Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I meant if you read from the papers I put URLs for, not the Hindustani Times. And I misspelled General Pasha's surname (ISI Chief).
Petty personal squabbles are simply disruptive, and they are, fundamentally, an affront to everybody who comes in here looking for a reasonable discussion.
I think shartstain22% is a fucking abomination. But I don't attack it personally on every thread, regardless of the fact that I find its leavings personally repulsive.
You'd think Glenn having to step in and ask you politely, on numerous occasions if I recall correctly, to tone it down, would sink in eventually.
-- bamage
I do not recall shsrtstain22% attacking you personally day after day. Did this person do that? If so, what was your response?
If you have been paying any attention, and then can honestly claim that I have been the catalyst of this dust-up, then we must certainly perceive the universe in totally different ways. I, for instance, think that the one who is not responding day after day is *not* the one starting it. I also perceive that in this place, one must raise f'ing hell to stop a stalker like that fellow from attacking you each day. His antics remind one of someone who Glenn has asked not to post here; I wonder ...
By the way, I've been finding BBC to be actually worse than American media on this
Why is this?
Could it be due to sensitivity because of GB's sorid history in the region?
If that's the case, BBC coverage would be terrible throughout the world and it generally isn't.
nobody (but you) cares "who started it".
And now, lest I be rightfully accused of editorializing, I'm done with this topic.
Glenn why are you supporting massacres and coverups? -- shooter242
Shooter, try to keep it straight: Glenn doesn't agree with you.
Is clear proof that the Jews are the root of all of this.
The point is nobody (but you) cares "who started it".
We are talking about a day-after-day continual series of attacks. I always find it odd that certain types, like yourself, always seem to only chide the one attacked. While the pointless, mindless needling was going on day after day --- you saw no problem.
Odd, that.
It's not in anger. Anger, said Athena: `Matures, becomes sweet.
So-`Hold and embrace anger so very gently. Anger transforms.
Embrace Anger. It may become sweet. It is a 'ole personal opine.
I hope. I wish only good. I'm wishing self-control. I'm so serious.
Yesterday I was given a bottle. Who wished to have it? It's spiced rum.
It's Navy Rum that's 92% nasty! Silly hula-girl plays a banjo, a ukulele?
It's a Caribbean Rum with spice, caramel, and other fake flavors. O ugh.
Ay, I smile:`Tattooing Sailor Jerry is a dangerous rum that speaks: Rots liver?
Sailor Jerry's ( not Jebbie) was the famous tattoo artist of all time? Who cares?
Sailor Jerry claims he was a first tattoo artist to learn the sacred text? A 20's?
Whoopee. He set up a tattoo shop in the 30's. He tattooed sailors in colorful skin designs.
okay? But now? Or was it to earn a few bucks? Sailor Jerry bottled, marketed, a rum recipe.
The nasty Rum is higher in proof than most spiced rums, and I crank because? Wild Cherry?
Sailors do cuss. The blogger commenter can too. Of course, my ears are not virgin. I's okay.
The nasty verbal harangue can go down smooth? Yes. Then, cease, 'proverbial' vipers kills.
No use dashes of rum, vermouth, amaretto, fresh berry cranberry juice, and shake with ice.
Peace. Refurbish. Rest. Calm. Or, one may be in a ICU unit? It's easy. Cease inhale breaths?
If one is ready.
O dumbstruck.
I say vow. I do.
That easy-chair bloodthirsty neo-con Max Boot loves Obama's picks!
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/boot/44551
"As someone who was skeptical of Obama’s moderate posturing during the campaign, I have to admit that I am gobsmacked by these appointments , most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain."
I would only point out that Max Boot thinks Attila the Hun was a "moderate".
I really don't know. I listened to an NPR story that broke away to a BBC story, and I listened to a BBC story on the BBC News Hour, and I have been seeing snippets of their stuff throughout. For some reason there seems to be something wrong. My initial guess was that this one didn't fit a pattern that is extremely dear to their terrorism expert pundits? This was an organized attack, and falling back on the lines like "the usual pointing fingers of blame towards Pakistan" just weren't appropriate or insightful, given that this isn't just fingers this time and it's a really dangerous situation. Pakistanis are even asserting (among some intellectuals) that someone is trying to force a war between the two countries. What seems clear at this point is that it was/is (there is still fighting going on) an attack with military weapons, and that it originates in Pakistan with little enough doubt that Pakistan doesn't seem to be disputing that part that much.
Now, just why are you trying to silence me, given the fact that I am on topic and have accused you of nothing.
I was in no way trying to "silence" you and I didn't say you were trying to accuse me of anything. I do think you were off topic but I didn't mention that in my reply and I didn't care one way or the other.
Was there some part of my post in which I did not make clear my disdain for folks who voted for Obama on faith rather than facts?
Nope. Except you, and others, keep implying that you seem to think that some majority or large numbers of "leftists" voted on "faith". I disagree. That's what I told you. Was I not clear about that?
Did I specifically accuse you of anything?
I didn't say that you did. You're making this personal, not me.
Why would I have a particular interest in how you voted? If you made a considered compromise to which applied your mind and not your emotions, I don't care how you voted.
I used myself as an example. I suspect millions of others could say the same thing that I did in how they voted. That's where you and I seem to differ on the subject. You seem to believe that millions (or some large number) voted on "faith" where as I believe that a relative few voted on faith. So, as I wrote in my previous reply, I think that the case against "leftists" "voting on faith", and now being angry or disappointed about Obama because they supposedly expected someone other than who he is, is a way overblown assumption.
In other words, if the shoe I have mentioned doesn't fit you, why are you trying to shove your foot in it?
I'm not and I wasn't. Cute little comebacks like that are usually not well thought out and are consequently meaningless to the content of the conversation.
(Let me also add that I wrote my post before I cam to the end of this thread and have nothing to do with any current eruption.)
It didn't cross my mind that your post had anything to do with the current eruption. My reply to you also was in no way effected by any current eruption.
-- AKA Smith
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
