winsor

Irony score: 10/10

Think of the children. What about the children?

I think you're being unfair to Nazis by painting them with such a broad brush. They're not all German. I hate Illinois Nazis.

I no longer smoke, drink or touch anything stronger than coffee (for the better part of three decades). I do not believe much of anything. I concluded that religion was but a socially acceptable form of psychosis when I was eight. I have yet to come across any evidence to disabuse me of that conclusion; rather, careful observation over the years has served to reinforce the position. Having said that, if someone wants to rely on Gichimanitou to lay off the self-destructive lifestyle, so be it. Whatever works. BSBD, Winsor

I know you'll want to block on a technicality but the first Gulf War worked out pretty well. That's the 1 in "1 for 5" You forgot Vietnam. We achieved Peace With Honor (tm) in Vietnam. I, too, thought we did badly until I saw the documentaries from Sylvester Stallone and Chuck Norris. Watch them, they will set you straight as well. BSBD, Winsor

It seems that th'lord decided to punish us by leaving DC intact. If we repent now, maybe the meteor will return and save us.

I don't think people will pull their heads outta their asses about the real problems until water costs more than a gallon of gas. I suggest that at that point people will ram their heads even deeper. If they were willing and able to figure out the obvious, they would have done so by now. When things go to hell, they will simply look for someone to blame. I wish I was wrong.

Johnson's incompetence got tens of thousands killed, while Nixon was cashiered for covering up something he did not sanction, and about which he did not know in advance. That's the way our system works. Bush was a delusional incompetent, but Obama is an active dissembler (whenever he actually says anything with content). BSBD, Winsor

With a Wrist Rocket I can put your eye out with a Skittle at 10 paces.

My problem with this guy is one of priorities. While I agree with all the above (after a fashion - Snowden should have his wrist slapped at the very least), I do not think any of this addresses the underlying problems we face. Like the influence of humans on climate - while I agree that it is a given to one extent or another, I think that anyone who rates it as one of the top problems faced by humanity is a fucking moron (see "Al Gore"). It is a symptom, not a problem, and self-correcting in the long run. The fact that we are using the body parts of dead royals as a standard is absurd, but reflects more on the fact that we, as a people (more or less) don't get it. The war on drugs? Drugs won. I think that the narcotic free-for-all that existed in the U.S. in the 1890s left much to be desired, but the system of prohibition we have imposed to address the issue is an order of magnitude worse. While I have no use for booze, I think anyone who thinks Prohibition was a good idea is retarded. The issues we face include overpopulation, underwriting the reproduction of the indigent, commitment to massive debt and dependence on finite and dwindling natural resources - largely possessed by other nations. This economy is set to implode, and the fact that it has not already is amazing. When it does, as is inevitable, it will be interesting in the sense of the Chinese curse. BSBD, Winsor

President Biden! Yay!

Pay attention - I did not say it was about oil, I said the claim was that it was about the value of the dollar. The dollar is fiat currency - it is backed by nothing. In fact, every dollar in the treasury is borrowed from private banks that create it out of thin air. The gov't 'borrows' money from the Federal Reserve, which is a consortium of private banks, and issues currency based on the 'loan.' It's kind of like Schroedinger's cat in that the banks loan money simply by making an entry in a ledger, and there is no money in the first place. If oil was no longer traded in dollars, there would be a tendency for the dollar to revert to its inherent value - which is zero. That would be bad, m'kay? BSBD, Winsor

The issue that appeared to seal Iraq's fate, from an article I read before we decided that invasion was necessary, was that Iraq was floating the possibility of using Euros instead of U.S. Dollars to trade oil. The U.S. Dollar has been the only currency with sufficient economic mass to accommodate the worldwide trade in oil, which allowed us to live the high life on credit for a generation. If there was no longer a compelling reason for the world to shore up the value of the greenback, we might be forced to live within our means for once - which is entirely unacceptable. That sonofabitch Saddam Hussein had the temerity to threaten us with the prospect of paying our debts. For that, he had to die. The fact that thousands of other people also had to die, and many countries were destabilized, was totally justifiable collateral damage. It wasn't our fault, he made us do it. The fact that Bush the Younger got to finish what his dad started made it just that much better. Why they wasted the breath with the WMD nonsense escapes me. We invaded Iraq for the same reason a dog licks his balls - because we could. BSBD, Winsor

