Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
OIC, you've decided to play stupid again! How many Christians were in Somalia you think? So while we are there the Somali's sold us out and alerted the militia right? Correct. Same in Bosnia. We went in there when no one else would and rescued Muslims from genocide and what were we repaid with? 9-11.What I remember is that the U.S., in 1992 under George W. Bush, participated in the U.N. relief effort to help hungry, homeless and helpless Somalian civilians who'd become that way as a result of a civil war that began in 1991, resulting in material devastation to Somalia's agricultural industry. To the best of my recollection, the effort was to provide aid to "starving" Somalians, regardless of their religious affiliation. But by all means, if you can show some credible evidence that our reason for being there was to aid Muslims expressly, rather than everyone there who needed our assistance, I'll gladly cede the point.remember? We are over there helping starving Muslims
I hate to say it but that is pretty much it.There's no dilemma. There's just two groups; Muslims and everyone else.
Most European terrorists are not poor or oppressed, AT ALL.Let me use an absurd example: If every one of these terrorists had a job in which they were making EU100K/year, I wonder how many fewer suicide attacks there would be?Muslim countries are never going to be allies. They are never going to even come to the 18th century. They will forever be barbarian butchers that only a high velocity impact.The Terrorists want people to divide up into religious divisions. OBL wanted his attack on the US to foster this divide. To radicalize his own Muslim terrorists and to radicalize Christians and Jews. It appears he has accomplished that goal.
The more we give in to the desire to "round them up," the more OBL and ISIS philosophies to separate us along religious lines is working. The more we look at terrorism as a social movement, where an economic underclass with no hope in their home countries lashes out against the system (royalty in Saudi Arabia, moderate imams in Shia countries), the more we are leaving ourselves open to attack.
Neither approach is bullet proof. No pun intended. I think you have to protect the border, screen people relentlessly, and actually target people who are likely Muslims. Limits will need to be placed on their freedoms --- not limits to worship, but limits to move in our free society. As Bentham famously said, and I'm paraphrasing, their right to swing their arms ends at the tip of my nose.
Socially we have to really pressure Muslim countries to create opportunity for their underclass. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. Even if we have to spend money to do it, I'd spend there and here. Bombing them is counterproductive and distracts us from our own country. Although I'm sure Bill Kristol would love it.
OIC, you've decided to play stupid again! How many Christians were in Somalia you think? So while we are there the Somali's sold us out and alerted the militia right? Correct. Same in Bosnia. We went in there when no one else would and rescued Muslims from genocide and what were we repaid with? 9-11.What I remember is that the U.S., in 1992 under George W. Bush, participated in the U.N. relief effort to help hungry, homeless and helpless Somalian civilians who'd become that way as a result of a civil war that began in 1991, resulting in material devastation to Somalia's agricultural industry. To the best of my recollection, the effort was to provide aid to "starving" Somalians, regardless of their religious affiliation. But by all means, if you can show some credible evidence that our reason for being there was to aid Muslims expressly, rather than everyone there who needed our assistance, I'll gladly cede the point.remember? We are over there helping starving Muslims
I don't know. What I know is that your earlier remark asserts tacitly, tonally, that we were there to aid Muslims, when the fact of the matter is that the religious affiliation of the people whom we sought to help had nothing to do with why we were helping them.How many Christians were in Somalia you think?
Actually, no. I've not decided to, nor in fact, feign anything, not the least of which is respect for you, for this is now the second time in one day that you've posted with willfully ignorant replies to my comments. The first time round and out of generosity, I ascribed the nature of your silly remark to stupidity, which, for as disconcerting it is, is generally beyond one's control. I see now, however, that your mind is cardinally and willfully nescient, the remarks flowing from it trenchantly reflecting as much. Ciao.you've decided to play stupid again!
