President Obama’s response to ISIS is another example of how our ruling class couples their illusions with whatever they find it convenient to do.
Angelo Codevilla, The Fedralist
President Obama’s promise “to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL” may or may not end up causing problems for the Islamic State. Surely however, it further degraded our security by further engaging us in the combination of fantasy and half measures that has earned America a reputation for un-seriousness and opened hunting season on Americans everywhere.
Obama degrades America by dwelling in a politically convenient fantasy world. In his September 10 2014 prime-time speech, Obama claimed to have made America safer by combining the withdrawal of troops from abroad with the killing of Osama bin Laden and “taking out terrorists who threaten us” in places like Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Obama pledged to deal with ISIL in the same successful way.
In Obama’s fantasy, ISIL is neither Islamic nor a state. But distinguishing ISIL’s doctrine from the orthodox Wahabism preached daily in Mecca and Minneapolis, and that from the Koran, is hardly possible for scholars never mind for religiously illiterate politicians. In fact, some of the world’s wealthiest and most influential Muslims think enough of ISIL’s Islamic credentials to give it countless millions of dollars as a faith-offering, thousands upon thousands of young Muslims from around the world, including the USA rush to fight and die for it, the Muslim governments of Qatar and Turkey, respectively, continue to buy and transit supplies for it, while the Islamic world’s leading intellectual authorities have not critiqued its Islamic credentials.
De facto, ISIL is a state because it controls territory larger than that of a plurality of the UN’s members, and because the people it rules prefer it to their former rulers. They do so because ISIL shares the people’s religious sect (Sunni Islam) while the leaders of the former Syria and Iraq are Alewis or Shia. ISIL conquered its territory with the help of the locals. In Iraq, the local Sunnis helped ISIL chase away the Iraqi army, and the Kurds too, using arms given them by the US government as part of “the surge.”
But in Obama’s fantasy, as expressed by Sandy Berger, Clinton’s former national security adviser whose advice Obama solicited, our confrontation with ISIL “can’t turn into a U.S versus Sunni battle.” “It has to be us helping the Sunnis battle the Sunni extremists.” It has to be that, regardless of whether the Sunnis who live under ISIL regard their rulers as extremists or not. The locals have to look at things the way we do. They just damn well have to.
More than that, the folks in the region have to believe in and fight for entities called “Iraq” and “Syria,” to which heretofore they have shown scarce allegiance but in which Obama, like the Bushes and Clinton before him, professes to believe deeply. In his speech, he told the world that he had helped fix Iraq by brokering the new, “inclusive” Iraqi government sworn in on September 8. By supporting its efforts “to address the legitimate grievances and needs of all Iraqis”- read, the Sunnis – that government will “drive a wedge between ISIL and Sunnis.” Thus, “The Iraqi Government is taking the fight to ISIL, and will ultimately be the one to defeat it in Iraq.” Inclusiveness will do the trick, for Obama just as it did for Bush. This time, for sure.
If the hard men who now run the ISIL military, who had been Saddam Hussein’s security cadre, who marched against an Iraqi army flush with top-of-the line US arms confident that Iraqi soldiers would hand them over; if the Sunni Islamist agitators whom the American occupation of Iraq had imprisoned for shooting Americans and who now lead an ISIL Caliphate that draws countless recruits aching to behead Americans; if such people believed Obama’s speech, if they shared the Obama-Sandy Berger thesis, they would be quaking in their boots. Odds are they listened to Obama’s speech with glee.
They heard Obama promise to reduce ISIL’s revenue “from oil and assets it has plundered” and to disrupt “the flow of external donations to the group.” They know, just as any well-informed person anywhere knows, that the US government has the capacity to do just that. But they also know what Obama would have to do to accomplish it – namely institute some kind of secondary sanctions on countries (and there are a lot of them) that traffic in oil sold by ISIL – and that Obama does not have the slightest intention of upsetting these countries or the domestic US interests that deal with them. As for cutting off the external donations, the hard men of ISIL can use their financial account books as comfort-pillows, confident that Obama – and John McCain, Qatar’s favorite senator – will bring zero significant pressure on any Gulf rulers to jail their cousins who fund ISIL.
