeed and there’s not really anything you can do to please them except maybe put Saddam back. I think we would both agree that is not a solution.
The problem with China's interest in Alberta's oil is this... There is almost no existing infrastructure to sell it to the chinese. They know it, we know it, and America knows it.
The time required, in addition to America's generally favoured trading status would certainly give them a leg up in the situation. (not to mention the heavy American investment in our industry.
In terms of Baathist regimes... Why didn't America go after Syria? they have Baathists... Ones that are equally as nasty as Iraq's... Ones that are more able to mobilize clandestine attacks against American interests. Especially given that UN inspections, American no fly zones, and sanctions had pretty much tied Saddam's hands anyway... and would have just as easily contained Uday and Quesay.
America didn't want to deal with Saddam's nasty ways... If that had been their motivation, they would have it under Clinton, or the previous Bush admin. (He even had the ability after he liberated Kuwait...)
There are oil pipelines to Vancouver and from there they can ship the oil in tankers. What more infrastructure would the Chinese need? I guess they could build north onto the new NorthWest Pipeline and go through Russia if they really wanted to but I’m not sure that’s a viable solution. I doubt the Chinese would be here without an idea of how they were going to make use of the oil.
I think the reasons for the US choosing Iraq over Syria are simple. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait take up a large portion of Iraq’s borders and both of these countries are US friendly. The US has a staging ground for land based troops next to Iraq but nothing close for Syria.
What ever the reason might be for choosing Iraq, that still doesn’t solve the underlying reasons for terrorism. How do you stop terrorism in Iraq?
PS - I think the biggest mistake ever made in Iraq was not finishing the job in the first Gulf War and instead leaving the Kurds to attempt it with no back up. What a gong-show!!! The Elder Bush should have been held accountable for the thousands of deaths suffered by the Kurds after they were left high and dry.
You stop terrorism in Iraq by not being there in the first place. You stop it by not lying to the Iraqi people. You stop it by admitting your mistakes and by rebuilding their shattered country. You stop it by not making deals with war lords and placing an interim government on your payroll. By not picking leaders that used to work for american oil interests.
You stop terrorism by catching the people responsible for 9/11 and making an example of them. Last time I checked we were being told that Bin laden was the man. Not Saddam.
By your defintions of Terrorism, it could be said that George Washington was a terrorist, or Nelson Mandela. But history tells us they were freedom fighters. I guess it just depends on who wins.
George the senior has a lot to answer for. George jr. has even more to answer for.
as for China, infrastructure also has to be negotiated. China historically can be a very difficult nation to negotiate with. It will be a decade before any Canadian oil would flow that way.
If you’re going to stop terrorism by not being there in the first place then you must also be ok with the regime that was in place and the fact that they continually broke international laws and were all round bad guys. You leave Saddam in power and you watch as he and his boys massacre a couple thousand more humans and when someone asks “Isn’t anyone going to stop him?” You reply with, “Well, maybe, but it won’t be us. Wouldn’t want to get involved in that kind of shit! Hell, can you imagine what would happen if we went in there and tried to start a democracy? All those Baathist fuckers would attack us for years to come.” And then we all sit down with a beer and try and forget that we’re kind of spineless. For me that’s not acceptable. There was no other way to get things changed in Iraq, someone had to go in there.
I agree that lying to anyone is a bad idea. Not only do you undermine yourself but also any good you’ve ever done. Neither the US public the Iraqi public or the world in general should ever be lied to.
The US has admitted they were wrong about their intelligence and they are trying to rebuild the country but it’s kind of hard to hold elections when you have people scared to come vote because they think they’re going to die while waiting in line. It’s hard to rebuild a country when you have terrorists intimidating, threatening and outright murdering the people who are running for office.
If the US doesn’t pay the Interim Government in Iraq then who does? You can’t expect these politicians’ families to go hungry because their wives and husbands are too busy trying to rebuild a country and can’t have a “real job”. Someone has to pay them and with no other fee structure available at the time someone had to step in.
I agree that Bin Laden needs to be caught, everyone agrees with that. And the US is still doing their best to find him. But, let’s say the old bastard dies or is captured, do you really think that terrorism will stop? There are many men waiting in the wings to take over when he’s done. Even more important is the fact that Al-Qaeda has been so effective in building their organization that it doesn’t even need a leader to run. That’s why they have cells and cell leaders so that if one piece gets wiped out the rest of them keep on trucking. Bin Laden might be a great moral victory but he’s not the answer to ending terrorism.
Washington and Mandela and their organizations used terroristic tactics to accomplish their goals. They were terrorists. I could sit here and defend this statement but in the end most people instantly hated me after reading it.
Both George’s have serious issues and I think they should be held accountable. At least the younger one had big enough balls to stay and attempt finish the job instead of pulling a cut and run like his daddy.
Have you discovered yet that I will argue for the sake of arguing yet?
Yes, and I quite enjoy it! Arguing is one of my favourite past times as well. The problem is usually finding someone to argue with.
I think I lost the first response so let try again...
Yes, Indeed I have noticed that you argue for the sake of it and I do quite enjoy it. I enjoy arguing as well, however, often it's hard to find someone who will banter back. I appreciate it. Thanks!!!
I don't think this Lisa girl has ever heard of a little continent called Africa. In the Sudan babies are tossed in the air and shot at by sub-machine guns. In Zimbabwee, those who oppose "democratically" elected President Mugabe have there houses leveled to the ground. To millions of people who aren't "news worthy" an Iraqi terrorist problem must look like an oasis in the dessert.
Post a Comment