In response to my post “Al Qaeda reported crippled in Iraq,” La Rana, in a post entitled “Dumb people La Rana reads for some reason,” attempts a brisk fisking [portions of my original post I’ll place in italics]:
Jeff Goldstein is smart enough to identify some of the arguments that obliterate the rationale for the War On Terror, but not smart enough to do anything but wriggle around and throw poop.
For my part, I have never looked at the War on Terror as a war designed to defeat a tactic. Instead, it is a war designed to convince those who deploy such tactics that we will not let such attacks go unpunished, and that  in the long term  we have the capability to visit upon terrorist organizations the kind of punishment that persuades them to rethink their “war†against the West.
Oh, well that makes sense. Its not that we are trying to defeat a tactic, but to persuade the people who use the tactic to stop using the tactic, which is totally different than defeating the tactic. Thats because if you defeated the tactic then it would not be used, whereas here the people are not using it. Completely different verb tenses. The argument seems to derive from the complicated guns-don’t-kill-people-people-kill-people school of logic.
Well, allow me to interject, and perhaps help you out of the semantic tangle that has you all twitchy and confused.
The tactic itself — a thing that can always potentially be used (terrorism itself, as a category) — cannot be defeated, just as, say, cheating cannot be defeated. And the reason these kinds of things can’t be defeated is that the potential to deploy them is always present, somewhere, sometime, by someone. Meaning that, were we looking to defeat the tactic — the category “terrorism,” for instance — any recurrence of that tactic will serve as proof that we have failed in our efforts.
This is the metric many in the anti-war (or even “realist”) camps try to use to gauge our success in combating Islamic militancy — the next roadside bomb always serving as proof that our efforts to fight terrorism have failed. But my point is, this is precisely the wrong metric: because even if every terror attack stopped tomorrow, we would not have defeated the tactic; instead, we would have broken the will of those predisposed to deploy the tactic, their having come to the realization that the tactic is not effective against those who accept it as always potential (and who therefore concentrate instead on dis-incentivizing its use), and that many of them are therefore dying for what is, tactically speaking, a lost cause.
As others have so aptly noted, if you really want to kill someone, all it takes is the willingness to die doing so.
Which is why the goal is to take away that willingness to die — which has nothing to do with taking away the potential for the tactic to be made manifest, which is something that exists beyond individual choices as part of a category of action.
Thus, blowback, or “imperialism,†or cultural hegemony, or ill-advised interventionalism, or economic oppression, etc., as “explanations†for why we’ve come to be targeted  explanations that run counter to those offered by the attackers, who are themselves reduced to a sort of symbolic rebuke to our own system made manifest in robes and sandals and swarthiness covered in facial hair.
I guess I never really thought about it, but I suppose he’s right. When Osama bin Laden says that our thousands of international military installations and unrepentant support for dictators are the reason he sees fit to attack the US and its allies, what he really means is “Look at my robe fuckers! My beard is WAAAy better than yours, infidel!”
Well, naturally, bin Laden has noted a number of reasons — the most recent being our failure to sign Kyoto and the horrors of sub-prime lending. I believe he also mentioned “My Pet Goat” — and yet somehow I doubt he’s really all that concerned about such things.
What we do know he’s concerned about — the goal of the Islamist movement, as bin Laden and a host of his followers have made clear — is to “unite all Muslims and to establish a government which follows the rule of the Caliphs.” To do so, it is necessary for al Qaeda and their sympathizers to try to force the US out of the Middle East — to which, I should add, he has no more claim than do those in the ME who voluntarily forge alliances with the US.
So to argue that bin Laden attacks the West because of its meddling in the Middle East is to say that bin Laden attacks the West because the West is standing in the way of his movement’s attempt to subjugate an entire region, and bring back the 7th century, under rule of the Caliphate.
Yet we’re the imperialists?
Al Qaeda has outlined its plans — and though bin Laden is certainly concerned with US presence in the Arabian peninsula, it bears noting that his entry into the Islamist movement dates back to 1973, nearly two decades before the first Gulf War. And of course, Bin Laden is no more concerned about the plight of Palestinians than he is about Kyoto or sub-prime lending. Still, he knows enough to preach grievance politics in order to enlist useful idiots such as you, La Rana, to carry out part of his propaganda war. He did, afterall, study cultural marxism — and so has taken to appealing to those of your political stripe.
Embarrassing for you, isn’t it?