The secular and religious men of ISIL did not hear a peep from Obama about how the pipeline of food and fuel and medicine through Turkey by which ISIL survives is going to be shut down. That is because it isn’t going to be shut down and ISIL, along with its host population, will continue to eat, drink, and be well.
They heard Obama promise to strike from the air to “degrade ISIL’s leadership, logistical and operational capability, and deny it sanctuary and resources to plan, prepare and execute attack.” They know that America has an air force that could do that. Heck, they know that Saudi Arabia and Jordan together have over 400 modern fighter-bombers that, even without American attack aircraft but only with American air controllers, these could starve and kill them in an intensive campaign over a couple of months. But Obama told them that all they need worry about is the sort of thing that America has mustered against its enemies in recent years. Massive campaigns aimed at swift victory are now politically incorrect in Washington.
Obama promised to limit “ISIL’s ability to extort local populations; stemming ISIL’s gains from kidnapping for ransom.” That would be serious. But the men of ISIL can discount the threat because executing it would take physically pushing ISIL rulers out with a substantial ground force. Obama made it clear that the U.S. will not supply such a force. (Good thing too, because a US ground invasion would likely repeat the disastrous Iraq occupation policy). The Kurds fight magnificently. But they have learned to do so exclusively for Kurdistan. The Iraqi army does not, and will not, exist. Iraq has plenty of ferocious Shia militias – death squads – eager to take the equivalent of Sunni scalps. But all know that Obama will do his best to shield ISIL from the Shia. The Saudis demand it.
Again and again, Obama degraded the English language by describing his fantasy as “strategy,” as in: “our strategy will be underpinned by a strong coalition of regional and international partners who are willing to commit resources and will to this long-term endeavor.” This usage is akin to: “our strategy is to make a ham sandwich, contingent on somebody providing the bread and someone else the ham,” or “the mouse’s strategy for dealing with the cat is to place a bell around its neck.”
But Obama gave no hint as to how “regional and international partners” would be persuaded to do whatever it takes to “degrade and destroy” ISIL – nor even of what activity and what level thereof would be required to do that – any more than how any mouse might go about belling a cat.
The American people watched videos of men like ourselves being beheaded by Muslim thugs with a knife who now dispose of a state, and who are drawing unto themselves God-knows-how many would-be beheaders of Americans. The American people reasonably demanded a real campaign to destroy ISIL. What Obama delivered was yet more fantasy.
Alas, our ruling class couples their illusions with whatever they find it convenient to do, and call it “strategy.” Thereby do they advertise their impotence.
bernard ross Said:
THINK LIKE -in- JAILHOUSE LAWYERS. He also has claimed to have driven his shrinks (plural) Nuts. Matter of fact he brags about his success. Check the archives.
honeybee Said:
Thanks and here is some back to you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6bjqdll7DI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGESrgMDm5k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKFkc19T3Dk
@ yamit82:
Gotta wish list?
My docs all say I’ve got the BP of a teenager. Last check was 98/60; resting pulse, 49 (and that, just a couple minutes after a 10-mile bike ride to get there). HDL high. LDL low, etc. (Nothing’s ever guaranteed, but I’m comfortable.)
— So sorry to disappoint.
Did all three. The comedy work did pay better, but I was never in it, at the time, for the bucks — and making people laugh was, frankly, quite boring to me (and WORSE than that, pointless). The dramatic work, OTOH, was always an amazing vehicle of discovery.
Coronaries don’t discriminate the way the ego does.
Your malice will kill YOU, not “those ‘deserving’ of [your] venom.”
— And when it does, you will have deserved it.
@ yamit82:
Some honey for you, Sugar.
http://forward.com/articles/205890/a-song-of-love-and-memory-for-leonard-cohen-at-/
bernard ross Said:
And drones.
yamit82 Said:
I think he was referring to me; but then again he probably refers to anyone who exposes his lies and BS.
dweller Said:
I already told you why it was baloney and now I will tell you that it is irrelevant. Whether it is factually true or not is not dependent upon the behavior of trial lawyers. That’s basic logic AND basic common sense. You are simply wrong as usual but need to obfuscate with irrelevant fairy tales about what trial lawyers would or would not do.
dweller Said:
Your mythical renditions of what you believe is “common sense” has nothing to do with facts, only with your imagination, as always. Unless you qualify your assertion of a “fact” by framing it as an opinion you would indeed have to prove your asserted fact to avoid libel.
dweller Said:
I assume that you also know more law than a lawyer just as you have asserted that your psychobabble is more profound than “shrinks” psychology.
