|
lil mortimer posted:I don't get what's so bad about Morning Joe. It doesn't seem particularly in-your-face about the fact Joe Scarborough was once a Republican politician. The show has a really moderate tone, in all honesty.
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
beatlegs posted:It's not as bad as FOX but it's full of that insufferable, smug, contemptuous beltway centrist attitude that is the whole problem with the newsmedia as a whole. Every now and then he'll be critical of Republicans, but only when they say or do something extreme or crazy - aside from that he pretty much falls in line with the GOP talking points of the day. Not to mention that when he does criticize them, it's usually for the wrong reasons, i.e. saying that the "legitimate rape" and "life is a gift no matter what" comments were chasing off swing voters. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2012 22:42
|
|
|
dorquemada posted:You mean assassinating people in foreign countries? I'm pretty sure we killed a shitload of people with the whole stopping fascism and freeing slaves thing. I was being sarcastic. It seems to me that a lot of people like to gloss over the horrors of past wars but find it harder to ignore the savagery of contemporary war so there is a tendency to think that it's somehow different now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:30
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:I was being sarcastic. It seems to me that a lot of people like to gloss over the horrors of past wars but find it harder to ignore the savagery of contemporary war so there is a tendency to think that it's somehow different now. I think the big difference between past wars and present wars in the US' history is that once WWII ended they stopped being as morally pure in terms of ends. Stopping fascism, freeing slaves, protecting the neutrality of Belgium and keeping France from becoming a German acquisition, etc. This isn't to say all wars or military action prior to 1945 were any more morally sound than now - see the Philippines, the Spanish-American war, various deployments of force to protect despotic governments from popular rebellion due to favorable trade treatment under the incumbent regime - but we certainly have lost the moral rampart we used to occupy when we fought against fascism and slavery. We engage in war as an early out rather than after ultimatums and deadlines or god forbid actual belligerence against the country by uniformed forces. A slow creep of changes to the way pur country fundamentally operates and carries itself is to blame for that, and it absolutely was not a novel direction by the time the USSR was our chosen enemy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 06:59
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:This isn't to say all wars or military action prior to 1945 were any more morally sound than now - see the Philippines, the Spanish-American war, various deployments of force to protect despotic governments from popular rebellion due to favorable trade treatment under the incumbent regime - but we certainly have lost the moral rampart we used to occupy when we fought against fascism and slavery. We engage in war as an early out rather than after ultimatums and deadlines or god forbid actual belligerence against the country by uniformed forces. A slow creep of changes to the way ARE country fundamentally operates and carries itself is to blame for that, and it absolutely was not a novel direction by the time the USSR was our chosen enemy. Fixed. Once the Cold War started the US began to support some really horrible regimes with the goal of containing communism. South Vietnam was pretty horrible, as were the South American despots, and the Shah of Iran. It amazes me when people ask, "Why do they hate us?" and say, "Cuz' we're Free". No, it's because we did some pretty horrible poo poo through the Cold War. Hell, it still has a large affect on our country. It's very easy for the right to call anyone remotely liberal (or center-right) a socialist and shut down any real dialogue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:05
|
|
|
Mitchicon posted:Fixed. This is exactly why I get irrationally angry at some people in my class when they talk about how Egypt is turning away from the US. What's worse is that a lot of people use the anger and rage that these regimes generated as a justification for why the dictators were a better option than democracy. This is exactly why they hate the west, because we keep loving with their governments and then blaming their "backwards" religion when they get justifiably angry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:19
|
|
|
colonelslime posted:This is exactly why I get irrationally angry at some people in my class when they talk about how Egypt is turning away from the US. What's worse is that a lot of people use the anger and rage that these regimes generated as a justification for why the dictators were a better option than democracy. This is exactly why they hate the west, because we keep loving with their governments and then blaming their "backwards" religion when they get justifiably angry. Better a dictator that likes us, than a democracy that does not. And to think, I used to buy into this poo poo. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 07:57
|
|
|
Mitchicon posted:Fixed. Nail on head. "The West," as an entity, was sticking its dick into the Mideast for generations even before really going at it in WWI. We drew lines that in similar fashion to Africa took no heed of ethnic boundaries or religious divisions or desires of actual citizens. Nearly every source of enmity between groups in the region is a lie used as a loving distraction from the fact that it's been outside imperialism pitting people against each other for centuries now. Do you think that after all the history of Abrahamic adherents living more or less peaceably together it would suddenly start being a valid excuse? No, the reason is and always has been anger against subjugation, interference, invasion, occupation, and remote denial of self-determination. The poo poo about irrational hatred based on one intangible reason or another is just a convenient smokescreen, meant to lend credence to the still-extant and no-less-horrific doctrine of the White Man's Burden. We're basically down to the point where we (The West, again) must interfere with the people of the Arab world and Mideast in general in order to restore order or peace or whatever, never mind that it was this same imperialism that drives the unrest. We are not a natural element in the region and the sooner we realize that maybe we have no business using it as a playground the better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 08:31
