“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

"I am an American soldier and after seeing my own friends killed in Afghanistan and Iraq by our own weapons that our stupid political leaders have supplied to our enemies or future enemies I am very against this and it's disgraceful I don't know why we support anything Israel asks us to do. I think we should stay out of all this shit and focus on our own problems here at home. Fuck all these corrupt elected assholes.” - William Strickland 4 days ago


  1. You know who doesn’t seem to like the Republican Party very much? Republicans.

    A couple of new polls were released today which in part detailed voter dissatisfaction with the GOP and its roots. First up is a Washington Post-ABC News poll that asked Republicans and GOP-leaning independents whether the party is on the right or wrong track. An astounding 52 percent of Republicans see their party as being on the wrong track, while only 37 percent see it as on the right one. By contrast, Democrats have a net favorable view of their party, with the favorable/unfavorable split at 72-21.

    Similarly, a new survey from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for Stan Greenberg and James Carville's Democracy Corps showed that Democrats are happier with their party than GOPers. The Greenberg poll finds 79 percent of Democrats have a "warm, favorable" feeling about their party as opposed to 11 percent with a "cold, unfavorable feeling," while 63 percent of Republicans have a warm feeling for their party against 23 percent with a cold feeling. "One of the things that emerges here is how negative Republicans are about their own party," Greenberg told reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast this morning.

    Greenberg's poll sketches out some of the party's fault lines, identifying key elements of the GOP coalition and repeatedly noting where the sizable chunk of moderate GOP voters (25 percent of the party) is often at odds with the more dominant evangelicals (30 percent) and tea party supporters (22 percent), as well as true independents (people who don't lean toward one party or the other). So, for example, 85 percent of evangelical Republicans and 93 percent of tea party-supporting Republicans "strongly disapprove" of President Obama, while only 54 percent of moderate Republicans do and 40 percent of independents.

    1. The Greenberg poll finds 79 percent of Democrats have a "warm, favorable" feeling about their party as opposed to 11 percent with a "cold, unfavorable feeling,"

      On a local level, more often it is the democrats that will give you a call or a letter back when you contact them. At least Wellstone's office, RIP, did.
      Now I didn't vote for him but I did see that the effort was made from the democrats to be more personable.

    2. In other words try it yourself.
      Try to get a response from both parties in your area and see which of the two get back to you.

    3. .

      I've gotten responses to every e-mail I've sent, from both parties.

      Unfortunately, the responses from the GOP are usually followed by a follow-up request for donations.


    4. Ah, an e-mail.
      My wife likes to send out letters via snail mail.

  2. How FUBAR is it?

    On Wednesday, July 24, the House of Representatives voted to continue the National Security Agency's dragnet domestic surveillance programs. An amendment, introduced by Representative Justin Amash, R-Mich., to the 2014 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, would have blocked funding for NSA surveillance activities that are not limited to specific persons of interest. It was rejected by a vote of 205-217.

    As much as 70 percent of the money appropriated to the NSA by Congress is used to pay private defense companies to conduct intelligence operations, though the details of the NSA's budget and contracts with private companies are classified. Federal budget experts estimate the NSA's budget to be somewhere between $10 billion to $20 billion per year.

    Data: A MapLight analysis of campaign contributions from employees and PACs of defense contractors and other defense industry interests, to current members of the House, from January 1, 2011—December 31, 2012. Contributions data source:

    Representatives voting to continue the NSA's dragnet surveillance programs received on average 122 percent more money ($41,635) from defense contractors and other defense industry interests than did representatives who voted to end the programs (18,765).
    Representative Justin Amash, R-Mich., the chief sponsor of the amendment, has received $1,400 from defense contractors and other defense industry interests.

    Representative Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., has received $526,600 from defense contractors and other defense industry interests, more than any other member of the House. He voted to continue the programs.

  3. Here is the band that the US Conga Line dances to:

  4. The quote by Strickland up above is total non sense.

    The Israelis never "asked" us to go into Afghanistan.