Here’s a though experiment you might wish to try: ask yourself how you feel about the Buchananites and White Supremacists and the nativists who wish to see the US rid of the mongrels (kufr) who have diluted its cultural purity. Should, hypothetically, a band of 19 Aryans fly a bunch of planes into the heart of Mexico City — protesting how the Mexican government has foisted its immigration agenda onto the US in an attempt to one day take back California — would you be sympathetic to such arguments? Would Ward Churchill call all those who died in the attack “Little Eichmanns?”
Or would you each call them reactionary racists whose real goal was to gain power for themselves?
Don’t answer. That was rhetorical.
A word of advice: People who live in glass dunce caps shouldn’t throw stones. Or, you know, those snub-nosed scissors gradeschoolers are always using.
Wouldn’t want anyone to lose an eye.
Just something to think about, genius.
“thousands of international military installations”
Here we go again…lefty math. I personally blame Carl Sagan for that particular shortcoming on that side of the aisle.
Let’s just leave it at this: OBL’s reasons for being anti-Western (not just anti-American) have shifted more than the Colts during a Peyton Manning audible. However, his underlying message is the same, and it has nothing to do with robes. It is “Submit or die.”
If someone doesn’t understand that because they choose instead to blame the foreign policy of a country that most of the bearded caveboy’s posse would take a green card from in a heartbeat, they are…what’s the word…oh yeah…stupid.
Contrary to the conventional wisdom in the hive-mind, the Israel/Palestinian issue was not the “root cause†that gave birth to al Qaeda, nor will any tweaking of our policy towards Israel appease the jihadists.
The goal of a Palestininan homeland in the Mideast is as much anathema to al Qaeda than to Israel, since al Qaeda has another vision for that particular parcel of real estate. Al Qaeda is fighting for a muslim caliphate, not Palestinian nationalism.
At the Colts game Monday night, I am going to listen to see if Peyton really says “Submit or die”.
Nice antecedent catch, JD.
You owe me one laptop keyboard, by the way.
First, the missing comma after the word “robe” provides the usual unintended comedy.
Second, The Frog fails to realize that the “symbolic rebuke” Jeff mentions is a symbol to the Left in that sentence, i.e., the Left sees bin Laden as Nemesis in sandals, a karmic inevitability to punish us for our imperialistic sins.
Third, bin Laden didn’t turn his ire toward the U.S. until Saudi Arabia chose us to defend them against Saddam when he invaded Kuwait. Bin Laden had offered the services of his mujahedeen to protect The Kingdom, but they totally dissed him.
The presence of our bases in S.A. are a constant reminder of his being shamed, something that is intolerable to the Arab soul, and that shame can be purged only humiliating us or shedding our blood.
La Rana… what a tool. Probably a dull one at that.
Of the school of thought of, let’s decry neocon ‘propaganda’ whilst buying hook line and sinker Islamist propaganda.
Though, the line about how convoluted ‘people kill people’ thinking is reveals how many knots are in La Rana’s skull anyway. It’s real simple, Chuck. If you didn’t have guns you’d have knives, and if not knives, fists. At some point you have to start removing limbs, ’cause the human body is a weapon too.
wishbone – Here in Indy, we do not even notice all of the audibles. I have always wondered what he said. Thanks to you, now I know.
Red 42 flash right submit or die hut … TD
Thus, blowback, or “imperialism,†or cultural hegemony, or ill-advised interventionalism, or economic oppression, etc., as “explanations†for why we’ve come to be targeted  explanations that run counter to those offered by the attackers, who are themselves reduced to a sort of symbolic rebuke to our own system made manifest in robes and sandals and swarthiness covered in facial hair.
After clearing away the thicket of clauses and qualifiers in the above passage, I came away with the kernel “Blowback made manifest.” Have I missed another viable predicate, or is that the gist? ‘Cause I’m perplexed is all.
The Frog
I meant to comment on that too, but I forgot in the heat of typing.
Beautiful analogy with the aryans flying planes into Mexico City.
Oh, and I agree with La Rana on the whole guns/people/death thing. I’m petitioning in my local community for a .45 used in a killing here to be charged with murder and given the smeltering penalty.
OBL was infuriated by the presence of the US air base at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, because its presence violated (to his thinking) the holy Islamic cities of Mecca and Medina.
Of course, the main purpose of that base back in 1991, when OBL first started obsessing about it, was to support the “no fly” patrols over Iraq. These patrols were an integral part of the “containment” strategy against Iraq that the Left often cites as a viable alternative to the invasion.
IOW, if “blowback” created al Qaeda, it was blowback against a policy that much of the Left supported then, and continues to defend to this day.