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:I was being sarcastic. It seems to me that a lot of people like to gloss over the horrors of past wars but find it harder to ignore the savagery of contemporary war so there is a tendency to think that it's somehow different now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 09:38
|
|
|
colonelslime posted:This is exactly why I get irrationally angry at some people in my class when they talk about how Egypt is turning away from the US. What's worse is that a lot of people use the anger and rage that these regimes generated as a justification for why the dictators were a better option than democracy. This is exactly why they hate the west, because we keep loving with their governments and then blaming their "backwards" religion when they get justifiably angry. This kind of stuff is what pisses me off - what you're talking about, not what you're specifically saying. US-based Con media will gripe and piss and moan about how "we saved Europe" and how they're being such jerks despite that, but completely ignore poo poo like how the US has been explicitly supporting Israel in very material form ever since the Johnson administration. All that poo poo we say about how Iran supports this or that group in the Mideast? That's all true about the US. Not the same groups, but we've got one hell of an operation running interference over there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 10:32
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Nail on head. "The West," as an entity, was sticking its dick into the Mideast for generations even before really going at it in WWI. [...] We are not a natural element in the region and the sooner we realize that maybe we have no business using it as a playground the better. So, exactly how long would we have to be there, sticking our dicks into things, to be a natural element in the region? 'People called Romans, they go the house', and all that. I mean, I guess if 2000 years of constant dicking isn't long enough... (Not that the rest of what you said isn't right, and it was done on purpose, by the British, largely.) On the other, other hand, there's a reason it's called armageddon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Megiddo Relative peace my chapped buttocks. Always been fighting there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 13:29
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:This kind of stuff is what pisses me off - what you're talking about, not what you're specifically saying. US-based Con media will gripe and piss and moan about how "we saved Europe" and how they're being such jerks despite that, but completely ignore poo poo like how the US has been explicitly supporting Israel in very material form ever since the Johnson administration. All that poo poo we say about how Iran supports this or that group in the Mideast? That's all true about the US. Not the same groups, but we've got one hell of an operation running interference over there. Oh man, Iran. Anyone who talks about Iran's belligerence to the US as not being exactly what the US deserves is full of poo poo. A country that claims to love freedom and democracy helps overthrow a popular democratically elected leader and re-empowers the monarchy, because said leader decided to nationalize the oil fields. There are no  big enough for that incident, especially given the rhetoric continuously spewed by the US rightwing about how Obama is a king/dictator. Yet somehow, Iran is supposed to just passively sit by and let the US do whatever it wants in the region, including setting up governments hostile to it. Basically, only the US is allowed to have a foreign policy, everywhere else the tries is morally in the wrong.Warcabbit posted:So, exactly how long would we have to be there, sticking our dicks into things, to be a natural element in the region? Conflict has always been in the Middle East, the same way it's always been in Europe until only recently. The Middle East wasn't any more bloody than the European states were in the same period. It's not even a question of time, it's the question of being a foreign power controlling the governments. The Ottomans weren't a natural part of the region either, even if they did rule it for 600 years. This is a region that, after staying under the jackboot of one Empire for 6 centuries, was arbitrarily divided and given to a bunch of other empires, ones that they only relatively recently freed themselves from. The fact that a post-WWII-European-style Peace has somehow not magically occurred really shouldn't surprise anyone, especially since the west is still intervening in various ways for our own benefit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
colonelslime posted:Oh man, Iran. Anyone who talks about Iran's belligerence to the US as not being exactly what the US deserves is full of poo poo. A country that claims to love freedom and democracy helps overthrow a popular democratically elected leader and re-empowers the monarchy, because said leader decided to nationalize the oil fields. There are no The dumber of the Dulles brothers posted:You're unfriendly to the Soviets, but you're not friendly enough to us. So, we're deposing you. colonelslime posted:Yet somehow, Iran is supposed to just passively sit by and let the US do whatever it wants in the region, including setting up governments hostile to it. There's so much misinformation being spewed about Iran and its history because any normal American, even the pro-Israel ones, who understands that history is all like poo poo yeah I'd want nukes if I were them. dorquemada fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Dec 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 19:01