You know what Judge Judy says about fools representing themselves dont you: Guilty as charged…. 😛
bernard ross Said:
Had any real ones lately? Your metaphor, but I’ll run with it. I think you missed your calling you should have been the straight man in a comedy act. Pays better than heavy dramatic parts that nobody comes to see or pay for.
You are right, I am malicious but only I hope to those deserving of my venom, like you. 😛
dweller Said:
its not about getting the last word but about you twisting facts and lying. Focus on your own exact SPECIFIC words in the quote of yours I cited as you claiiming to “rarely being the last poster“. After all you do ask others to be SPECIFIC, n’est pa?
as for your computer tears all I can say is boo hoo. 😛
dweller Said:
HMMM??? lets run through it agian
dweller Said:
these are your words, n’est pa?
bernard ross Said:
I did indeed point out 2 within the last week where you were last, n’est pa?
Hence, almost with the same beauty as a simple categorical syllogism”
bernard ross Said:
Perhaps you meant to assert a statement different from what you wrote but according to what you actually wrote my conclusion is still undoubtedly true.
Perhaps you would now like to revise your original statement in the light of it being proven unquestionably false?
dweller Said:
Just like you do. Taking a page out of your playbook? How’s it feel Barbie?
.
Strange thing to say coming from you.
Money and you seem to be strangers.
Btw how’s that new computer you just bought??
Don’t tell us you have no one close to you or cares enough about you to get one for you??? NO?? I wonder why. 😀
dweller Said:
this from the guy who cannot show ONE example of his psychobabble ever being right.
@ bernard ross:
Whose fault was that? You had PLENTY of time to post before the thread was cut.
HERE are the facts:
The article you cited was ‘Israel’s defense would benefit from converting 10 million people to Judaism.’
A thread is typically cut at the END of its final day; usually 5 or 6 pm, Jerusalem Time — got that?
My last posts on that thread appeared at 5 AM [Jerus Time] — repeat: 5 o’clock in the MORNING of Sept 15 — in other words, a good 12 hours before the thread was cut.
— This is YOUR idea of “at the last moment”?
If you didn’t get in the last word that time, Bozo, it isn’t because I stopped you.
I repeat: The archives clearly show that whenever there is an exchange between us, you almost INVARIABLY get in the last word (and you know it, because you typically go out of your way to ensure it).
If I had a working computer and lots of time to myself, as you do, then you wouldn’t be so assured of getting in the last word. As it is, however, you do — and the archives leave no doubt about it. Anybody taking a look can readily see it.
The RECORD says you’re fullovit.
yamit82 Said:
he piles lie upon lie in order to maintain the original lie which he usually has conveniently forgotten; like his lie that I “asked him to prove that he was NOT delusional”. He admitted I never said that but insisted that the words he put in my mouth and posted as if I said them were a result of his “reading between the lines” and therefore just as good as my words. 😛
dweller Said:
are you talking to yourself again? 😛
dweller Said:
😛 😛 😛 a delusional legend in his own mind
honeybee Said:
thanks, you sure know how to catch flies 🙂
@ honeybee:
Am NOT incorrect.
What’s more, you neglected to read the next sentence [repeated below]. If you had read ahead, you’d have seen HOW what I said could not be ‘incorrect’:
“(If what you say were true, no shrink would be safe from the trial lawyers’ association — who know a cash cow when they see one. Astronomical jury awards would, in turn, send psychiatrists’ malpractice insurance premiums into the stratosphere, and put them out of business overnite.)”
Moreover, if I were (as you say) ‘incorrect,’ then for the same reason noted above, nobody would ever DARE accuse a politician (or anyone else) of Greed, Anger, Envy, Pride, Sloth, Lust, or Stupor — without risking a defamation suit. Common sense alone will tell you the claim is patent poppycock. (Of course, on this board, common sense is anything BUT common.)