“I’m petitioning in my local community for a .45 used in a killing here to be charged with murder and given the smeltering penalty.”
LaRana, probably not unlike his ideological loonmate, would tell you that fire can’t melt steel. And please don’t kill it, but try and rehabilitate it by turning it into candlestick or pot pourri holder.
LaRana should probably not try to have a dust up with Jeff. There is stupid, then there is absolute willfull ignorance. LaRana has the latter covered in spades.
Here’s a thought experiment you might wish to try: ask yourself how you feel about the Buchananites and White Supremacists and the nativists who wish to see the US rid of the mongrels (kufr) who have diluted its cultural purity. Should, hypothetically, a band of 19 Aryans fly a bunch of planes into the heart of Mexico City  protesting how the Mexican government has foisted its immigration agenda onto the US in an attempt to one day take back California  would you be sympathetic to such arguments? Would Ward Churchill call all those who died in the attack “Little Eichmanns?â€Â
The snap you hear at the end of that could be confused with Jeff’s logic and stylistic devices breaking the sound barrier as it punctuates how ass bakwards La Rana is. However, closer study shows that this is actually an expression wave energy from being cock whipped by a member of the Chaetophractus vellerosus, also know as the Screaming Hairy armadillo. This can be proven by the small mushroom shaped bruise on the center of La Rana’s forehead and the empty bottle of El Tesoro de Don Felipe teqila in the corner.
Why is it that Jeff writes some of his best stuff while in a snit with a blogger I’ve never heard of?
Hmmm…
Methinks I can see the outlines of the beginnings of another mushroom shaped bruise on a reactionary’s forehead.
“Should, hypothetically, a band of 19 Aryans fly a bunch of planes into the heart of Mexico City  protesting how the Mexican government has foisted its immigration agenda onto the US in an attempt to one day take back California  would you be sympathetic to such arguments?”
This analogy becomes a good deal less hypothetical when we consider the whoops and cheers that were heard from some in the white supremacist camp after 9/11: “say what you want about sand niggers, but they are serious about killin them Jews”. So remember lefties, if you want broaden your appeal when identifying those perceived national flaws that constitute the real reason for Islamicist terror directed against the U.S., you might consider something along the lines of “the jew-communist conspiracy to mongrelize white Christian America….and turn your sons into faggots!” Because I mean, once you’re willing to parrot OB various explanations for his hatred of the U.S. (such as Kyoto or Hiroshima), or, to function as his press secretary by projecting talking points onto him that you think would be better received by a U.S audience, well, you’re already past the point where you should be worrying about crossing the boundaries of reason, decency, logic or good taste.
La Rana; let me give you a concrete example of detached irony.
You title your review of Jeff’s post “Dumb People La Rana reads for Some Reason,” then prove yourself to be too dumb and ill informed to understand any of it. Which, of course, doesn’t stop you from detailing your ignorance and dumbness.
Irony, it’s what’s for dinner!
EMBRACE MEDIOCRITY!
Yes, you are missing something — but only because of the context given you by La Rana.
Here’s the complete paragraph, with predicate:
Jeff just lays out the words – barbed, perhaps, and the zany boobs get themselves all stuck in it like a bunch of flies.
Dozy bints.
RiverC – bint is such a good word. When said in the manner the jihadis use it, it accurately conveys the contempt they have for womyn, and women.
It’a another example (in addition to the aforementioned dumbness and ignorance) of attempting to pick up The Narrative™ square peg and cram it (shrieking) into the islamist, sand filled round hole.
Radical jihadists, originalists, wahabbists, whatever, start from the notion of purifying Islam of its modern and secular taints. If one takes the time to actually read the fatwas and the scholars who understand them (especially Bernard Lewis) one walks away with the clear understanding that we are only a primary enemy exactly because of our influence and strength! In truth, Osama bin duckin and his ilk are more concerned with the apostate Muslim rulers in the Middle East. We are an important inconvenience having, both perceived and in reality, created the sorts of cultural templates and economic opportunities that cause the heinous apostates to actually emulate a few of the western liberal ideals.
True, the results are mixed but the idea of secularizing muslim governments gets tossed primarily at the feet of Turkey’s Ataturk, a figure of unspeakable awfulness in the jihadist circle. The various splodeydopes that make up radical jihadist Islam (it ain’t just al cave-da, ya know) understand that the establishment of the Caliphate isn’t going to happen as long as those pesky apostates continue to sit on their various “thrones.” America and its economic, diplomatic, cultural and political interests in the region prevent the jihadist from achieving their turn-back-the-clock goal. Israel is in the same position by its mere existance. Palistinian autonomy, as noted above, is a convenient talking point that has little, practical application for the international jihadist community. It is not a liberation theology but merely a means to the Caliphate end.