    Nor did they "ask" us to go into Iraq.

    Not the first time.

    And not the second.

    The first time they may have voted in the UN in favor of the project of getting Saddam out of Kuwait.

    Most nations did.

    The second time, Bush the Second's War, the only Israeli comment I ever saw on it was as Israeli General saying you might want to think twice about this, you may one day look back on the days of Saddam as the good old days.

    I am exiting this thread, taking a stand on principle!, and refusing to participate further in an internet lynching.

    Besides, I have three e-mails to write and got to get up early.


    1. You haves raised the substitution of emotion for facts to an art form. I do not recall the last time that you have posted anything based on evidence or reason. It is all emotions, feelings and unsupported opinions. How do you ever survive in a casino?

    2. Won two hundred dollars just last night.

      Here is something you will never post -

      >>>White House hurries to do Hamas-linked CAIR's bidding, condemns Egypt's crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood

      Jul 29, 2013 07:54 pm | Robert

      About the violence against Christians and others by supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood the White House was silent. CAIR's demand for this is here. "White House condemns Egypt's crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood," from Reuters, July 29 (thanks to Kenneth): The White House condemned the Egyptian military's bloody weekend crackdown on...<<<<

      ******House hurries to do CAIR's bidding******

      That's the truth of things during this administration.

      "You haves raised the substitution of emotion for facts to an art form. I do not recall the last time that you have posted anything based on evidence or reason. It is all emotions, feelings and unsupported opinions. How do you ever survive in a casino?"

      Oddly enough, that is exactly how I see you.

      Your headline:

      "I am an American soldier and after seeing my own friends killed in Afghanistan and Iraq by our own weapons that our stupid political leaders have supplied to our enemies or future enemies I am very against this and it's disgraceful I don't know why we support anything Israel asks us to do...."

      Where you see left, I see right, where you see up I see down, where you see odd I see even.....don't know how to solve this perception problem.

      And yet we're on the same page, or close to it, when it comes to taxes, immigration, NSA and government spooking, Obama.....

      So, there we are....


    3. Here is something you will never post -

      >>>White House hurries to do Hamas-linked CAIR’s bidding, condemns Egypt’s crackdown on Muslim Brotherhood

      I don’t understand that. I have stated a consistent objection to regime change since Iraq. That includes Egypt, Libya and Syria and the outrageous economic aggression and bullying of Iran. The US was instrumental in the overthrow of Muhammad Hosni El Sayed Mubarak. Why would I welcome the Muslim Brotherhood?

      As usual, an unsubstantiated assertion.

    4. As usual, an unsubstantiated assertion.


      That is PAR for this course....

  5. Did Israel Lead the US into the War on Iraq?

    By Mitchell Plitnick, Director of Education and Policy, Jewish Voice for Peace; Joel Beinin, Professor of Middle East Studies at Stanford University; and Cecilie Surasky, Director of Communications, Jewish Voice for Peace

    As the war on Iraq rages on with no end in sight, the scandals around its beginnings continue to proliferate. Because of these scandals, one question now being revisited is the role the state of Israel may have played in initiating the invasion of Iraq.

    Israel's role is debated whenever American policy in the Middle East is discussed. This is inevitable, because Israel is America’s key ally in the region and because the Israel-Palestine conflict is the focal point of attention for virtually anyone who cares about the Mideast. Some critics of the war on Iraq maintain that the decision to go to war was made largely to advance Israeli interests. Others maintain that Israel had nothing to do with it. The evidence suggests, however, that neither of these views is accurate.

    The neocons and Israeli support for the war We know that the Iraq invasion was pushed forcefully by the neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration. Many of the neocons are Jewish, though not all of them. But when it comes to US Mideast policy, there is virtually no disagreement among them in relying on a powerful Israel as a key component. This, in and of itself, would fly in the face of the notion that Israel and Israeli interests were completely removed from the decision to invade Iraq.