So, if you did in fact speak w/ an attorney about this, then either
A. he’s a dummy; OR
B. the question was asked by a dummy; OR
C. (uh, sorry, there is NO “C”;
all you get is A. or B.; game over).
dweller Said:
You be more specific. I don’t have to do anything you say Sweetie, you don’t fill my jewelry boxes.!!!!!!!!!!!!
@ honeybee:
You can always say anything you like w/o corroboration, Twinkie.
You’ll have to be specific, because I know that what I said was right on the money.
@ bernard ross:
That’s a piece of Honey Cake just for you, Yankee Boy.
bernard ross Said:
At least Bernie Madoff could afford his own computers and not have to sponge off the public. Madoff had a long successful run as a thief and swindler but thousands made money off his Ponzi Scheme too.
dweller is a loser any which way one views him he is not even a good liar. 😛
dweller Said:
making you a “serious pretender”! 😛
yamit82 Said:
Bingo! Israpundit’s Madoff is on the lam! 😛
@ dweller:
I would like to make a suggestion: that you cease using psychobabble as a vehicle to obfuscate issues OR as a disguise to insult,libel and manipulate posters here. In that way we will be able to see the real merits of your comments on the actual issues we are attempting to discuss here.
Before embarking on your next psychobabble episode, keep this simple, proven FACT in the forefront of your mind:
the truth shall set you free
honeybee Said:
😛 😛 😛
dweller Said:
This constitutes the majority of your 2 posts and demonstrates that your knickers are in a twist…you appear to be getting frantic and hysterical…..perhaps a prozac would help calm you down. Apparently I have struck a nerve, pushed a button…..exposed the truth….. 🙂
M Devolin Said:
Actually, it would be an intelligent strategy to encourage their leaving, and then not letting them back. Perhaps a few well place imams recruiting them to leave, go fight and die in the desert, would make sense, assuming they are not doing it already.
dweller Said:
there is no SUBSTANCE in your psychobabble, as I already told you, in spite of your attempts to pretend that there is through your silly capitalization of the word SUBSTANCE(attempting to make it larger than NOTHING). The substance is a figment of your imagination from where ALL your psychobabble is invented. Certainly if there were a shred of SUBSTANCE in all this time you would have been able to show ONE example of you being RIGHT!
dweller Said:
its already proven they are pretended:
You pretend that your psychobabble “is the case” when it fact it is pure fabrication from your imagination. PRETEND!!!!!
dweller Said:
The shrinks are safe as long as they operate within their license, which you do not have. they use accepted 3rd party substantiated material whereas your material is completely concocted from your own mind. Your psychobabble are libels when used to insult posters. I suggest you cease this fraudulent and unattractive practice.
dweller Said:
there is nothing to argue as there is no discernible basis to argue from as your psychobabble is invented from your own mind and has, by your own admission, no basis or credibility within the accepted parameters of psychology. that is why it is refered to as psyobabble, which is why I supplied you with the definitions of psychobabble, but you appear to not pay attention:
once agian, pay attention to the words in bold to see why your psychobabble has no credibility beyond your imagination….because you fabricated it without any basis in reality,only your mind.
Of course this all leads us back to the one TRUTH which you are unable to escape:
Considering the volumes of material you write in defense of your psychobabble, one would expect that you would be able to show at least ONE SINGLE INSTANCE OF YOU BEING RIGHT!
It is odd that you yourself are unable point out a single MERIT of your own psychobabble. Make an effort perhaps a miracle will occur. 😛
yamit82 Said:
WOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
dweller Said:
I think it is important to expose you as a liar, a charlatan and a psychobabbler operating under false pretenses. Therefore I feel obligated to point out your lies and prevent you from evading the issues when you are exposed. I am exposing the Bernie Madoff of Israpundit 🙂
dweller Said:
FACTS show otherwise, I pointed out in the last week 2 threads on which you were the last poster. Just keeping the record straight and taking another opportunity to show that you do not distinguish between small lies and big lies.