For those of us who understand this dynamic the idea that “Economic Imperialism” or any other primary leftist cant plays any kind of significant role in jihadist terrorism is just plain ludicrous. It’s about the religion. The fact that fools like La Rana are functionally ignorant of the underlining facts makes their sneering, playground attacks all the more pathetic and, ultimately, laughable.
This can be proven by the small mushroom shaped bruise on the center of La Rana’s forehead and the empty bottle of El Tesoro de Don Felipe teqila in the corner.
Obviously this armadillo is not Mexican, since Mexicans only drink Tequila Cazadores. (And I’m told that armadillos are considered a delicacy in the Southern Mexican states).
“The argument seems to derive from the complicated guns-don’t-kill-people-people-kill-people school of logic.”
I fell for that one as a younger man, then one night was awoken by a Remington Wingmaster that had clawed its way out of its case under the bed and was trying to beat its way into the closet where the shells were. I think it was jealous of the Ithaca Model 37 I had taken up with, luckily I was able to beat it to death with a sledgehammer before it could arm itself.
“I’m petitioning in my local community for a .45 used in a killing here to be charged with murder and given the smeltering penalty.”
What? Are you going to try to tell me than you can melt steel?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Just remember: People don’t kill guns, sledgehammers do.
“The argument seems to derive from the complicated guns-don’t-kill-people-people-kill-people school of logic.”
If THAT particular bit of logic is complicated, how the heck does he expect to actually be able to reason out anything that’s really tough? His statement is a sign of a very small, very closed, and very logic-impaired mind.
Otherwise, I’m sure he’s a swell guy at parties. Just not the parties I go to.
I’m trying to figure out why Jeff would even bother with this guy. Did I miss the memo? Does Jeff enjoy wrestling with handicapped pigs? I’d say he must, based on the headlocks he throws out, all willy-nilly like.
BJ – Well said, well said indeed. I have never understood the people that think we should just engage them, understand them, talk to them. Their positions leave no room for negotiation. It is not like they would be willing to settle for killing just some of the Joooooooos.
BJ…great comment (#21). You nailed it. If these loons weren’t so intellectually lazy, or worried about offending anyone (even craven fascist murderers), we wouldn’t even be having these conversations. The jihadists aren’t a complicated bunch. But it’s easier just to say that wingnuts (whatever the hell that is) want to kill brown people.
I remember a place in Guatemala City when I lived there named “La Rana Sabia”. Obviously it had no relationship with or connection to the present referenced blogger.
Bingo, OI! The willingness of La Rana and some of his compatriots to spout intellectually lazy bromides about the GWOT for nothing better than a cheap political msucker punch against conservatives is mind numbing. Geez, pick up a book or two. Hell, La Rana could read “The Age of Sacred Terror” which was written by two of Clinton’s NCC staffers. He’ll bask in the Clinton apology meme whilst getting a solid historical insight into the history and tactics of modern jihadism.
I can be generous and considerate for a war mongering, brown people hating fascist.
Marginal observation (as usual; these are the things I care about):
If George Carlin’s comedy has a single point, it’s that people, influenced by the dumb repetitions of media etc., increasingly use words they don’t think about, and the boundaries of their minds shrink as these unthought phrases take the place of formerly possible thoughts, now under euphemistic erasure.
Irony: The euphemism “brown people” got its currency from its sarcastic deployment in a Carlin punchline about Gulf War I, which punchline, while superficially (and possibly intentionally only) right-mocking, was functionally left-mocking, as it comically aped the left’s thumbless grasp of human motivations, for all of which they have ready-to-deploy handed-down shorthand slurs that only actually do work as shibboleths. They’re markers, displays — not even words, really. As the cheers the line got demonstrated.
I’ve never seen the film of the concert, so I don’t know if he did it that time, but sometimes when his audience would cheer when they should have laughed (or not), Carlin would make this face that was too complex to read fully, but clearly included Thanks for proving my point, shitheads.
Every time I see “brown people” — which is all the damn time now — I see that face.
Good points, psychologizer.
There’s almost something phatic about the entire leftist arsenal.
#21
This is a crucial point that rarely gets mentioned, because it is easy to misconstrue (unintentionally or deliberately) as an attack on Islam.