    A number of key figures among the neocon wing of the Bush Administration were involved in writing an advisory paper for the Netanyahu government in 1996 entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”. This paper listed removing Saddam Hussein from power as an “an important Israeli strategic objective.” It defies logic to believe that the same people, in their push toward war on Iraq, simply didn’t think about this. Writers involved in the “Clean Break” paper included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David and Meyrav Wurmser and James Colbert. All of them were powerful proponents, in and out of government, for the war on Iraq. Israeli support for the invasion was never a secret. Both the Sharon government and a clear majority of the Israeli populace favored attacking Iraq. A Guardian (UK) report on the undermining of US intelligence agencies in order to provide “evidence” to support the invasion describes how Americans working outside the CIA worked with Israelis operating outside of the Mossad to help produce that “evidence.”Reports before the war indicated that Israel was playing a key role in preparing for the invasion, and other reports indicate that Israeli operatives have been working among Iraqi Kurds.

    1. No, but Israel has an outsized influence on events in the Middle East. That is undeniable. It is the US fault that it is overly engaged and terminally incapable of minding its own business. All because of the hubris of the DC ruling class that deems everything is its business. Who suffers the blowback? Everyone.

    2. Bush II was just pissed that Saddam put out a hit on his dad.

      "He tried to kill my dad."

      Remember that?

      Might as well say an assassination attempt caused Iraq II as say that Israel was behind it all, even to Afghanistan.

    3. Maybe if America did not provide weapons and support for Jihadists across the globe things would be different?

      maybe if America developed energy that did not rely on OPEC things would be different?

      Israel fights to stay alive against well financed and armed enemies. Much of which comes directly from the USA.

    4. If we withdraw to Fortress American, things will get worse.

      We didn't do that in Europe, and things finally got much, much better. And in Japan too. It's this tendency to isolationism that worries me about the Libertarians. For which worry I am immediately tagged 'war-monger' etc.

    5. .

      To blame Israel for the last Iraq war is crazy.

      It was the neocon dream right along. They didn't care if it was Israel that attacked Iraq or the US. The key fact wasn't that many of the neocons were Jewish but that the neocon ideologues found a willing idiot in GWB.



    6. "To blame Israel for the last Iraq war is crazy."

      Yes, I agree, it is absolutely nuts.

    7. No it is far from crazy. Saddam crossed the Rubicon when he offered a $25,000 bonus to families of suicide bombers against Israeli targets. That gave the emotional cover to the Neocons who were dedicated to the US decapitation of Arab despots and constant internal destabilization of the Arab countries. The Bush Administration was packed with Neocons who took advantage of Blair and Bush’s Christian fundamentalism. They were already sold that every Muslim country was the sworn enemy of the US and the West. Iraq just happened to be on deck.

      But let’s not take my word. Let’s here from good old Bibi:

    8. Ten years before his “red line” speech at the United Nations last week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared before the United States Congress and called for bringing down Saddam Hussein before he developed nuclear weapons.

      “There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking and is working and is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons – no question whatsoever,” Netanyahu, then a private citizen, told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on September 12, 2002. “And there is no question that once he acquires it, history shifts immediately.”

      A video clip from the 2002 hearing has been making the rounds of the Internet over the past few days, after it was posted by American blogger Jim Lobe at almost the same time as Netanyahu was addressing the United Nations General Assembly last week.

      During last week’s speech, Netanyahu stressed that if Iran is not stopped, it will be on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon by next spring, or by summer at the latest. Therefore, Netanyahu argued, a red line must be drawn to stop the Iranian nuclear program.

      Netanyahu’s remarks during the 2002 congressional hearing sounded very similar to his UN speech. The arguments are the same, the intonation is the same, even the advisers are the same – Netanyahu’s current diplomatic adviser, Ron Dermer, who wrote the prime minister’s UN address, can be seen in the 10-year-old video sitting behind Netanyahu in the congressional hall.

