|
Before Jenjus Khan's blog curiously self
destructed we were able to save some of his work. We present it here
in loving memory of him. To put this in context, it started as one of
the many raging arguments online in the run up to the US elections...
Monday, October 11, 2004
Subtlety, Nuance, and the Eternal Battle of Good vs. Evil
Political junkies have no doubt read a great deal about this weekend's
NYT magazine article on Kerry. I know talk radio was all a-buzz about
it today. For those of you who have not read or heard any of its content,
hit the link above. It is quite an interesting read.
The soundbite the article has generated comes from Kerry's assertion
that a victory in the war on terror, in his view, would not be the destruction
of these murderers and their cabals, but rather, a reduction of the impact
of their efforts. They would be reduced back to the good ol' days when
they were a "nuisance" that could be tolerated, if not controlled.
Another important distinction this article tries to delineate is the
now-classic struggle of opposing viewpoints that define the philosophy
of the war on terror. Is it a war? Kerry does not even believe it is
accurate to use the term "war". "There is danger in it," he
says. (This must be why he is now the new anti-war candidate. He thinks
even using the word is dangerous.) Not to be pinned down to any one position,
he flip-flops with his very next breath: "But...it is an act of
war. Only a different kind of war." If it is not a war, then, our "struggle" with
terror is an act of law enforcement. (Is he so entrenched in Viet Nam
still that he is purposefully trying to re-create it?) Reading about
these opposing views, it's easy to imagine a boxing match of ideas: John
Wayne in one corner , and Oprah in the other.
One of the main points the article makes, though, really highlights
the general attitude and thought of the Democrats about the general public. "Kerry's
theories on global affairs were just too complex for the electorate and
would have been ignored -- or, worse yet, mangled -- by the press," issues
a Kerry aid from his throne-on-high. The author continues:
This is, of course, a common Democratic refrain: Republicans sound more
coherent because they see the world in such a rudimentary way, while
Democrats, 10 steps ahead of the rest of the country, wrestle with profound
policy issues that don't lend themselves to slogans. By this reasoning,
any proposal that can be explained concisely to voters is, by definition,
ineffective and lacking in gravitas. Other Kerry aides blame the candidate
and his coterie of message makers, most of whom are legendary for their
attack ads but less adept at thinking about broad policy arguments. ''If
you talk about this the right way, then the American people, or most
of them, will get it,'' one of Kerry's informal advisers told me. ''But
you've got to have guts.''
I suppose the Democrats feel no compunction about openly exposing their
elitist attitude in black and white. After all, this is the New York
Times, whose every reader lives on the Upper East Side and undoubtedly
agrees. Us rubes in fly-over country ain't learned us our letters yet,
we ain't gonna be readin' no high-falutin' New York paper.
What's most amazing, is this article itself sets out to do what the
aforementioned Kerry Kampaign's Duke of Truth says has to be done "with
guts". The entire piece tries untangle Kerry's subtle and nuanced
foreign policy, by highlighting the contrast to Bush's elementary war
of "good versus evil". However, it fails. The author actually
admits this at a point, saying:
Americans are frightened...and many of them perceive a far more existential
threat to their lives than the one Kerry describes. In this climate,
Kerry's rather dry recitations about money-laundering laws and intelligence-sharing
agreements can sound oddly discordant. We are living at a time that feels
historically consequential, where people seem to expect -- and perhaps
deserve -- a theory of the world that matches the scope of their insecurity."
He's half-right here. Americans are not frightened, we are angry and
resolved . And we do expect --and deserve--more than a better "theory".
We expect and deserve a better President than this Democratic candidate
can even conceive of being. We expect --and deserve-- decisive victory
through strength of arms and strength of character. We expect and deserve
more than effete, liberal touchy-feelyisms that seem to be the main
focus of this candidate's much-talked-about-but-never-seen plan.
UPDATE:
"The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is
frightening," counters Rudy Giuliani, in absolutely the best response
to the NY Times Kerry article today. Rudy's critical reaction is a MUST
READ.
posted by Chris at 5:20 PM
10 Comments:
• No one in Britain can quite believe how many of you are going
to vote for George Bush. I read that Republicans and soldiers watched
Farenheit
9/11.