|
|
|
dorquemada posted:There's so much misinformation being spewed about Iran and its history because any normal American, even the pro-Israel ones, who understands that history is all like poo poo yeah I'd want nukes if I were them. The big problem is how can we tell them to stop their nuclear program when we've done the following: 1) Took out Mossadegh and replaced him with the Shah 2) Supported said dictator through funds and military equipment. Turned a blind eye to the Shah's repressive regime 3) Gave Iraq weapons and funs to pursue their war for oil against Iran I mean, I despite the current regime and think it's horrible. I also am not thrilled about Iran possibly getting a nuke, but I won't kid myself about the current situation. We've created this beast. Oh, and I love that picture of the Shah in an ad promoting nuclear energy. I had that up on my office cork board in the Air Force. Fortunately, everyone got a kick out of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Nail on head. "The West," as an entity, was sticking its dick into the Mideast for generations even before really going at it in WWI. We drew lines that in similar fashion to Africa took no heed of ethnic boundaries or religious divisions or desires of actual citizens. Nearly every source of enmity between groups in the region is a lie used as a loving distraction from the fact that it's been outside imperialism pitting people against each other for centuries now. Do you think that after all the history of Abrahamic adherents living more or less peaceably together it would suddenly start being a valid excuse? No, the reason is and always has been anger against subjugation, interference, invasion, occupation, and remote denial of self-determination. The poo poo about irrational hatred based on one intangible reason or another is just a convenient smokescreen, meant to lend credence to the still-extant and no-less-horrific doctrine of the White Man's Burden. We're basically down to the point where we (The West, again) must interfere with the people of the Arab world and Mideast in general in order to restore order or peace or whatever, never mind that it was this same imperialism that drives the unrest. We are not a natural element in the region and the sooner we realize that maybe we have no business using it as a playground the better. I don't know where you're from when you say 'we', but one thing I want to add is that the United States was actually quite popular in the Middle East in the early 20th century. It was seen as the one country that didn't have imperialistic designs on their territory. IIRC it wasn't until after WWII that the Americans were seen as taking over Britain's role as coloniser when the relationship began to sour.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
colonelslime posted:Oh man, Iran. Anyone who talks about Iran's belligerence to the US as not being exactly what the US deserves is full of poo poo. Darn right about Iran. Well, is anyone really expecting a post-WWII Euro-style peace? I mean, who would call that natural? Mitchicon posted:The big problem is how can we tell them to stop their nuclear program when we've done the following: Caaaaause we got the big stick and the money, and it's in our interest to tell them to stop it? I mean, certainly, the US has no moral authority in the middle east. All we can do is make what we want known, and make our displeasure known. But to ask 'how can we', to a country that had Nixon for a president, and GWB? The answer is 'pretty easily and twice on Sunday.' Does anyone think moral authority plays even the tinest point here? Warcabbit fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Dec 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
Dopilsya posted:I don't know where you're from when you say 'we', but one thing I want to add is that the United States was actually quite popular in the Middle East in the early 20th century. It was seen as the one country that didn't have imperialistic designs on their territory. IIRC it wasn't until after WWII that the Americans were seen as taking over Britain's role as coloniser when the relationship began to sour. I mean 'we' as in quote:"The West," as an entity because you're more or less correct about the US, Britain and France were doing the main part of the fuckery clear up through the early 50's, as you are saying. Then came the anti-Soviet craze and we saw commies wherever people started telling dictators and royalty they could shove it up their rear end. Which is what we're doing now except instead of communism it's  "islamofascism" standing in for "people telling dictators and royalty to shove it up their rear end."Warcabbit posted:So, exactly how long would we have to be there, sticking our dicks into things, to be a natural element in the region? Has it been lawless theocratic warfare for thousands of years? I had always thought what war there was was just local conflicts and/or uprisings against whatever imperial power attempted to "unite" the place. Iran's run by Twelvers and many of their neighbors are Sunni, but even when they invaded Sunni-governed (Shi'a majority) Iraq, it was over territorial disputes, not some loony crusade deal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
dorquemada posted:Indeed. What makes it even worse is the active role Mussadiq played in kicking the USSR out of Iran in the first place. We have willfully missed just about every opportunity to make nice with Iran for about the past, well, forever. Mossadegh wasn't a major player in the Azerbaijan crisis of 1946, IIRC. In fact, that wasn't even his party in power: Qavam was PM at the time. And there was widespread support cross parties (including support by Qavam himself) for getting rid of the Soviet oil concessions that had only been put in place to appease the Soviets to get out of Iran.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Mossadegh wasn't a major player in the Azerbaijan crisis of 1946, IIRC. In fact, that wasn't even his party in power: Qavam was PM at the time. And there was widespread support cross parties (including support by Qavam himself) for getting rid of the Soviet oil concessions that had only been put in place to appease the Soviets to get out of Iran.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 05:27