      Aside from the fact that both Dermer and Netanyahu look 10 years younger, the primary difference between the two videos is one word: 2002’s Iraq has been replaced by Iran in 2012. Here are some more quotes:

      “There’s no question that [Saddam] has not given upon on his nuclear program, not [sic] whatsoever. There is also no question that he was not satisfied with the arsenal of chemical and biological weapons that he had and was trying to perfect them constantly…So I think, frankly, it is not serious to assume that this man, who 20 years ago was very close to producing an atomic bomb, spent the last 20 years sitting on his hands. He has not. And every indication we have is that he is pursuing, pursuing with abandon, pursuing with every ounce of effort, the establishment of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. If anyone makes an opposite assumption or cannot draw the lines connecting the dots, that is simply not an objective assessment of what has happened. Saddam is hell-bent on achieving atomic bombs, atomic capabilities, as soon as he can.”

      “Today the United States must destroy the same regime because a nuclear-armed Saddam will place the security of our entire world at risk. And make no mistake about it — if and once Saddam has nuclear weapons, the terror networks will have nuclear weapons.”

    9. BobTue Jul 30, 09:51:00 AM EDT

      "To blame Israel for the last Iraq war is crazy."

      Yes, I agree, it is absolutely nuts.

    10. “Today the United States must destroy the same regime because a nuclear-armed Saddam will place the security of our entire world at risk. And make no mistake about it — if and once Saddam has nuclear weapons, the terror networks will have nuclear weapons.”

      “Two decades ago, it was possible to thwart Saddam’s nuclear ambitions by bombing a single installation. But today, nothing less than dismantling his regime will do, because Saddam’s nuclear program has fundamentally changed in those two decades. He no longer needs one large reactor to produce the deadly material necessary for atomic bombs. He can produce it in centrifuges the size of washing machines that can be hidden throughout the country. And I want to remind you that Iraq is a very big country. It is not the size of Monte Carlo. It is a big country. And I believe that even free and unfettered inspections will not uncover these portable manufacturing sites of death.”

      Six months after that congressional hearing, the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003 and overthrew Saddam’s regime. Then U.S. President George W. Bush justified the war by claiming that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and had to be prevented from using them. But despite extensive searches conducted all over Iraq, no evidence of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons or weapons development was ever found.

      In the years following the invasion, there was heavy criticism of both Israel and of pro-Israel lobbyists in the U.S., who were accused of dragging America into the war with Iraq, which cost the lives of thousands of U.S. soldiers.

      In recent months, similar allegations have been heard regarding Netanyahu’s exertion of pressure on U.S. President Barack Obama on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program. Such criticism is being voiced by senior American commentators, as well as on blogs and in social media.

      The fact that the 2002 video is going viral now is evidence that many in the United States – especially those identified with the Democratic Party – believe that in the same way Netanyahu pushed the Bush administration into a war against Iraq, he is trying today to press Obama to launch military action against Iran.

      It certainly isn’t fair to suggest that the Iranian nuclear program, or its desire to acquire nuclear weapons, is the product of Netanyahu’s feverish imagination. One need only read the reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency to understand that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are real and a serious problem.

      Still, it seems at times that Netanyahu has been using the Iranian issue as a hammer with which to browbeat both the U.S. administration and his domestic political rivals.


    11. See Bob, that is how it is done. No drama. Make an assertion and then support it with substance.

    12. It certainly isn’t fair to suggest that the Iranian nuclear program, or its desire to acquire nuclear weapons, is the product of Netanyahu’s feverish imagination. One need only read the reports of the International Atomic Energy Agency to understand that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are real and a serious problem.

      now that is delusional

    13. .

      See Bob, that is how it is done. No drama. Make an assertion and then support it with substance.