This film shows blatantly that George Bush doesn't run your country,
even if you are a republican you can see that he sits and does nothing
while your country is under attack. Surely you should find out who runs
your country before endorsing either candidate.
By Anonymous, at 2:15 PM
• Wow. Really great post, Anonymous. I have never heard that
before. You are right. I'm going to switch my party affiliation and vote
for John
Kerry.But this looks like fun, so let's look at your comment more
closely, which is just bursting with insight.
1. No one in Britain can quite believe how many of you are going to
vote for George Bush.
Meaning, no liberals in Europe can understand the mentality of strength
and victory that clear-thinking Americans rightly possess. Which is understandable,
Europeans have consistently suffered defeat through the ages until the
Americans bailed you out time after time.
2. I read that Republicans and soldiers watched Farenheit [sic] 9/11.
I assume this fragment leads to the supposed climax of you argument:
3. This film shows blatantly that George Bush doesn't run your country,
even if you are a republican you can see that he sits and does nothing
while your country is under attack.
This statement is comprised of two parts, both struggling for supremecy
in the battle of coherence. First: clear thinking people, on the Left
and the Right, give this film no credibility. Michael Moore is so far
out of the realm of rationality that he has been discredited by most
thinking people. That is, other than the rabid extremists of the moveon.org
type mentality. Oh, and Europeans. That's really not much of a distinction,
though, is it?
The second half of this stunning expose, quite
Michael Moore-like in itself, is "even Republicans can see that he sits there and does
nothing while our country is under attack". Umm, I'm not sure if
you are aware, but after we determined who actually perpetrated this
heinous mass murder of a terrorist attack, WE WENT TO WAR. Once upon
a time, there was a terrible place called Afghanistan. It was ruled by
mean men who called themselves the Taliban. They attacked America. America
fought back. Now the Taliban are dead.
What's really funny is the way you Liberals contradict yourselves while
frothing at the mouth over Bush. You quote Michael Moore's anti-war propagandist
rhetoric as unimpeachable gospel. But then you say the President sat
there and did nothing while we were under attack. So which is the right
answer? Rush to war or take the global test in a peacenik U.N. group
hug?
And the grand finale: Surely you should find out who runs your country
before endorsing either candidate.
Unfortunately, your Liberal argument has so broken down, you resort
to nonsense (as Liberals usually do.) Before I endorse either candidate,
I should find out who runs the country? That's easy, according to all
you Libs that would be Dick Cheney and Halliburton.
But since I have no inside information on who this alleged power broker
is, I'll have to stick with facts. And guess what? I endorse George W.
Bush for President.
By Chris, at 3:10 PM
• Wow. Why do you endorse George Bush? And why do you think I
have been bailed out by anyone?
I certainly wouldn't wave a British flag. I don't associate with nationhood
like you do. I just supply a perspective from another country. Honestly,
even right wing people in the UK can't believe you would vote for Bush.
It's true.
Do you really think strength and victory is clear thinking? Wow. Mike
just made a film about his own point of view, some people credit it,
some discredit it.I am suprised that you believe the taliban have gone
from Afghanistan.
Do you think that it was wise to attack Iraq? Doesn't that just make
you feel like you are just waiting to be bombed by more people?
By Anonymous, at 9:55 AM
• Greetings, anonymous Euro-lib.
I'll take it point-by-point once again.
Euro-lib: Wow. Why do you endorse George Bush?
Me: I endorse George Bush because I believe he is an honorable man of
strong character. His worldview is informed by traditional conservative
values. He and I both share the belief that America has the responsibilty
to protect and defend herself in the face of enemies. George Bush believes
in the sacred nature of freedom and democracy. We agree that freedom
is the right of every living person, and no one person or group ever
has the right to subjugate another.
Most of all, I support George Bush because he is a man of strong faith.
He leads my nation with resolute conviction and forward-looking optimism.
Euro-Lib: I certainly wouldn't wave a British flag. I don't associate
with nationhood like you do. I just supply a perspective from another
country. Honestly, even right wing people in the UK can't believe you
would vote for Bush.It's true.