When the 9/11 attacks occurred people were accustomed to thinking about terrorism in terms of the IRA and the PLO. Even though the IRA was associated with Catholicism, both of these organizations were essentially non-sectarian liberation movements, that had limited, concrete, political goals. At least in theory it should be possible to negotiate a solution to the political problem that gave rise to these movements, causing support for them to largely evaporate. In fact, this actually happened in the case of the IRA.
The problem is that this logic does not apply to jihadist groups that are driven by a fanatical religious vision that cannot allow for limited political compromises. Even if some of their goals (ie, driving the US out of Iraq) are political in nature, giving in to them will not cause them to make peace with us. On the contrary, it will be interpreted the way one would expect a shame culture to interpret surrender: as a sign of weakness that will embolden them further.
psychologizer is of course correct: the Left (certainly the ones who show up here) don’t have any idea what the words mean. They’re simply invoking the Gods using gibberish. My favorite is the people who don’t just strongly advocate Government micromanagement of otherwise-private affairs on the ground of maintaining a fair and cohesive society, they insist that that is the only way it can be accomplished — and then proceed to use “fascist” as an other-people label.
In reality, the root words are irrelevant. Fascist, racist, feminist, etc. etc. ad nauseum don’t have any meaning relating to their putative roots, they are merely invocations. My suggestion that they dispense with the root words entirely in the interest of economy (and staving off Climate Change) doesn’t seem to have met with much approval, although they could save a lot of effort by just shouting “Ist! Ist!” when they want to insult somebody.
Regards,
Ric
Ric,
I believe that they have already taken your suggestion, but instead of shouting Ist! they have chosen to shout NEOCON!
Well, yeah, Aldo, but it’s wasteful. Two whole extra syllables are being wasted every time they issue the slur. Think of the children.
Regards,
Ric
Now that’s the Jeff I have been hoping to see again. Nice takedown and pinning, 6 points awarded. Now where is my wallet.
One of my favorite ways to diffuse one of the local collegiate lefties when I would really just drink and talk sports is to ask them what a Neocon is when they start calling me one. Most of the time, if I get any answer at all, they think it has something to do with neonazis.
Moe, they would give you the same answer if you asked them to define a libertarian or a Falangist. They think everything outside the Sorosphere has something to do with nazis.
What’s hilarious about the “brown people” rant is the fact that Carlin’s contention that the only white people we ever bombed were ze Germans, although factually correct at the time, was made untrue within a few short years, as Belgrade began to sprout craters.
Aldo, the worst part of that is that they don’t even have any clear idea what “nazi” means, either. It’s just an all-purpose label that means “not us”.
Regards,
Ric
It’s just an all-purpose label that means “not usâ€Â.
Outside the hive.
Shouldn’t that be “La Sapa”?…
It would be “el sapo.” The female would be el sapo hembra.
I once worked with a guy whose nickname was “sapo”. When asked what it meant, he said, “It’s like a frog, pero a biiiiig pinche frog.”
Jeez. I’m starting to sound like datadave without the leftist cant.
La Rana is correct in the analogy with the “guns don’t kill people” thing.
Perhaps La Rana believes that people don’t kill people, guns kill people.
It seems La Rana also believes that terrorists don’t kill people, terrorist tactics kill people.
So fight the guns and fight the tactics. Simple really.
Mike C said:
Not verbose enough.
If George Carlin’s comedy has a single point, it’s that people, influenced by the dumb repetitions of media etc., increasingly use words they don’t think about, and the boundaries of their minds shrink as these unthought phrases take the place of formerly possible thoughts, now under euphemistic erasure.
What’s frightening about this point is that it’s not just a leftie thing. Or if it is, they are applying this “euphemistic erasure” to everything they do. I routinely hear the inappropriate use of jargon in my job (which has some military connections), especially after Somebody Important uses that jargon during a meeting. ‘
Which leads me to conclude that “euphemistic erasure” is a symptom of brain death.
Bullets kill people, bitch.
– The Hari Khrisner Zen book on co-existance with guns:
– Life id like a bullet. Sometimes it comes at you fast.
– Guns don’t kill people, bullets kill people. Because they’re moving to slow. The people, not the bullets.
– One tactic is to be some place else when the bullets start flying.
– Its always safer to talk about bullets where they aren’t. For instance, if theres a lot of bullets flying around in Iraq, then going to say, Canada, to talk about bullets in Iraq, is a pretty safe option. This is called “The SecProg theory of war”.