I think the main difference is Charlie Hebdo did it with ink and paper alone. They forced nobody to buy the magazine. They didn't force anyone at any mosque to have to deal with it in any way if they didn't want to. The guys in Arizona actively encouraged people to bring guns to a mosque. Can you imagine if the relationship were turned around and armed Muslims started standing outside any church in the US and actively attempting to goad the church members into armed conflict? But the President blamed a film on YouTube for the death of an ambassador. Nobody forced anyone else to watch it. And in Texas it was a private event where the offended came from a distance to kill people in a parking lot and you were critical. It seems like you are critical of any Christian protest or mockery but supportive of a secular/atheist protest or mockery. I'm seeing the difference to you being who is protesting. Not the nature or the protest but who is doing it. It's just an observation and my perception. I am getting the sense that the line is drawn on whether you like the people doing it. Nog on the actions themselves. You just figured that out? I'm serious. I try to distinguish between the person and the argument. There are people I absolutely loathe, but with whom I have had to agree upon occasion. Michael Moore, who I think is a despicable piece of shit, penned an article with was spot on a while back; even a broken clock is right twice a day... There are people who I like a lot, but have opinions with which I strongly disagree. FWIW, the one time I read something Paul wrote that sounded balanced and reasonable, I found that I had misread it in the first place. It may yet happen. BSBD, Winsor

Orwell was an optimist.

Not quite everyone. There are rather a few people who were on the record pointing out that the mission was a fool's errand, a bad idea coming and going. The fact that our end game consisted of the newly freed Iraqis throwing flowers at our feet, swept away with admiration and gratitude for the gift of democracy, was a dead giveaway. It told me that any of the Ivy League wonks behind the debacle may have had good grades in History, but it wasn't by virtue of actually STUDYING the subject (one more reason to dislike fraternities). We are again and again suckered into the game plan that goes "we all agree that this is a problem, so what we propose is THE SOLUTION. Anyone who opposes our SOLUTION is for the problem!" Obamacare is a prime example. Anyone who was actually paying attention at the time recognized the unfolding debacle as being founded on bullshit coming and going. All in all, we fared about as well as could be expected (it could have been worse). BSBD, Winsor

FIFY - aka 7.62 NATO or .308 Winchester (SAAMI guise) 5 mm is a pretty short case, a .22 Short being 10.7 mm

Let me bring you up to speed on that one as well. (bolding mine) According to former U.N. inspector David Kay, Iraq spent over $10 billion during the 1980s in an attempt to enrich uranium and build a nuclear weapon. However, the Agency concludes that as of December, 1998, "There were no indications to suggest that Iraq was successful in its attempt to produce nuclear weapons," or "that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of amounts of weapons-usable nuclear material of any practical significance." However, the IAEA did find that "Iraq was at, or close to, the threshold of success in such areas as the production of [highly enriched uranium] ... and the fabrication of the explosive package for a nuclear weapon." Despite the fact that the facilities and nuclear material had been destroyed or removed, as early as 1996 the IAEA concluded that "the know-how and expertise acquired by Iraqi scientists and engineers could provide an adequate base for reconstituting a nuclear-weapons-oriented program." Nuclear physicist and Iraqi defector Khidhir Hamza agrees. He told FRONTLINE that Iraq did not relinquish certain critical components of the nuclear program to the inspectors, and that it retains the expertise necessary to build a nuclear weapon. He believes that Iraq may have one completed within the next couple of years. Note: IAEA was allowed back into Iraq in January 2000 and again in January 2001. But its inspectors were blocked from full access inspections. Once again I'm quite certain you and yours were OK with gambling that none of these WMDs would reach US soil. Are you serious? At this stage of the game, having completely fucked up everything we touched and destablized the hell out of a large part of the world, are you suggesting that there is any justification for the debacle we authored? If so, I am in awe.