      True enough; however, I disagree with the initial assertion despite what 'substance' you provide. While the same Israeli-centric neocons who urged Israel to attack Iraq in 1996 were given positions of influence in the GWB administration, official US policy by 1998, while fully anti-Saddam, was centered on diplomatic pressure, economic strangulation and covert action - not invasion and occupation. That changed in 2001.

      It was not Bibi that took us to war against Iraq, it was Bush. It was not Bibi's fevered imagination that offered a rationale for war, it was phony WMDs and forged letters on nuclear raw materials dreamed up or manufactured by the Bush administration.

      Why did we need Bibi when we had Laurie Mylroie and Judith Miller?

      It was not the threat of attack on Israel that moved public and Congressional opinion, it was the incredible assertion that Iraq was a threat to attack the US.

      Prior to 9/11, Condi Rice, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfield were all against direct intervention in Iraq. After 9/11, mass hysteria hit the nation, the White House, Congress, and the people. The unbelievable became readily believable. Con men like Chalabi became trusted freedom fighters. Attitudes changed overnight. We got the WOT and Iraq and readily accepted them. We didn't need Bibi for that change. The nation was all too ready to accept it.

      Why blame Bibi for trying to protect his country when we should be condemning the boys in OZ for betraying ours?


  6. Why NSA Surveillance Will Be More Damaging Than You Think

    The real threat from terrorism is not the harm it inflicts directly but the over-reaction it provokes. We saw that with the invasion of Iraq. We’re seeing it with security-state overreach.

    JUL 30 2013, 4:39 AM ET

    This column over the weekend, by the British academic John Naughton in the Guardian, takes us one more step in assessing the damage to American interests in the broadest sense-- commercial, strategic, ideological – from the panopticon approach to "security" brought to us by NSA-style monitoring programs.

    Naughton's essay doesn't technically tell us anything new. For instance, see earlier reports like this, this, and this. But it does sharpen the focus in a useful way. Whoever wrote the headline and especially the subhead did a great job of capturing the gist:

    In short: because of what the U.S. government assumed it could do with information it had the technological ability to intercept, American companies and American interests are sure to suffer in their efforts to shape and benefit from the Internet's continued growth.

    American companies, because no foreigners will believe these firms can guarantee security from U.S. government surveillance;

    American interests, because the United States has gravely compromised its plausibility as world-wide administrator of the Internet's standards and advocate for its open, above-politics goals.

    Why were U.S. authorities in a position to get at so much of the world's digital data in the first place? Because so many of the world's customers have trusted* U.S.-based firms like Google, Yahoo, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, etc with their data; and because so many of the world's nations have tolerated an info-infrastructure in which an outsized share of data flows at some point through U.S. systems. Those are the conditions of trust and toleration that likely will change.

    The problem for the companies, it's worth emphasizing, is not that they were so unduly eager to cooperate with U.S. government surveillance. Many seem to have done what they could to resist. The problem is what the U.S. government -- first under Bush and Cheney, now under Obama and Biden -- asked them to do. As long as they operate in U.S. territory and under U.S. laws, companies like Google or Facebook had no choice but to comply. But people around the world who have a choice about where to store their data, may understandably choose to avoid leaving it with companies subject to the way America now defines its security interests.


  7. {…}

    Here’s Naughton’s version of the implications:

    The first is that the days of the internet as a truly global network are numbered. It was always a possibility that the system would eventually be Balkanised, ie divided into a number of geographical or jurisdiction-determined subnets as societies such as China, Russia, Iran and other Islamic states decided that they needed to control how their citizens communicated. Now, Balkanisation is a certainty....

    Second, the issue of internet governance is about to become very contentious. Given what we now know about how the US and its satraps have been abusing their privileged position in the global infrastructure, the idea that the western powers can be allowed to continue to control it has become untenable.... Nothing, but nothing, that is stored in their [ie, US-based companies] "cloud" services can be guaranteed to be safe from surveillance or from illicit downloading by employees of the consultancies employed by the NSA.