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Darn right about Iran. I'm not saying we should be expecting peace, but that characterizing the middle east as any less peaceful over the course of history than the rest of the planet (especially Europe, which is the tacit comparison people who talk about how war-torn the middle east is are always making) really ignores almost all of European history in favour of the last 60 or so years, less than that depending on the country. quote:Caaaaause we got the big stick and the money, and it's in our interest to tell them to stop it? Oh, it's not surprising that the US is doing it, but they could at least stop pretending they're the good guy in this. I know they won't, but I find the bullshit narrative that the US put forth about its status as the shining city on the hill, bastion of freedom and democracy far more aggravating than their actual actions, which are horrific, but not surprising for an imperialist power.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
Grover Norquist is on Diane Rehm this morning, if you need a break from Limbaugh and Hannity. Should be interesting. edit I haven't listend to Norquist talk for more than a few minutes before, he's completely insufferable. And I guess Rehm can't find a Republican to call in, she usually gets at least one or two. Are these the last days of Norquist's stranglehold on the Congress? http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-12-03/anti-tax-crusader-grover-norquist (comments are entertaining as well) Sir Tonk fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Dec 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 16:11
|
|
|
colonelslime posted:Oh, it's not surprising that the US is doing it, but they could at least stop pretending they're the good guy in this. I know they won't, but I find the bullshit narrative that the US put forth about its status as the shining city on the hill, bastion of freedom and democracy far more aggravating than their actual actions, which are horrific, but not surprising for an imperialist power. I wonder if it would go over better or worse with the public if they just copped to it. "Yeah, we're actually brutal tyrants to people overseas and we enforce our control using our absolutely bloated military budget, but it's so we can maintain our hegemony over the world, so whatever, morality can shove it." Would the fundies and the right wing media embrace that sentiment or actually start pushing for the country to do the right thing and stop being international pricks?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Grover Norquist is on Diane Rehm this morning, if you need a break from Limbaugh and Hannity. Should be interesting. Quite frankly I find Diane Rehm's voice more annoying than Mark Levin's. At least he can finish a sentence in a reasonable amount of time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 18:42
|
|
|
colonelslime posted:Oh, it's not surprising that the US is doing it, but they could at least stop pretending they're the good guy in this. I know they won't, but I find the bullshit narrative that the US put forth about its status as the shining city on the hill, bastion of freedom and democracy far more aggravating than their actual actions, which are horrific, but not surprising for an imperialist power. Was there ever a society that boldfaced said it was all about kicking asses? Was the Roman empire like that? because I know the British empire wasn't
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 18:52
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:Quite frankly I find Diane Rehm's voice more annoying than Mark Levin's. At least he can finish a sentence in a reasonable amount of time. I, too, find people with spasmodic dysphonia incredibly annoying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Was there ever a society that boldfaced said it was all about kicking asses? Was the Roman empire like that? because I know the British empire wasn't The Assyrians, the Assyrian Empire all the way. There's wall relieffs of them literally kicking all kinds of rear end and kings boasted of how they cutf of peoples' feet and stuffed them into cages and dragged their families behind their chariots. And this is boasting by the Assyrians themselves, not something written by their enemies. They were all about the rear end kicking. The Romans (to put it simply and to restrict it to the pre-Christian republic) were all about public service and internal competition to win the most glory for Rome. This usually entailed kicking rear end as well, the republic was usually worse in this regard than the Empire. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Dec 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:The Assyrians, the Assyrian Empire all the way. There's wall relieffs of them literally kicking all kinds of rear end and kings boasted of how they cut of peoples feet and stuffed them into cages and dragged their families behind their chariots, and this is boasting by the Assyrians themselves not written by their enemies, they were all about the rear end kicking. Similarly, many of their 'domestic' scenes of normal married life also included the heads of their enemies pasted to the wall, off to the left. I think one of my professors said the accepted term for Assyrian policy was 'calculated frightfulness' because holy poo poo were they scary people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Similarly, many of their 'domestic' scenes of normal married life also included the heads of their enemies pasted to the wall, off to the left. I think one of my professors said the accepted term for Assyrian policy was 'calculated frightfulness' because holy poo poo were they scary people. I somehow find it quite fitting that they were the first empire, they kind of laid down the ground rules, alot of people after them elected to either downplay, hide or attempt to rationalize the frightfulness. Anyway they put the bar quite high and set the precedence for other empires to follow. colonelslime posted:The