Me: It is evident there is no sense of patriotic nationalism in any
European nation. It's probable that such an attitude is mocked and dismissed.
However, patriotism in the US is important to most people. We love our
country (admittedly, some moreso than others), particularly in Texas
where I live. I love this nation and I thank God every day that I was
lucky enough to be born here. I love the very idea of America. I love
our history - how we were founded and how we structured our government
based on liberty, freedom, and democracy. I believe it was truly "A
Grand Experiment" that forever changed the history of the world
and humanity.
As for your continued assertions that no one in the UK can believe there
are people in the US who are voting for Bush, even right-wing subjects
of the Kingdom, I say this: Who cares? Face it, at least half of the
population of America will vote for the President. The rest of the world's
opinion is irrelevant. Contrary to European assumption, we neither need
nor want your advice as to who our President will be. I know many Europeans
believe they are somehow smarter or more enlightened than Americans,
particularly in the arena of political philosophy. I disagree, as does
just about everyone else here in America. So we'll select our President,
with or without globalist's opinionated, agenda-driven support.
Euro-lib: Do you really think strength and victory is clear thinking?
Wow.
Me: Yes. I think strength leads to victory and victory is clear thinking.
Usually, thinking clearly means desiring victory, as no clear-thinking
person desires defeat.
Euro-lib: Mike just made a film about his own point of view, some people
credit it, some discredit it.
Me: Well, "Mike" is fanatically agenda-driven and quite militant
about his "point of view." Those who credit his movie are equally
myopic or uninformed. Surely you can't be suggesting that "Mike" simply
set out to benignly indulge merely in the exercise of making film only
for art's sake? Come on.
Euro-lib: I am suprised that you believe the taliban have gone from Afghanistan.
Me: I said the Taliban were dead. I know that some of them are still
alive (as of this post, but we are working on that). But they are not
in power, are they? Afghanistan just celebrated their first democratic
election this past weekend, where millions of men -and WOMEN- chose their
government's leaders. Why are you so quick to discount that? Do you consider
freedom and democracy worse than Islamo-fascist oppression and slavery?
Euro-lib: Do you think that it was wise to attack Iraq? Doesn't that
just make you feel like you are just waiting to be bombed by more people?
Me: I emphatically believe it was wise to attack Iraq, with or without
WMDs. Saddam Hussein was a murderous despot who should have been removed
from power during the first Gulf War. He trained and funded terrorists.
The US War on Terrorism is not limited to al-Qaida, nor should it be.
We are fighting the philosophy of Islamic terrorism. And like the President
said after 9/11, we will make no distinction between terrorists and the
nations that harbor them. Saddam paid the families of Palestinian homicide
bombers in Israel. The fuselage of a Boeing 747 was used as a highjack
training camp at Salman Pak in Iraq. The Duelfer report released last
week by the counterterrorism bureau of the CIA expressly stated that
Saddam had maintained the possibility of reconstituting his biological,
chemical, and nuclear weapons in a matter of weeks, or at most, months.
Other intelligence suggests he moved his WMD aresenal to another country
(Jordan or Syria, most likely) before the Allied invasion. This monster
was an evil menace in the world and had to be removed. Thank God we had
a President who could recognize this and had the bravery to act on it.
Also, you asked "Doesn't that make you feel like you are just waiting
to be bombed by other people?" Probably. But here is where America
shines at her brightest. We are not afraid of this threat. We do what
is good and right. I'm sure that does make evildoers in the world angry,
and in fact I hope it does. We will NEVER cower in fear. America does
not shrink in the face of dangerous threats, nor should any nation with
any self-respect. Free nations (and that includes our stalwart ally Great
Britain -probably much to your chagrin) have the responsibility to protect
our God-given right to liberty and defeat the forces of evil that challenge
it. With freedom and power comes responsibility, and we welcome it. We
rise to the challenge -- anytime, anywhere.
By Chris, at 2:53 PM
• Wow! Really? doesn't he just have a world view informed by cocaine and
greed like his mates? Isn't he just taking the piss out of the lot
of you? What do you think of his Saudi mates that Mike refers to in his
movie?