“Just the facts, Maam.” 😛
dweller Said:
Indeed I would, it would be more honest and lack the pretenses you disguise it in. After all, you admit here that your psychobabble bears no relation to accepted Psychological practices, so why would anyone want an evaluation form a spinner of fairy tales substituting as psychology?
dweller Said:
I think that would be a wonderful idea! After all, that is exactly what you are really doing behind your fig leaf of psychobabble. Insulting, libeling, abusing and manipulating people using psychobabble as your vehicle. I prefer the direct honest insult that is not masquerading under the pretense of having any credibility beyond your imagination. Your weaving of psychobabble fairy tales and myths have no 3rd party corroboration and are entirely fabricated out of the fairy tales arising within your imagination. surely in all these years of psychobabbling you could have shown ONE simple example of your psychobabble being RIGHT!
dweller Said:
I did just that and you dweller are incorrect!!!!!!!!! so sorry Sweetie.
dweller Said:
Miss spelled ??????????
dweller Said:
Specious arguments based on false dichotomies and wordy wordy sophistry to obfuscate and misdirect debate away from the intent of BR’s observations and criticism of you dweller and your non-defense of the indefensible.
Who but you feels compelled to respond to every comment with your name attached to it no matter the cause or justification? Sometimes such responses by you can take days and weeks of endless cacophonies of mindless psychobabblic verbiage whose purpose is to deflect what dweller perceives are attacks and muddy the waters with enough BS and psychoshit that dwellers perceived attacker is put on the defensive.
Wearisome tactic mostly boring. Adds nothing to any discussion and is applied only to cover a sociopathic sick mind.
***For one who claims limited access time to public computer terminals, he spends an inordinate amount of that time responding ad-nausea to critics using archival material that in some cases is hard to retrieve. Therefore one needs to question if he really has limited access time to public terminals or that he uses the story as an excuse, a cover to cut and run when the heat becomes too hot and the truth is closing in on himself. He is a self professed coward after all, a self professed Jewish traitor (If one accepts his story of having Jewish parents)??? I doubt it but accepting it for arguments sake his christian beliefs make him more than just an apostate but a heretic as well. Israel will not ever accept one like yourself as a Jew and probably not grant you citizenship under our law of return, if you would ever seek such a status, likelihood Zero. 🙂
When the Law of Return does not apply to a Holocaust survivor
Yaakov Weksler-Waszkinel, a Jewish-born, former Catholic priest, is denied automatic Israeli citizenship due to syncretic beliefs
Re: Unmasked Canadian Jihadist Tweets His Deadly Ideology, Sept. 16.
Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney said that police and judges already have the authority to strip passports from anyone attempting to leave Canada to commit terrorist acts. I suggest a more prudent strategy: Strip these people of their passport after they’ve left Canada and forbid them from returning.
Why prohibit a would-be terrorist from leaving the country? That would be like locking the fox in the hen house. Besides, as Mohammed Ali has said himself, these terrorists do not consider themselves Canadian anymore. Why hold them back from leaving a country they now despise? Let them leave to commit their terrorist acts over there, instead of confining them to committing the same crimes here in Canada. It’s pretty simple logic.
Michael Devolin, Tweed, Ont.
@ bernard ross:
That’s just your way of evading the SUBSTANCE of what I say (esp about you in particular) — while inadvertently acknowledging your having been stung by that very substance. What’s more, there is no greater character assassin HERE than you, slimey.
Furthermore, my assessments of somebody’s emotional makeup or motivational configuration’ are not “pretended” (there was no pretending in what I said; I was serious as a coronary) — nor do they constitute ‘libels’ (not, surely, in any stateside court).
— Now, of course, if I were to accuse you of a specific, questionable ACT of some sort, lawful or unlawful — like, say, getting it on w/ a female Schnauzer (or, for that matter, a male Schnauzer) — THEN you might be able to take up the matter of libel.
But for merely asserting that you are eaten up with envy — and that you’re a skulking, hateful, humongously vindictive, malevolent creep? — no, Bernard, that of itself is not libelous, or even defamatory. It may offend your vanity, or hurt your feelings, or challenge your self-image — but it’s not ‘libelous.’ Not by a country mile.