Ottomans weren't a natural part of the region either, even if they did rule it for 600 years. This is a region that, after staying under the jackboot of one Empire for 6 centuries, was arbitrarily divided and given to a bunch of other empires, ones that they only relatively recently freed themselves from. The fact that a post-WWII-European-style Peace has somehow not magically occurred really shouldn't surprise anyone, especially since the west is still intervening in various ways for our own benefit. Even before the Ottomans came the Middle East had been ruled by Turkish feudal warlords for some 300 years, who divided up the lands and taxed the peasants and fought petty wars amongst themselves in exactly the same fashion as was going on in Europe, and they were often quite into the idea of viewing themselves as separate from and superior to the locals, for instance the Mamluks of Egypts mostly came from central Asia and the Caucasus, where they continued to recruit their members until defeated by Napoleon and finally ended by Mehmet Ali, they forbade Arabs (or rather natives, Arab identity across the Middle East is actually a more recent phenomenon) from riding horses, and carrying weapons and generally viewed them as inferiors. And they were replaced by Mehmet Ali, an Albanian officer who established Egypt as a state separate from Turkey, but proceeded to model his rule of Egypt on British rule in India and recruited military and governmental elites almost exclusively from Turks and Europeans because Arabs were thought unable to command and organize. If you want to take it even longer, you could say the Middle East has been the battleground of the empires since the Assyrians invented the idea, there's Persians, Arabs, Romans, Parthians, Turks, Egyptians, Macedonians, British, French, Mongols. At almost any point in history the Middle East is being dominated by, fought over or partioned by empires. And it is still questionable if that whole legacy has been broken to this day. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Dec 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evIyrrjTTY This is a heck of a derail, but I believe this video is appropriate at this moment. It's the 'This Land Is Mine' video, and if you haven't seen it, it's pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 19:27
|
|
|
Phone posted:I, too, find people with spasmodic dysphonia incredibly annoying. Pacing in an interview is everything. Even if it's something she's not physically capable of, it still makes her a bad interviewer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2012 21:34
|
|
|
Rick Santorum is now a columnist for WND. Finally someone who can make Chuck Norris sound sane.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 00:55
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:Pacing in an interview is everything. Even if it's something she's not physically capable of, it still makes her a bad interviewer. This is like one of the top 50 or so dumbest things I've ever read.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 04:09
|
|
|
Toffile posted:Rick Santorum is now a columnist for WND. Didn't Norris support Santorum during the primary though? poo poo that was Paul and then Gingrich... and then finally R-Money. A Winner is Jew fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Dec 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Was there ever a society that boldfaced said it was all about kicking asses? Was the Roman empire like that? because I know the British empire wasn't Spartans, and well some of the other Greeks as well. And let's not forget the Huns, of Atilla the Hun. Several native American and Southern American societies were also all about kicking rear end. The Romans were pretty much about it as well, the "Glory of Rome" pretty much revolved around kicking the crap out of people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 04:20
|
|
|
Toffile posted:Rick Santorum is now a columnist for WND. Somebody has to do a study on the income political figures can expect to make now that they can seamlessly transition from primary or election loser to pundit. You have to figure it acts as a perverse incentive, effectively turning running in an election into a marketing strategy for later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
colonelslime posted:Somebody has to do a study on the income political figures can expect to make now that they can seamlessly transition from primary or election loser to pundit. You have to figure it acts as a perverse incentive, effectively turning running in an election into a marketing strategy for later. Wingnut Welfare is hardly a new thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Wingnut Welfare is hardly a new thing. It's also, I think, a big driver of how crazy the party doctrine is becoming. Get tossed out on your rear end by a public that thinks you're loving nuts for thinking women deserve to be raped and forced to bear the resultant baby should they stray from the kitchen? That's okay, come take a job driving party discourse in our media empire, you'll have a loyal audience and we'll pay you well! It's like they just bounce back from losing elections by saying "gently caress you" to the sensibilities of the voting majority and get taken in by people like WND and Fox who then let them whip the faithful into an even crazier frenzy in time for the next election.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 04:37
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:This is, without any irony or hyperbole, what conservatives think happened at Benghazi: I can't help myself. I sent this picture to the Tea Party facebook page. I'll update if and when they post it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 07:39
|
|
|
Two Finger posted:I can't help myself. Just to show exactly how batfuck crazy the right has gone, think waaaay back to the heady days of 1996, the day after flight 800 went down. quote:DATE=7/18/96
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 07:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
Just for posterity, do you have a link to where that text came from?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 07:55
|
|