So, how many Christians and Jews were there? Do ya think? Libtards have shit for brains when it comes to logic!OIC, you've decided to play stupid again! How many Christians were in Somalia you think? So while we are there the Somali's sold us out and alerted the militia right? Correct. Same in Bosnia. We went in there when no one else would and rescued Muslims from genocide and what were we repaid with? 9-11.What I remember is that the U.S., in 1992 under George W. Bush, participated in the U.N. relief effort to help hungry, homeless and helpless Somalian civilians who'd become that way as a result of a civil war that began in 1991, resulting in material devastation to Somalia's agricultural industry. To the best of my recollection, the effort was to provide aid to "starving" Somalians, regardless of their religious affiliation. But by all means, if you can show some credible evidence that our reason for being there was to aid Muslims expressly, rather than everyone there who needed our assistance, I'll gladly cede the point.remember? We are over there helping starving MuslimsI don't know. What I know is that your earlier remark asserts tacitly, tonally, that we were there to aid Muslims, when the fact of the matter is that the religious affiliation of the people whom we sought to help had nothing to do with why we were helping them.How many Christians were in Somalia you think?
Actually, no. I've not decided to, nor in fact, feign anything, not the least of which is respect for you, for this is now the second time in one day that you've posted with willfully ignorant replies to my comments. The first time round and out of generosity, I ascribed the nature of your silly remark to stupidity, which, for as disconcerting it is, is generally beyond one's control. I see now, however, that your mind is cardinally and willfully nescient, the remarks flowing from it trenchantly reflecting as much. Ciao.you've decided to play stupid again!
First of all, let me say "nice OP." It's rare that members bother to compose something original that's also coherent and cogent.
The Terrorists want people to divide up into religious divisions. OBL wanted his attack on the US to foster this divide. To radicalize his own Muslim terrorists and to radicalize Christians and Jews. It appears he has accomplished that goal.
The more we give in to the desire to "round them up," the more OBL and ISIS philosophies to separate us along religious lines is working. The more we look at terrorism as a social movement, where an economic underclass with no hope in their home countries lashes out against the system (royalty in Saudi Arabia, moderate imams in Shia countries), the more we are leaving ourselves open to attack.
Neither approach is bullet proof. No pun intended. I think you have to protect the border, screen people relentlessly, and actually target people who are likely Muslims. Limits will need to be placed on their freedoms --- not limits to worship, but limits to move in our free society. As Bentham famously said, and I'm paraphrasing, their right to swing their arms ends at the tip of my nose.
Socially we have to really pressure Muslim countries to create opportunity for their underclass. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. Even if we have to spend money to do it, I'd spend there and here. Bombing them is counterproductive and distracts us from our own country. Although I'm sure Bill Kristol would love it.OBL wanted his attack on the US to foster this divide. To radicalize his own Muslim terrorists and to radicalize Christians and Jews. It appears he has accomplished that goal.
I don't know if that was OBL's goal; thus I won't go so far as declare a causal relationship between his actions and the state of discord that pervades many Westerners' hearts and minds with regard to Islam and its adherents. I agree that both Muslims and non-Muslims seem to be considerably more radical (less rational) than they have been been since, perhaps, the Crusades.
I think you have to protect the border, screen people relentlessly, and actually target people who are likely Muslims.
I'd concur with you had you written "extremists" or "radicals." Indeed, I'd have ticked "agree" on your OP but for that one word. That someone merely is Muslim is not problematic. That one harbors hatred toward non-Muslims and is willing to act violently as a result is the problem. I have plenty of tolerance for Muslims and the Islamic faith system. I have zero tolerance for manifestations of violence as a means to foment outcomes that one cannot (or thinks one cannot) achieve via the political processes wherever one finds oneself, regardless of the theistic belief system to which one adheres. IRA, ETA, ISIS, etc., they're all the same to me: violent extremists.
Limits will need to be placed on their freedoms --- not limits to worship, but limits to move in our free society. As Bentham famously said, and I'm paraphrasing, their right to swing their arms ends at the tip of my nose.
To the extent that the emboldened text reflects accurately the nature your acquiescence to limits on one of what is surely among the very few "God given" freedoms bestowed on all mobile creatures, I agree with you.
Aside:
I don't recall Bentham as being the originator of the rather famous phrasing you noted, though the principle of it is unquestionably found in Bentham's discussion of utilitarianism in The Principles of Morals and Legislation. In that text, Bentham declared that the correct moral principle “approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question,” and he had understood “happiness” in terms of those “sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.”
The earliest phrasing that I know of and that resembles the adage as you've paraphrased it is from the late 1800s by a dude whose name escapes me, but that I could probably choose were I given a list of options.