Only in the ‘court of law’ of your personal imagination, shlemiel. Not in any REAL court. Again, certainly not a stateside court. (And I doubt the same elsewhere too.) Ask a lawyer — ANY lawyer.
(If what you say were true, no shrink would be safe from the trial lawyers’ association — who know a cash cow when they see one. Astronomical jury awards would, in turn, send psychiatrists’ malpractice insurance premiums into the stratosphere, and put them out of business overnite.)
Sheer disingenuous pap-&-crap. If you WERE, in fact, “searching for those elusive merits,” then you would argue my observations on their own terms — that’s what it MEANS to “search for those elusive merits” — instead of condemning my ‘presuming’ to even make them.
Nope; that’s one place they surely DON’T come from. I don’t indulge imagination. In fact, there are some who would say I don’t have one. (They’re mistaken; I do have one, but I’ve learned to keep it disciplined — a practice from which PresentCompany could well profit.)
@ bernard ross:
Only in your imagination, where the rearranged pieces of the jigsaw puzzle that is your fractured ego all sit in residence and hold court in their own behalf — sometimes one at a time, sometimes all at once.
My observations are QUITE accurate, Bernard, and thoroughly relevant (certainly, concerning YOU they’ve been right on the money: not only can you not refute them, but you also dare not, apparently, to even DENY them).
What’s more, my observations are NEVER ’emotional’ (I daresay, you wish they were) — and are far more reliable than 90 percent of those coming from the headshrinking industry — which is often anything BUT ‘scientific’ in its speculations, typically relying overwhelmingly on the dispensing of drugs: which only MASK the symptoms and never get at the causes.
— No “psychobabble,” bubbeleh. (Nice to see you working so hard at it, though.)
Repeat, I don’t have to prove that my take on motivation is ‘right.’ It stands on its own merit or demerit, subject to discussion, until a better explanation emerges.
Not wrong AT ALL (let alone, ‘again’). You don’t have to be Oliver Wendell Holmes to have a handle on this; it’s common knowledge, even for laypersons.
Furthermore, while science would not arrive at my conclusions by my METHODS, it would not discount my take either unless that take could be shown to be seriously flawed. From science’s perspective, it remains, at this juncture, a working hypothesis; nothing more, nothing less. I’m comfortable — and entirely content — with that.
@ bernard ross:
Translation:
You think it’s important to reinforce for yourself the fantasies you need to cling to — that I’m a liar, a bullshitter & a hypocrite. Well, GO for it, slimey; in your mind you earned it. (Lord knows, you’ve TRIED hard enough. Gotta give you an “A” for effort, for sure.)
But “lies”? I haven’t told any lies on this site. Toldja: I have no reason to. The anonymity of the web, coupled with my online handle, allows me to get down to the straight truthful skinny without fear of retribution. And for that very same reason, there isn’t a damned thing I could possibly GAIN from misrepresenting the truth here even if I were so inclined.
Of course, if I denied that you are an obnoxious dickhead, THEN I would well-and-truly be lying. (Aint gonna happen, count on it.)
LMAO. You’re hopelesly reaching; shuckin’ & jivin,’ and stretching yourself silly. (Careful or you’ll tear a ligament, Bernard, w/ all that stretching — ligaments are notoriously slow to heal, slower even than bone).
I ‘pretended’ nothing — I simply saw what you were up to and called you on it; called a spade a spade. It’s no more complicated than that. Tell you what, bubbleleh, the day you see me trying to put your name together w/ quotation marks around words you never said — on THAT day you’ll have a case for your claim that I “pretended” they were your words (not until).
Moreover, the notion of ‘deceit’ — on a site where the archives are ultimately accessible for verification — is absurd & laughable. No normal person — on this site or anywhere else — would be so clueless as to swallow such a bizarre, over-the-top construction as yours here.
Actually, I’m still waiting for you to prove your claims that I ‘AM’ delusional, and that my observations ‘ARE’ myths. You know damned well that you CAN’T — if you could, would you hesitate for a NANOSECOND to do so?????
@ bernard ross:
Off-the-wall & irrelevant; you posted this in UTTER disregard of the existing thread OR the article.