In all seriousness, why is it our problem if they were full of WMDs? We have more WMDs than anyone in history; how is it okay for us if it is not okay for them? Not only that, but we are the only country on earth that has used Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons in anger for effect. As the basis for our casus belli, the veracity of claims we used was entirely irrelevant. The fact that they were nonsense was just icing on the cake. FWIW, Saddam Hussein was our best asset in Iraq. He maintained a secular government that kept a tight lid on the wellspring of religious fuckheads of various persuasions who only wanted the opportunity to kill each other, he maintained an environment where terrorist organizations had a nonexistent life span, and he kept the assholes in neighboring countries busy maintaining defenses against him. What's not to like? The very idea of Operation Stinking Desert (or whatever it was) was beyond flawed from the git go. Bulletproof shoes are in order for anyone that thinks shooting yourself in the foot like that is a good idea. BSBD, Winsor Winsor...I'm certain you were willing to gamble that none of these WMDs would make it to US soil. Others were not. Here's a long list of Democrats who were certain of the threat long before 2003. http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp Citing a list of Democrats that were all for it confirms my thesis that only shitheads could conclude that it was a good idea. The Islamic Bomb is a reality - Pakistan is a member of the club, and al Qaeda and the Taliban are quite at home there. Even if WMDs in Saddam Hussein's hands was viewed as a major problem, going to war with Iraq was never a solution. One of the things we tend to overlook is that, even if we can make good our threat to kick ass, we have no idea what to do after we have 'won.' The idea that everyone will immediately gravitate to our idea of 'freedom' and 'democracy' is not just naive, it is inane. I really don't like stinging insects, but I knot better than to kick a hornet's nest. Apparently the people in charge of our foreign policy were new to that concept. BSBD, Winsor

In all seriousness, why is it our problem if they were full of WMDs? We have more WMDs than anyone in history; how is it okay for us if it is not okay for them? Not only that, but we are the only country on earth that has used Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons in anger for effect. As the basis for our casus belli, the veracity of claims we used was entirely irrelevant. The fact that they were nonsense was just icing on the cake. FWIW, Saddam Hussein was our best asset in Iraq. He maintained a secular government that kept a tight lid on the wellspring of religious fuckheads of various persuasions who only wanted the opportunity to kill each other, he maintained an environment where terrorist organizations had a nonexistent life span, and he kept the assholes in neighboring countries busy maintaining defenses against him. What's not to like? The very idea of Operation Stinking Desert (or whatever it was) was beyond flawed from the git go. Bulletproof shoes are in order for anyone that thinks shooting yourself in the foot like that is a good idea. BSBD, Winsor

i am respecting him by not responding to the patronising nonsense that he writes. winsor, i have old jews in my own family and i love them. surprise surprise. and btw in which sense you all understood my "oldest" joke? what i meant was that it is impossible to talk to someone who considers himself THE oldest and THE wisest, since they made up their minds long time ago. and his posts reflect exactly that. You do not appear to be familiar with the work of Rodney Dangerfield. His humor may not be to your taste. My response wast to the post by cvfd1399. Address him with regard to any claims referenced above, since I made none. I am postjudiced regarding Islam. I have studied the history, politics an culture across the Islamic spectrum, and the deeper I delve, the more irrevocably FUBAR it appears. I am cool with a live and let live approach. I am not cool with any culture committed to the demise of me and those I love. Nothing personal. BSBD, Winsor

Cranky old Jews don't get no respect according to Mr. Dangerfield.

Be advised that I did not post for your benefit. Islam has only a slightly higher survival rate than rabies. The propensity for those infected with said mental malware to blow themselves to smithereens accurately reflects its prognosis. BSBD, Winsor

Well, even context has context. History recalls that when the feds finally nailed the brutal, homicidal Al Capone, it was for income tax evasion. I don't think it recalls anyone being shocked, shocked at the scurrilous abuse of revenue regulations. So using banking laws to nail a justice-escaped statutory rapist doesn't exactly rent the fabric of the republic, either. It was fitting.

I hate to break it to you, Tastycakes, but the worst that Islam has to offer is directly in line with the example set by Muhammad himself. Even if some of his followers screw up and show the tiniest modicum of decency and integrity, the person they follow was a truly evil sonofabitch by any rational standard, a psychotic pervert of the first order. He was not a 'Prince of Peace' by any wild stretch of the imagination. Whatever its claim to marvelousness, the Koran is less full of sweetness and light than is the Anarchist's Cookbook (notice I didn't go Godwin this time?). Agree with us or die, question us and die, submit or die, kill anyone who disagrees with us, etc,, etc.. Followers of Siddhartha Gautama who commit unspeakable acts of cruelty are acting entirely against the life and teachings of their master. Followers of Muhammad who commit unspeakable acts of cruelty and perversion are but rank amateurs in comparison to their master. Islam is evil. BSBD, Winsor