I'm sorry I don't recall more than that. That bit of minutia is something I can recall having come across in my readings, of all things, about the history of prohibition (one of the many things I had to research and write a paper about in my History of American Economics class, but that was some 40 odd years ago, so I'm not surprised I don't recall the detail any better than I do), and while the concept obviously struck me as germane, the guy who offered the noted phrasing and precisely when didn't. It thus didn't register as something I'd someday have use for knowing. I just don't think I would have forgotten were it Bentham. (FWIW, I performed a cursory check to find a Bentham work in which he offered the saying you note -- because everything Bentham said/wrote predated the late 1800s. I couldn't find any.)
Who knows, however? Last weekend I found myself playing charades for the first in "God knows how long." Perhaps I'll find myself in a shortly upcoming weekend playing Trivial Pursuit and wish I did know who said it? LOL
Socially we have to really pressure Muslim countries to create opportunity for their underclass. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. Even if we have to spend money to do it, I'd spend there and here.
"Pressure" probably won't have much of a positive impact. Helping them, including as you note with monetary support for a variety of initiatives, more likely will.
Read "The Looming Towers" then get back to me. They don't want to annihilate us. They want to make us like them. Bring about a Final Battle.You would know what obama bin laden was thinking had ewe listened. After he pussy whipped Bill Clinton, post Mogadishu (remember? We are over there helping starving Muslims) any way after that he called the US a paper tiger! That's what libtards are, paper tigers! Nope! I am afraid you are going to have to do to them the same thing they want to do to us and the Israelis. Annihiliate them!
My experience is different. To me there are two types of people: People who group people into groups and people who don't.There's no dilemma. There's just two groups; Muslims and everyone else.
Hard to defeat an "ism" if you don't understand it. Not enough bombs in the world to do that.Do not give a fuck what Islamist terrorist think, that's your mistake not mine!That's ALWAYS the mistake of the left! Do not ever think about ways to appease. That is so wrong! With that bullshit thinking we end up checking old women and children at the airport! And, no. We should not spend a goddamn dime to help them. Most of those countries are filthy oil rich! Let them decide they want to be decent human beings and help each other.The Terrorists want people to divide up into religious divisions. OBL wanted his attack on the US to foster this divide. To radicalize his own Muslim terrorists and to radicalize Christians and Jews. It appears he has accomplished that goal.
The more we give in to the desire to "round them up," the more OBL and ISIS philosophies to separate us along religious lines is working. The more we look at terrorism as a social movement, where an economic underclass with no hope in their home countries lashes out against the system (royalty in Saudi Arabia, moderate imams in Shia countries), the more we are leaving ourselves open to attack.
Neither approach is bullet proof. No pun intended. I think you have to protect the border, screen people relentlessly, and actually target people who are likely Muslims. Limits will need to be placed on their freedoms --- not limits to worship, but limits to move in our free society. As Bentham famously said, and I'm paraphrasing, their right to swing their arms ends at the tip of my nose.
Socially we have to really pressure Muslim countries to create opportunity for their underclass. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. Even if we have to spend money to do it, I'd spend there and here. Bombing them is counterproductive and distracts us from our own country. Although I'm sure Bill Kristol would love it.
I say we hit them where they live and keep surveillance on them here. AND I say we look for social solutions as well.
Not spend a dime to help them? Good Lord, man. We're sending all these Arab countries all kind of money anyway without forcing them to modernize their social issues.
If you think just bombing will solve things, you are doing exactly what the Islamist terrorists want you to do --- make it solely a battle of religion v. religion. Congratulations.
They will succeed with you.Read "The Looming Towers" then get back to me. They don't want to annihilate us. They want to make us like them. Bring about a Final Battle.You would know what obama bin laden was thinking had ewe listened. After he pussy whipped Bill Clinton, post Mogadishu (remember? We are over there helping starving Muslims) any way after that he called the US a paper tiger! That's what libtards are, paper tigers! Nope! I am afraid you are going to have to do to them the same thing they want to do to us and the Israelis. Annihiliate them!