    The real threat from terrorism has never been the damage it does directly, even though attacks as horrific as those on 9/11. The more serious threat comes from the over-reaction, the collective insanity or the simple loss of perspective, that an attack evokes. Our government's ambition to do everything possible to keep us "safe" has put us at jeopardy in other ways.

    One more note:

    it is also worth emphasizing that this damage was not done by Edward Snowden, except in an incidental and instrumental sense. The damage comes from the policies themselves, just as the lasting damage from Abu Ghraib came not from the leaked photos but from the abuse they portrayed.

    What governments do eventually becomes known. Eventual disclosure is likely when a program involves even a handful of people. (Latest case in point: Seal Team Six.) It is certain when an effort stretches over many years, entails contracts worth billions of dollars, and requires the efforts of tens of thousands of people -- any one of whom, as we've seen from Snowden, may at any point decide to tell what he knows.

    In launching such an effort, a government must assume as a given that what it is doing will become known, and then calculate whether it will still seem "worthwhile" when it does. Based on what we've seen so far, Prism would have failed that test.


    * Of course the "trust" comes with the caveat that the companies have been piling up this data for their own commercial, ad-targeting, data-mining purposes. But that's a known risk, more or less. The demands placed on the companies by the U.S. government are, for the public at large, the main news of the Snowden revelations.

    1. .

      Old news.

      Many of the points have been made here for years. More of the security related ones have been re-emphasized here since day one of the Snowden/Guardian releases.

      The world has been jealous of the US domination of the internet and has been trying to wrest that power away for decades. The idiots in D.C. have now given them the excuse.


    2. .

      It won't happen overnight but a change is coming and it will be to the detriment of the US. Thank the Wizard of OZ and compliant munchkins like Rogers and Feinstein.



    MB Torture Chambers


    How the anti Israel folk are controlling the dialogue these days.

    We never see these kinds of articles here.

    And I am all emotion.


    I have posted articles till I am blue in the face. It's not that I don't present evidence, it's that Deuce isn't listening.

    Also, different topic -

    Seems Aslan is a committed moslem, though the one little snip of a biography I read said he had converted to evangelical Christianity in early life.

    I am going to buy his book, and report.

    1. .

      Please do, and don't come back until your finished.

      You are becoming as fixated on this as you were on the TM/Zimmerman case. Every article you have posted on the subject provides quotes taken out of context from the Green interview on FOX. What difference does it make if the guy is a Muslim. He offers an opinion on Jesus. You, like that nitwit Green, instead of attacking that opinion attack the messenger.

      We get it. You don't agree with the guy. So what.


  9. Beware the phrase: "One man's terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter" which was quoted as a deep insight here recently.

    This is the beginning of the descent into pure relativism and indicates a world weary and and events bruised mind to the point of being unable to distinguish any right from wrong or even better from worse and hovers over the pit of incoherence.

    1. Agreed, boobie, that Menachem Begin, an international terrorist, was elevated to a position of power and prestige, well documenting the leftist descent into pure relativism and a world where the minds of men are bruised to the point of being unable to distinguish any right from wrong or even better from worse and hovers over the pit of incoherence.

      We are finally in agreement.

      Well done!

    2. Actually no.

      Military "targets" are acts of war.

      Blowing up school buses intentionally is terrorism.

      The British Military HQ was a legal target. Just as the Pentagon was a legal target for those at war with America, now using civilian planes? that was terrorism.

      The rules of engagement are quite clear, if you set up a military HQ in a civilian building it BECOMES a military target..

      Now celebrating the bashing in of 6 year old Jewish girl's skull, getting her brain matter all over the stock of the AK-47 and and holding it up as an example of heroics? Terrorism.

      While you are RIPPING out the actual heart of an off duty reservist, you answer the phone and let the wife of the reservist hear her husband scream and die as you rip out his heart? And the POSE in a window as a hero to your people? that is terrorism.