Ah, there you are, slimebag. Just couldn’t stay away, could you? Got something stuck in your craw, do you?
As a matter of fact, Yamit was as fullovit as you are. (And that’s plenty full.) The archives will clearly show that I am RARELY the last poster on any thread to which I have contributed. And it’s hardly likely that I WOULD be:
— I never have sufficient online time available to me to be able to insure that — as PresentCompany most assuredly DOES. (Some days when I arrive, there are no terminals even available.)
But you just can’t get it out of your head, can you, that you DIDN’T get in the last word this time. Poor baby. . . . Drives you right up the wall w/ exasperation; doesn’t it? So you gratuitously imported this totally unrelated & off-the-wall drivel of yours to THIS thread. You couldn’t resist imposing your dumb-assed, compulsive ravings here even if they have no bearing whatsoever on either the posted article OR its existing thread.
You’re like a dog with a foxtail in his ear and he just can’t shake it loose. So he’s obliged to carry it around with him wherever he goes, while it burrows deeper & deeper into his brain every time he shakes his head to relieve himself of it.
You’re SO piled high with it, Bernard. . . . A thread is typically cut at the END of its final day; usually 5 or 6 pm, Jerusalem Time — got that?
My last posts on that thread appeared at 5 AM [Jerus Time] — repeat: 5 o’clock in the MORNING of Sept 15 — in other words, a good 12 hours before the thread was cut.
— This is YOUR idea of “at the last moment”?
My “psychobabble”? — my application of the jargon of the psych industry frequently differs HUGELY from the way shrinks use it. Yet it is typically every bit as substantive as — and usually a LOT more profound than — that of the psych industry (which is itself rarely scientific at ANY rate). But perhaps you’d prefer that I simply dispensed with that stuff and just called you a malicious a___hole?
— I mean, you surely ARE a malicious a___hole, but that’s so non-specific, Bernard. So generic, so imprecise. Wouldn’t want it to sound “unscientific” — since we know how vital a thing like ‘science’ is to your carefully constructed self-image, and one certainly mustn’t overlook such critical parameters.
How ’bout if I just said you are a malicious, vile, scurrilous, despicable, cretinous, punk-assed creep — and left it at that? Would that about cover it for you? Is that better than ‘psychobabble,’ Bernard? — more aligned with your rigorously exacting standards of empirical precision & scientific depth? Whaddaya say?
yamit82 Said:
He says to bring your own beer all his money goes for jewelry boxes. He like the Changers team and cheerleaders.
Platonic what’s your definition?
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/sonnets/116.html
honeybee Said:
Just not the Cowboys or the stinky Giants,… throw in some ice cold beer and your on.
Btw I ain’t afraid of shot guns I’m Spartacus remember 😉
Kirk Douglas sister was a neighbor of mine and his nephew Freddy went school with me. My grandfather and Kirk’s mother were in a retirement nursing home together had for some ten years a romantic but platonic ( I think ?) relationship. They were the talk of all the old folks for years. Families both sides thought it was cute watching them together.
@ yamit82:
TX say, ” come ahead, yawl can watch the Cheerleaders while poor l’Honeybee makes Chili with Beans and Biscuits”.
yamit82 Said:
Shocked Spartacus will be when another Spartacus with a shoot-gun answers. Sweetcakes need guardin, however if enjoy watching football you will be welcomed.
honeybee Said:
Shocked are you, you’d be shocked if one day you get a knock on your door and Spartacus will be standing there waiting to taste your Honey cake.
yamit82 Said:
I am always right Darlin. Honey cake is perfect, of course.
honeybee Said:
😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛
@ yamit82:
Comments 44-49, I am shocked, shocked I say!!!!!!!!!!!! Second Honey cake baking now ! Come on over.
M Devolin Said:
Any time Darlin, you Sir are Gentleman unlike others [ drones] on this blog.
yamit82 Said:
You know what happen to smarty pants Spartacus ???? Cowboy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNpI-ZiqG7I
yamit82 Said:
from your link
This is not the head chopping IS we have heard of before.
‘Israel has the opportunity to win the hearts of all Syrians’