Ironic post. You want to use only force (I support force too, but not solely force) and that's what they want. And you say they'll succeed with me. You get the Steely Dan Award for Pretzel Logic.They will succeed with you.Read "The Looming Towers" then get back to me. They don't want to annihilate us. They want to make us like them. Bring about a Final Battle.You would know what obama bin laden was thinking had ewe listened. After he pussy whipped Bill Clinton, post Mogadishu (remember? We are over there helping starving Muslims) any way after that he called the US a paper tiger! That's what libtards are, paper tigers! Nope! I am afraid you are going to have to do to them the same thing they want to do to us and the Israelis. Annihiliate them!
You will bow down and kiss their asses! And, like it.Ironic post. You want to use only force (I support force too, but not solely force) and that's what they want. And you say they'll succeed with me. You get the Steely Dan Award for Pretzel Logic.They will succeed with you.Read "The Looming Towers" then get back to me. They don't want to annihilate us. They want to make us like them. Bring about a Final Battle.You would know what obama bin laden was thinking had ewe listened. After he pussy whipped Bill Clinton, post Mogadishu (remember? We are over there helping starving Muslims) any way after that he called the US a paper tiger! That's what libtards are, paper tigers! Nope! I am afraid you are going to have to do to them the same thing they want to do to us and the Israelis. Annihiliate them!
Ahh, so you really don't see the irony, you'd prefer to act like a liberal and just attack. Fine. Have fun with that.You will bow down and kiss their asses! And, like it.Ironic post. You want to use only force (I support force too, but not solely force) and that's what they want. And you say they'll succeed with me. You get the Steely Dan Award for Pretzel Logic.They will succeed with you.Read "The Looming Towers" then get back to me. They don't want to annihilate us. They want to make us like them. Bring about a Final Battle.You would know what obama bin laden was thinking had ewe listened. After he pussy whipped Bill Clinton, post Mogadishu (remember? We are over there helping starving Muslims) any way after that he called the US a paper tiger! That's what libtards are, paper tigers! Nope! I am afraid you are going to have to do to them the same thing they want to do to us and the Israelis. Annihiliate them!
My curiosity got the best of me, so I dug through my college papers and I looked up the various references I cited. It took a few minutes, but I found the document, and fortunately, it's now even available electronically. [1] It was, based on what I found, a dude named Finch who, in 1887, uttered the first phrasing of the missive by saying, “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.” Not quite as eloquently put as your (perhaps others' too) paraphrasing, but close enough that Finch deserves the credit for coining the turn of phrase.I thin
First of all, let me say "nice OP." It's rare that members bother to compose something original that's also coherent and cogent.
The Terrorists want people to divide up into religious divisions. OBL wanted his attack on the US to foster this divide. To radicalize his own Muslim terrorists and to radicalize Christians and Jews. It appears he has accomplished that goal.
The more we give in to the desire to "round them up," the more OBL and ISIS philosophies to separate us along religious lines is working. The more we look at terrorism as a social movement, where an economic underclass with no hope in their home countries lashes out against the system (royalty in Saudi Arabia, moderate imams in Shia countries), the more we are leaving ourselves open to attack.
Neither approach is bullet proof. No pun intended. I think you have to protect the border, screen people relentlessly, and actually target people who are likely Muslims. Limits will need to be placed on their freedoms --- not limits to worship, but limits to move in our free society. As Bentham famously said, and I'm paraphrasing, their right to swing their arms ends at the tip of my nose.
Socially we have to really pressure Muslim countries to create opportunity for their underclass. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. Even if we have to spend money to do it, I'd spend there and here. Bombing them is counterproductive and distracts us from our own country. Although I'm sure Bill Kristol would love it.OBL wanted his attack on the US to foster this divide. To radicalize his own Muslim terrorists and to radicalize Christians and Jews. It appears he has accomplished that goal.
I don't know if that was OBL's goal; thus I won't go so far as declare a causal relationship between his actions and the state of discord that pervades many Westerners' hearts and minds with regard to Islam and its adherents. I agree that both Muslims and non-Muslims seem to be considerably more radical (less rational) than they have been been since, perhaps, the Crusades.
I think you have to protect the border, screen people relentlessly, and actually target people who are likely Muslims.