      Planting bombs inside of restaurants and discos targeting kids out for a saturday night's fun? Blowing them into hamburger? Then when the ambulance arrives set off another bomb blowing up rescue workers? Creating dozens of legless, armless victims? That is terrorism...

    3. So, quot, the attacks of 11SEP01 were not terrorist attacks?
      That is the logical progression, because the targets were "legitimate"?

      The attack on the Pentagon was not a terrorist attack because the Pentagon is a military headquarters?
      The attacks on the Twin Towers were not terrorist attacks because the US government had offices in the buildings?

      The attacks in Africa, on US Embassies, were not terrorist attacks, because the target were the US Embassies?

      The attack upon the USS Cole was not a terrorist attack because it was a US military vessel?

      Terrorism is now defined by the target?
      Certainly is a new and interesting theme you are promoting.

      Both the US and British government reject the opinion you are now advocating.
      No NATO membership for countries outside the social norm.

    4. The bombing of the the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. was not terrorism, because the target was a Federal Building?

      The Fort Hood shooting that took place on November 5, 2009 at Fort Hood near Killeen, Texas, where Major Nidal Hasan is accused of killing 13 and injuring 30 was not a terrorist attack because the victims were US military personnel and the Major says the US is at war with Islam?

      How interesting your concept of terrorism becomes.

      Gilad Shalit was not captured by terrorists, and his two companions were not killed by terrorists, because they were soldiers in the IDF, thus legitimate targets?
      Terrorists cannot attack soldiers, aye?

    5. The next step, quot, in your progression is that in Israel ...

      Israeli government passes law to enforce universal military draft
      By Anshel Pfeffer, July 11, 2013

      There are no civilians in Israel. Both men and women that are members of the Israeli population are subject to obligatory military service. They are all members of the military reserves.
      There are no civilians in Israel, excepting minors.
      Thus all are legitimate targets?

      Better go put your thinking cap on.

    6. Those rockets falling on Israel, they are not terrorist attacks.
      They are targeting military reservists, the children injured, they are just collateral damage in legitimate attacks, under the quot doctrine

      How interesting.

      The target defines the attacker, there can be no terrorist attacks against Israeli targets, there are no civilians in Israel, so everyone is a legitimate military target?

    7. And ...

      ... since the Palestinians in Gaza have no military, every Israeli attack against those residents of Palestine, is a terrorist attack, aye?

      Those Turkish flagged ships that the Israeli Navy seized in International waters were not military, but civilian, so the Israeli were terrorists in that action, under the quot doctrine's standard.

      Any attack on civilians is terrorism, attacks on government facilities, legitimate?

      By the quot doctrine the Israeli are terroists.

      By those of the Geneva Accords, not quite so much.

      But, by the Geneva Accord standard, the King David Hotel bombing was a terrorist attack.

    8. Under the Geneva Accords, it is the attacker that sets the standard.

      To be a lawful combbatant and not a terrorist, the rules of war must be followed. which the Irgun failed to do.

      According to the articles of the convention, a lawful combatant must be part of an organized command structure; wear openly visible emblems to identify themselves as non-civilians; carry arms out in the open; ...

      The Irgun masqueraded as civilians, wore civilian clothes and did not carry the bombs " the open...",
      Not at all.

      The Irgun, in the bombing of the King David Hotel were terrorists, regardless of the status of the target.

  10. Abbas: "Not a Single Israeli" in Future Palestinian State - Noah Browning

    Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, presenting his vision for the final status of Israeli-Palestinian relations ahead of peace talks in Washington, said Monday, "In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli - civilian or soldier - on our lands." He was, however, willing to consider "an international, multinational presence like in Sinai," referring to UN peacekeeping operations. Israel has previously said it wants to maintain a military presence at the border with Jordan to prevent any influx of weapons. (Reuters)

    from Daily Alert

    APARTHEID, ANYONE???????????????????????????