– Are you taking notes Feets?
Yes, I am. But also this is a cool trailer. I watched it with my headphones off so I have no idea what it’s about. I kind of approached this thread like that.
– Well as a totally partial observer I’d guess the thread is about a Progressive bloggerette whos very cranky, (the Dems/SP’s have had a very bad week you know, culminating with Teh Letter, unless they mange to trip on their cranks and jump an even bigger shark tomorrow), who wants to bitch at Jeff, just because, and blame him for her inability to comprehend. Sort of a subset of BDS thing, where her density is his fault, along with her acne and weight problems.
– I think when he attains the lofty height of being blamed for a part of global warming because of the weeds behind his fence, he’ll have arrived.
On the other hand BJ, in this day and age of super bugs and drug resistant viruses, it’s probably a good idea to purify your taint once in a while.
I thought it was, “Guns don’t kill people, killists kill people.”
AL: LOL, I’ll put on a pot of boiliong water!
Ric:
Worse than that, ric, they are rhetorical cudgels. They are in no way designed to inform or raise the debate but rather are wielded to objectify the opposing view. It’s verbal war ammunition at its most arrogant and lazy. Beyond the “ISTS!” and “ISMS!” nothing exemplifies this broad brush labeling more than the progressive-who-plays-doctor by psychoanalyzing opposing views. Beyond the obvious breakthroughs in political psychoanalysis (homophobia! islamophobia!) we have the cadre of amatuer therapists eagar to espouse quirky and edgy diagnoses on those that stray from The Narrative.™ Thus “weenie men” and those that are playing out adolescent fantasies of bloodletting to justify supporting the GWOT are pidgeonholed into the proper teh crazee catagories where “sane” people can either ignore them or poke them with sticks.
It’s immature, narcissistic and, in its own way, quite Stalinist. After all, Stalin was an evil genius for developing the idea that criticism of the State Narrative was grounds for insanity.
Got gulags? FOR TEH CRAZEE PEOPLESES!
“(the Dems/SP’s have had a very bad week you know, culminating with Teh Letter, unless they mange to trip on their cranks and jump an even bigger shark tomorrow),”
(announcer’s voice): playing the part of Fonzie today is Pete Stark.
Would it help dullards like these if we referred to it instead as the War on Terrorists and the Rogue Governments Who Sponsor Them? Makes for an unwieldy acronym, but whatever works, y’know.
Happyfeet: Jumper is about a kid who finds out he can teleport, if it’s based on the book I’m thinking of.
Big trouble follows. Should make a good movie, I’d say.
I am not exactly sure how one goes about purifying their taint, but I am quite certain that my nutsack and chocolate starfish will not be dunked in a pot of boiling water like BJ’s.
JD: what the…… not everything relates to the groinal region, BTW!!! Oh, and EEEEUUUUUWWWWWWW!
BJ – Does taint have any other definition that I am missing?
One, or both of you owes my employer a new keyboard.
ThomasD – Sorry, kind of. I could not resist taking al’s opening salvo and running with it, especially once BJ started talking about boiling his balls and ass. I cannot imagine a scenario where the taint could be boiled and the nutsack and cornhole avoid being boiled like a Louisiana crawdad.
– Hmmmm….and I was seriously considering hanging with you guys at the upcoming “Teh Gathering” until you started chittering about crawdads in butt cracks…..Sempre fi….carry on….
My bad, BB(pyu). But, in my defense, al started it. lol
JD: The taint is entirely in your head, although I wouldn’t recommend boiling it.
ThomasD: I lost a keyboard first with JD’s comment so I suggest you hit him up.
Ah, PW, the only place where rhetorical taint passes for an STD.
– “But I’ll bet you can get up enough money to send kids over to Iraq to have their heads blown off for the amusement of this president and his illegal war….”
– Representative Stark has jumped the shark, along with the entire Atlantic.
– Is it safe to say they’ve slipped into complete certifiable lunacy?
In the age of duels we were a more polite society.
I know I am most certainly not imagining this, so eloquently authored by the great alpuccino.
JD, you have my permission that should I ever use the word taint inaany comment in any way to SHOOT ME!!!!!
alpuccino, it’s all your fault!
Sorry, al. It is officially BJ’s fault. Now, to those of you that have been attempting to dunk your donuts in boiling water to purify them, as BJ suggested, I suggest you head straight to your dermatologist, as the marble sack and poop chute were not really designed to be boiled.
‘Tain’t funny, you guys.