By Anonymous, at 6:53 PM
•
LOL! A worldview informed by cocaine?! That is priceless. As for his "taking
the piss out of the lot of us", I'm not sure exactly what
that means as your cockney euphemisms don't translate well.
In regard to good ol' Mike's Saudi implications: This particular part
of Mikey's movie is a perfect example of how he distorts the truth by
making inferences out of snide commentary and the onscreen images. Mike
shows chronogogically unrelated pictures and clips that intentionally
lead uninformed viewers to draw conclusions that are outrageously incorrect
yet completely in accordance with his agenda.
Michael Moore first nudges the viewers to believe that Saudi Arabians
(particularly members of the bin Laden family) were secretly and illegally
whisked away in airplanes immediately following the terrorist attacks
on 9/11 while all other commercial airlines were grounded. The flight
that actually carried Bin Laden family members took place on September
20, a week after flight restrictions had been lifted. Flights carrying
other Saudis also occurred on or after September 13, when flying was
no longer restricted. Also, all the Saudis who left the country on the
flights Moore mentions were in fact thoroughly interviewed by the FBI
before leaving. And finally, the flights were approved personally (and
exclusively) by White House counterterrorism head Richard Clarke, whom
Moore later cites with approval as an authority. In their report, the
9/11 Commission "“found no evidence that any flights of Saudi
nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening
of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001. To the contrary,
every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace reopened.” It
states further that there was “no evidence of political intervention” to
permit the flights, and finally observes that, “the FBI interviewed
all persons of interest on these flights prior to their departures. They
concluded that none of the passengers was connected to the 9/11 attacks
and have since found no evidence to change that conclusion. Our own independent
review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known
links to terrorism departed on these flights” 9/11 Commission Report,
pp. 329-30; also see pp. 556-558).Moore also infers, and again never
explicitly states, that the Bush family are secretly being bankrolled
by the bin Ladens. The supposed smoking gun for this wild accusation
apparently lies in his attempted exposure of the Bush - bin Laden- James
Bath nexus. Moore's source information for this claim stems from the
book "House of Bush, House of Saud" by Craig Unger. But trouble
comes when Unger himself discredits these assertions in Newsweek. I'll
quote the magazine directly: "The “Bush-Bin Laden ‘relationships’ were
indirect— two degrees of separation, perhaps— and at times
have been overstated,” Unger writes in his book. While critics
have charged that bin Laden money found its way into Arbusto [Bush’s
company] through Bath, Unger notes that “no hard evidence has ever
been found to back up that charge” and Bath himself has adamantly
denied it. “One hundred percent of those funds (in Arbusto) were
mine,” says Bath in a footnote on page 101 of Unger’s book. “It
was a purely personal investment.” Source: Newsweek / MSNBCAny
other questions?
By Chris, at 1:17 AM
•
I think you are right. George Bush will win. I’m afraid you are
also right about patriotic attitudes being mocked and dismissed over
here. To hear someone going on about Britain the way you do about America
would make most British people laugh. Especially the end bit: We rise
to the challenge anytime, anywhere err….what happened in Vietnam
then?.
Don’t really like throwing “our” teenagers into the
jungle anymore, lets try the desert.
What? “We” rise to the challenge with other people’s
kid’s for our Ideology? Why not?
Fight yourself do you Chris?
I think people here laugh at this degree of blinkered nationalism because
it sounds dangerous for the planet. The sort of silly thing British people
did when they thought of themselves as an empire. Are you a citizen of
the US before you are a citizen of the world? A patriot before a human
being?
By Anonymous, at 7:22 AM
• If it makes you feel any better, if I heard someone going on about Britain
the way I did about America, I would laugh, too.
Before I respond, I want to point out the all-too-familiar liberal strategy
that is being employed here. I responded to your last post with undiluted
facts, so you changed the subject. Your latest post reveals your rising
levels of fear and frustration, so you lash out in attack on we silly
Americans and our attitudes. With that noted, I'll proceed.
On Viet Nam, do you really want to pull at that string, Neville Chamberlain?