I'd concur with you had you written "extremists" or "radicals." Indeed, I'd have ticked "agree" on your OP but for that one word. That someone merely is Muslim is not problematic. That one harbors hatred toward non-Muslims and is willing to act violently as a result is the problem. I have plenty of tolerance for Muslims and the Islamic faith system. I have zero tolerance for manifestations of violence as a means to foment outcomes that one cannot (or thinks one cannot) achieve via the political processes wherever one finds oneself, regardless of the theistic belief system to which one adheres. IRA, ETA, ISIS, etc., they're all the same to me: violent extremists.
Limits will need to be placed on their freedoms --- not limits to worship, but limits to move in our free society. As Bentham famously said, and I'm paraphrasing, their right to swing their arms ends at the tip of my nose.
To the extent that the emboldened text reflects accurately the nature your acquiescence to limits on one of what is surely among the very few "God given" freedoms bestowed on all mobile creatures, I agree with you.
Aside:
I don't recall Bentham as being the originator of the rather famous phrasing you noted, though the principle of it is unquestionably found in Bentham's discussion of utilitarianism in The Principles of Morals and Legislation. In that text, Bentham declared that the correct moral principle “approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question,” and he had understood “happiness” in terms of those “sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.”
The earliest phrasing that I know of and that resembles the adage as you've paraphrased it is from the late 1800s by a dude whose name escapes me, but that I could probably choose were I given a list of options.
I'm sorry I don't recall more than that. That bit of minutia is something I can recall having come across in my readings, of all things, about the history of prohibition (one of the many things I had to research and write a paper about in my History of American Economics class, but that was some 40 odd years ago, so I'm not surprised I don't recall the detail any better than I do), and while the concept obviously struck me as germane, the guy who offered the noted phrasing and precisely when didn't. It thus didn't register as something I'd someday have use for knowing. I just don't think I would have forgotten were it Bentham. (FWIW, I performed a cursory check to find a Bentham work in which he offered the saying you note -- because everything Bentham said/wrote predated the late 1800s. I couldn't find any.)
Who knows, however? Last weekend I found myself playing charades for the first in "God knows how long." Perhaps I'll find myself in a shortly upcoming weekend playing Trivial Pursuit and wish I did know who said it? LOL
Socially we have to really pressure Muslim countries to create opportunity for their underclass. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. Even if we have to spend money to do it, I'd spend there and here.
"Pressure" probably won't have much of a positive impact. Helping them, including as you note with monetary support for a variety of initiatives, more likely will.
I think it was a Supreme Court justice in a dissent who attributed it to Bentham, I'll have to look it up. Maybe Holmes.
This actually might go back a few years prior to Obama, like, say, 1914 or so...Biggest ass kisser of all time and one reason we are in more trouble now than ever.
View attachment 130983
Nice deflection.This actually might go back a few years prior to Obama, like, say, 1914 or so...Biggest ass kisser of all time and one reason we are in more trouble now than ever.
View attachment 130983
hMy curiosity got the best of me, so I dug through my college papers and I looked up the various references I cited. It took a few minutes, but I found the document, and fortunately, it's now even available electronically. [1] It was, based on what I found, a dude named Finch who, in 1887, uttered the first phrasing of the missive by saying, “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.” Not quite as eloquently put as your (perhaps others' too) paraphrasing, but close enough that Finch deserves the credit for coining the turn of phrase.I thin
First of all, let me say "nice OP." It's rare that members bother to compose something original that's also coherent and cogent.
The Terrorists want people to divide up into religious divisions. OBL wanted his attack on the US to foster this divide. To radicalize his own Muslim terrorists and to radicalize Christians and Jews. It appears he has accomplished that goal.
The more we give in to the desire to "round them up," the more OBL and ISIS philosophies to separate us along religious lines is working. The more we look at terrorism as a social movement, where an economic underclass with no hope in their home countries lashes out against the system (royalty in Saudi Arabia, moderate imams in Shia countries), the more we are leaving ourselves open to attack.
Neither approach is bullet proof. No pun intended. I think you have to protect the border, screen people relentlessly, and actually target people who are likely Muslims. Limits will need to be placed on their freedoms --- not limits to worship, but limits to move in our free society. As Bentham famously said, and I'm paraphrasing, their right to swing their arms ends at the tip of my nose.
