There is no place for these journalists to hide and no logic, however dubious, with which they can transfer the guilt to us. And, believe me, if they can't invent this, there is nothing to invent—nothing.
The fact is that the only personage of note to call Abdulmutallab an "isolated extremist," which is the closest thing to a solitary crank, was the president himself.
When the pinkos go berserker, Obama had better hide.
Sunday, January 03, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
The failure of the CIA and the other alphabet agencies to connect the dots is a methodological failure. The president's failure to grasp the realities is an ideological and psychological failure.
Duhhh...
Already during the campaign, he liquidated the war on terrorism. It was not apt. It was diversionary. And, oh, what a relief this was to his ecstatic crowds.
Think Pepe, smoking pot cross-legged on the ground, lost in pinko haze, enjoying his nirvana.
You forgot the Birkenstocks, Tecs.
Also, there's no ``Duh" here. This is TNR making good solid sense. That matters a lot more than Steyn making sense.
Now we should be even for my VCP-worthy mistakes of the last couple days.
Well, it's not TNR, it's Peretz. Well, OK, he's the guy who owns it (bought it with his wife's dowry), but it's a rather safe bet he doesn't quite represent the opinions of his cookie-cutter pinko staff.
And, as for what he says, duh, we've been saying that for more than a week now. As for Peretz being more influential or important than Steyn -- oh, c'mon, you must be joking, Herr Rot.
Steyn ain't going to change anyone's mind, Tecs. If we're reading him, we're already convinced.
Peretz is the guy that hired Chait. For "one of them" to turn on Obambi is news.
You know the thing about man bites dog...
Anyway, bottom line, the week's VCP-worthy errors on my part is over and we're back to you racking up debt.
You don't even understand this man bites dog incident. Shit.
Pay up.
This is a matter of interpretation -- it's your opinion against mine -- not of cold, hard facts -- like Herr Rot going gaga on us, posting and reposting the same links ad-infinitum. No VCP tab for contradictory opinions. That's the rule. Deal with it.
That's an incorrect interpretation. Pay up.
How can you possibly prove (starting from a well-defined set of axioms) that my interpretation is "incorrect"? No way.
Gröbner. Private communication.
Post a Comment