Angry Euro: I think people here laugh at this degree of blinkered nationalism
because it sounds dangerous for the planet.
Me: (rolls eyes at stereotypical European condescension). Nationalism
is dangerous for the planet? I think maniacal Islamic killers are dangerous
for the planet. And I think our nationalism is what fuels our fight with
them. Oh and by the way: Your Welcome, England. Once again.
Increasingly rabid Euro: Are you a citizen of the US before you are
a citizen of the world? A patriot before a human being?
Me: A RESOUNDING YES AND YES! Citizens of the world, unite! LOL! Everyone,
hold hands -- Kum ba yah immediately! We are the World -- if we are all
sensitive and tolerant, nothing bad can EVER happen. Lay down your arms.
And lets all hug. Koffi Annan, we weep as we bask in the presence of
your loving glow.
It's all about FEELINGS...thank you Oprah...we're now so intellectually
superior!
LOL!
By Chris, at 11:15 AM
• Fantastic can I quote you on that?
I am an American before I am a citizen of the world and I am a Patriot
before being a member of the human race.
Chris you are a NANA (cockneyism slag for bannana) but a patriot. Check
out our british patriots . http://www.unitedbritish.com
Not scared or frustrated, cheers Chris, just stoned. I don’t want
to pull your Neville chamberlain string or whatever.I just brought up
Vietnam as an example of failed (and very expensive) U.S. ways of dealing
with problems.
I’m just not scared of Islamic Ideology at all. I don’t
buy it. I don’t see it as a major threat in my country or yours.
How big do you think Al Quaida are? As big as the I.R.A. or smaller?
Small groups of bombers on suicide missions?
You could cut a deal with every single Islamic country you deal with
over oil AND democracy, poor people would eat more, economies would be
stimulated (as has happened in Northern Ireland, thanks again America!!)
and you wouldn’t be terrorized.
No really? Do you think you are at war with vast hordes of Islamic people?
Where is this war happening? In Texas?
I don’t want to be euro condescending about America; Forest Gump
was a very touching movie. Would you not rather the Carlyle group’s
money was spent on education?
Invading Iraq suits your mate Bush’s pockets and his friends cocaine
stashes.
Sorry about my cockneyisms. Taking the piss. Extracting the urine. Laughing
at you. How do you say that in Texas? I’m not angry, I think its
hilarious.
Eight out of Ten world governments would prefer Kerry and you don’t
care.
It doesn’t say anything to you in huge letters of fire on Texan
hillsides?
Don’t worry even if Kerry did get in it would probably make no
difference. Wave your flag. Put your x in the box, then go fool enough
teenagers into doing it for you.
( Just not in the jungle, please?)
By Anonymous, at 6:15 PM
• Insults...name calling...incohent babbling...
I rest my case.
By Chris, at 6:33 PM
(Editors note: Still with us? Unfortunately we have lost further comments
on this posting but they included a mysterious soldier who popped up as if
by magic to defend Jenjus's lack of a war record....)
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Little Britain
I urge any visitors to this site to read the comments section of my
post titled "Subtlety, Nuance, and the Eternal Battle of Good
vs. Evil". Here you will find a quite telling example of the utter
breakdown of rationality that has run amok throughout the world. As
you read, watch in amazement how the liberal mindset begins to erode,
then utterly crumbles under the weight of factual truth. It speaks
for itself.
posted by Chris at 6:34 PM
14 Comments:
• All hail Gingivitis Khan! I know the identity of the anonymous commenter
on the post you refer to and I urge you to ask him whether I'm
a liberal or not, just to establish my political credentials here. Anonymous,
you tell him what a foaming reactionary I am.
I have been very enlightened in recent days, partly by reading your
blog, as to the American political mentality, which has often mystified
me.
Fellow Europeans, let me explain it to you again:
Americans don't care much about the national debt, income inequality,
or universal education and healthcare.
They're more concerned to get abortion banned, drug users locked up
for life, family values, and Janet Jackson's tits off TV.
Do you understand now, my Euro-friends? It is so simple when you rise
above our outmoded dialectical (almost Marxist) insistence on analysing
everything in economical terms. These people still have morals, something
we abandoned with our empires!