Socially we have to really pressure Muslim countries to create opportunity for their underclass. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. Even if we have to spend money to do it, I'd spend there and here. Bombing them is counterproductive and distracts us from our own country. Although I'm sure Bill Kristol would love it.OBL wanted his attack on the US to foster this divide. To radicalize his own Muslim terrorists and to radicalize Christians and Jews. It appears he has accomplished that goal.
I don't know if that was OBL's goal; thus I won't go so far as declare a causal relationship between his actions and the state of discord that pervades many Westerners' hearts and minds with regard to Islam and its adherents. I agree that both Muslims and non-Muslims seem to be considerably more radical (less rational) than they have been been since, perhaps, the Crusades.
I think you have to protect the border, screen people relentlessly, and actually target people who are likely Muslims.
I'd concur with you had you written "extremists" or "radicals." Indeed, I'd have ticked "agree" on your OP but for that one word. That someone merely is Muslim is not problematic. That one harbors hatred toward non-Muslims and is willing to act violently as a result is the problem. I have plenty of tolerance for Muslims and the Islamic faith system. I have zero tolerance for manifestations of violence as a means to foment outcomes that one cannot (or thinks one cannot) achieve via the political processes wherever one finds oneself, regardless of the theistic belief system to which one adheres. IRA, ETA, ISIS, etc., they're all the same to me: violent extremists.
Limits will need to be placed on their freedoms --- not limits to worship, but limits to move in our free society. As Bentham famously said, and I'm paraphrasing, their right to swing their arms ends at the tip of my nose.
To the extent that the emboldened text reflects accurately the nature your acquiescence to limits on one of what is surely among the very few "God given" freedoms bestowed on all mobile creatures, I agree with you.
Aside:
I don't recall Bentham as being the originator of the rather famous phrasing you noted, though the principle of it is unquestionably found in Bentham's discussion of utilitarianism in The Principles of Morals and Legislation. In that text, Bentham declared that the correct moral principle “approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question,” and he had understood “happiness” in terms of those “sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.”
The earliest phrasing that I know of and that resembles the adage as you've paraphrased it is from the late 1800s by a dude whose name escapes me, but that I could probably choose were I given a list of options.
I'm sorry I don't recall more than that. That bit of minutia is something I can recall having come across in my readings, of all things, about the history of prohibition (one of the many things I had to research and write a paper about in my History of American Economics class, but that was some 40 odd years ago, so I'm not surprised I don't recall the detail any better than I do), and while the concept obviously struck me as germane, the guy who offered the noted phrasing and precisely when didn't. It thus didn't register as something I'd someday have use for knowing. I just don't think I would have forgotten were it Bentham. (FWIW, I performed a cursory check to find a Bentham work in which he offered the saying you note -- because everything Bentham said/wrote predated the late 1800s. I couldn't find any.)
Who knows, however? Last weekend I found myself playing charades for the first in "God knows how long." Perhaps I'll find myself in a shortly upcoming weekend playing Trivial Pursuit and wish I did know who said it? LOL
Socially we have to really pressure Muslim countries to create opportunity for their underclass. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, etc. Even if we have to spend money to do it, I'd spend there and here.
"Pressure" probably won't have much of a positive impact. Helping them, including as you note with monetary support for a variety of initiatives, more likely will.
I think it was a Supreme Court justice in a dissent who attributed it to Bentham, I'll have to look it up. Maybe Holmes.
Note:
- Would that I had had such a thing as the Internet when I was in college and graduate school....Indeed with the fulsomeness afforded by the Internet, it's, to my way of thinking, downright shameful that the expectations foisted upon students (high school students and undergraduate collegians) seem less demanding than they were in my day when one had to spend long hours in the "stacks" and thumbing through countless pages to gather information for research papers and argumentative essays. Hell, an equivalent tool to "CTRL+F" would have been a great boon, to say nothing of having the aid of a powerful search engine like Google, Bing and others.
Facts are now deflections. Churchill's brain child of the partition of the Mideast into made up countries is a deflection. O Brave New World...Nice deflection.This actually might go back a few years prior to Obama, like, say, 1914 or so...Biggest ass kisser of all time and one reason we are in more trouble now than ever.
View attachment 130983