All the best my friend Chris! May you prosper!
By M, at 8:17 PM
• I know the identity of the anonymous commenter on the post you refer
to and I urge you to ask him whether I'm a liberal or not, just to
establish my political credentials here. Anonymous, you tell him what a foaming
reactionary I am. Anonymous, you tell him what a foaming reactionary
I am! Go on, tell him! Tell him, Anonymous, tell him!
By Chris, at 8:37 PM
• Chris, WOW! That was enlightening! At first I thought she was kidding
you. It is truly a different mindset. I have to feel a little creepy
when she shrugs off the terrorist threat. I mean did Spain think
the terrorists would come knocking at their door? She asked you where is
this fight? Geeze! Does she read the paper??? I think that liberals
in general don't seem to understand the threat to our way of life here.
9-11 seems far away to them. They don't seem to understand that
the way the hi-jackers thought and believed is the way hundreds of thousands
of them believe.
I'll be so glad when this election is over, won't you?
By Rightwingsparkle, at 11:29 PM
• Yes my friend I read the paper! I even write the f-king paper!
By M, at 7:20 AM
• Oh or maybe you were asking about Anonymous. I'm sad to say he (or she)
reads a very left-wing paper.
By M, at 7:23 AM
•
Oh and I feel I must humbly correct a little misapprehension here. Even
at the height of the Empire, "Great" Britain
was never a reference to geopolitical stature, rather
a geographical
distinction
between Little
Britain, or Brittany, or Bretagne, in northwest France,
and Great Britain,
the island of Albion, or Prydain as the Celts called
it.
These terrorists WANT to die! If they die, they feel like they've won.
How can you fight them with bombs? But how else can you fight them? Um,
I'll think about it and get back to you... No, on second thoughts, I'll
move somewhere warm before any suitcase nukes go off in Trafalgar Square...
In the meantime, the UK is gradually becoming more like the USA (slowly,
slowly...) Our per capita prison population is inching towards American
levels (highest in the free world!). In income inequality there is still
a long way to go - in the US, company directors make an average of 500
times the wages of their workers - in the UK, the most unequal country
in Europe, they are still a mere 50 times higher...
3000 innocent people dead in the twin towers, but just wait until the
icecaps melt and then you'll really see widespread destruction! This
rainy little island will sink into the sea but you should be okay in
Texas...
But let me guess... you believe global climate change is a myth... I
bet you believe God created the world in 7 days about 5000 years ago,
too...
By M, at 7:42 AM
• And I defy you to fit me onto your simplistic liberal-conservative political
spectrum!
All hail Gin&tonic Khan!
By M, at 7:45 AM
• And, Rightwingsparkle, I know a thing or two about the papers! I read
your wonderful papers.
The press in the USA are blessed with the widest legal and constitutional
guarantees of independence and freedom anywhere in the world, yet, feeble
and toothless, they choose not to use their freedom.
In the UK, there are strict defamation laws and an oppressive D-notice
system (whereby the Ministry of Defence can suppress news), yet the press
is the liveliest and most aggressive anywhere in the world...
Best regards, Spritedrinksnorkel and the most excellent Gin&tonic
Khan! (Khan? Sounds like a terrorist name to me...)
By M, at 7:54 AM
•
I think "M" means Marx, because this person is channeling
him from beyond the grave so he can post on my blog.
Apparently, "M"arx places a little too emphasis on the disproportionate
wealth distribution. What "M"arx forgets, or ignores, is that
in a capitalist economy wealth is not distributed, it is earned. We have
equal opportunity. Our national charter guaranteed life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness. You are responsible for your happiness. It's
not the government's responsibility or fault if you are poor and do nothing
to better yourself.
And I defy you to fit me onto your simplistic liberal-conservative political
spectrum! You are right, I cannot do that. Because first you have to
be at least rational for me to label you. So far, you have not even presented
one clear, cogent thought.
And it's even funnier that you are trying to make fun of "jenjus"...because
clearly you don't know where it comes from.
Rightwingsparkle, notice how touchy they are? Looks like we hit a nerve.
They start rabidly foaming (by their own admission) and all logic flies
out the window. Aren't liberals funny? Who knew they behaved the same
all over the world? That's really not surprising considering our own
moonbats can trace their history to defeatist Europe.
(psst - just watch, they can't stay away...they are morbidly fascinated
when they encounter truth...)
By Chris, at 10:43
AM
• Chris, too funny!
M,
No, I don't believe God created the world in 7 days or 5000 yrs ago.
I believe in evolution and science and....I am a Christian!
Your sterotype shows how narrow minded you are.
I think the possibility of a bomb going off in Trafalger Square is something
you need to not be so dissmissive of. I hope that never happens to you
over there, but is that what it will take for you to take this seriously?
Yeah, the ice caps are melting, gee,,,I hope it won't affect me when
they flood in about 3 million years.
By Rightwingsparkle, at 11:56 AM
• Ah!!! I am crushed! By your sea of facts! Damn it! I am foaming!
Foam! Foam! Foam!
Sorry little nana,
Your mate rightwingsparkle is right. I was winding you along a bit,
hence the short interjections between your enthusiastic essays.
And who wasn’t answering whose arguments? By that logic you are
personally in the trenches of Texas fighting a war against vast hordes
of Islamic people no?
Sorry for pulling your Neville Chaimberlain.
Go on then I’ll take it seriously now. Write down the facts you
want me to reply to (a bit shorter please) I’ll print them out
and swallow them to keep them from the vast hordes of crazy Islamists
roaming the streets of little Britain.
Why the continuation of the British jibes? I told you, if you want to
upset people who are proud to be British www.unitedbritish.com They are
very nice but quite small group of people.
I honestly don’t have union jacks on the wall and as for the delving
through history totting up account books, I’ve got a fiver (cockneyism
for 5 pounds) in my pocket you can have if it helps.
By Anonymous, at 3:31 PM
• Besides, You should thank me! I've just increased visitors to your site
by 300% no?
By Anonymous, at 4:06 PM
• Yeh I wouldn't have found my way here if it wasn't for you!
That's a generous offer, I know how you are for money! I'll chip in
a couple of quid towards paying off lend-lease, too!
By M, at 8:35 PM
•
And I never ever used the word "distribution" of wealth...
Certainly wealth is earned, but the playing-field is hardly level,
is it?
By M, at 8:37 PM
(editors note: There was loads more, including tales
of soldiers baptising each other in rubber dingys before battle...Jenjus
seemed to win every battle but inexplicably lost the war...We pick up the
story after Bush's triumphant victory...)
Ace of Spades HQ: The Most Important Political Victory in Fifty Years
Ace of Spades HQ: The Most Important Political Victory in Fifty Years: "Our
enemies are now on notice: We will not tire, we will not falter, and
we will not give up until we have won this war.
Bush said it, and we as a nation mean it.
Four more years of hell, Al Qaeda."
I agree, Ace.
posted by Chris at 1:24 PM
5 Comments:
• All three of them are very scared now I'm sure.
A guy called Al-Fahdal lied in court to invent them for you.
Jason Burke (author Al-Quaida)
"
Al Quaida as an organised terrorist network simply does not exist."
and your mate is laughing at you.
By Anonymous, at 5:12 PM
• Ahahahaha!!! Flame away, feckless euro-fops! Four more years for you
girls to suffer through!
By Chris, at 7:30 PM
•
Surely you mean " Four more years of hell Al-Quaida - wherever
they are!?" and who's suffering? I'm laughing at you louder than your mate.
By dave bones, at 10:27 PM
• I love that you are OBSESSED with my blog and everything I have to say.
By Chris, at 11:12 PM
• GOOD. I love it too. You are the 4th funniest Republican on my bookmark.
I don't know what you were cacking your trousers about anyway.
I told you Bush would win, and if he didn't Kerry would have carried forward
the Republican agenda in all but name. If you get a chance watch
the BBC's Power of Nightmares series. I'd be interested in your take on
it.
Where did your soldier mate disappear to? I wanted to assure him that
if the war ever came to Texas, you would be standing right behind him.
By dave bones, at 11:16 AM
home |
|