    The 'Palestinians', whom no arab country cares for other than as a thorn in Israel's side, have said this again, and again, and again, and again, but it is never ever ever mentioned on this blog.

    1. More emotional assertions. No facts.

    2. D+, You’re trying but not grasping the subject. Try harder.


    3. Contact Hot Air

      Green Room
      Ed Morrissey Show

      Abbas: “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli — civilian or soldier — on our lands”


      Diplomat after diplomat has tried to help solve the longstanding territorial conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and the last direct negotiations collapsed after barely a day back in 2010 — but John Kerry has been slowly but surely trying to inch both parties back toward the negotiating table. After some swirling rumors to the contrary, both groups finally agreed last week to send representatives to Washington without any preconditions for another round of peace talks that the State Department is hoping will last for about nine months. And, they’re off:

      Israeli and Palestinian negotiators held their first peace talks in nearly three years on Monday in a U.S.-brokered effort that Secretary of State John Kerry hopes will end their conflict despite deep divisions.

      Top aides to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas began the talks over an iftar dinner – the evening meal with which Muslims break their daily fast during Ramadan – hosted by Kerry at the State Department. …

      “It’s very, very special to be here,” Kerry told his guests. “There isn’t very much to talk about at all,” he joked. …

      The United States is seeking to broker an agreement on a “two-state solution” in which Israel would exist peacefully alongside a new Palestinian state created in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, lands occupied by the Israelis since a 1967 war.

      The major issues to be resolved in the talks include borders, the future of Jewish settlements on the West Bank, the fate of Palestinian refugees and the status of Jerusalem.

      So far, though, the United States seems to have the biggest stake in the talks’ progress; the State Department has asked both sides not to speak publicly about the negotiations nor their expectations, but Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas already took a hard line in a meeting with Egyptian officials on Monday:

      Even as talks for a permanent Israeli-Palestinian peace got off to a cautious start in Washington Monday, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told reporters in Egypt that no Israelis would be allowed to remain in a future Palestinian state.

      “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli — civilian or soldier — on our lands,” Abbas said following a meeting with interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour in Cairo. …

      The Palestinian leader also reiterated that he wants a total freeze on settlement construction, and that he will not agree to any compromise solution that would halt projects in smaller outlying Jewish communities in the West Bank while allowing continued building in the larger settlement blocs.

      Oof — that doesn’t bode particularly well, does it? Israel, for their part, has said in the past that they’d like to maintain a military presence in the West Bank at the border with Jordan in order to prevent any influx of weapons that might be used against them. I suppose we’ll shortly be seeing if and how the talks move forward.

    4. .

      The first thing you learn when speaking through interpreters is that everything is filtered and half the time it is wrong.

      What is 'said' in a negotiation or the press is meaningless. It is actions and what is signed off to on a piece of paper that counts.

      For years, Israel has been demanding that they be allowed to keep some troops in the West Bank after signing any agreement on a two-state solution. The PA has always resisted.

      Nothing new here.

      Old news.


    5. Until the POPULATION of "palestine" accepts the idea of a Jewish state, side by side with a "arab" state you will not have peace.

      Borders are nonsense.

      The fact?

      Most palestinian arabs do not accept any Jewish presence in the middle east, unless of course the Jews live under strict dhimmihude.

      same goes for christians.

      Islam is intolerant.

  11. Replies
    1. "D+, You’re trying but not grasping the subject. Try harder."

      Deuce, you are not even trying to grasp the subject. At least try. F-.


      "I need to make some money.


      Same here.


  12. It has come to pass that the US has become the "handmaiden" of Israel.

    That was foretold in scripture.

    Give me a few hours to dig up the evidence and I'll put it in print.

    1. If we are to be Israel's handmaiden won't we have to be done with the Obama Administration first?

    2. .



      Come on, Dougman, you're better than that.


    3. Come on, Dougman, you're better than that.

      Thanks for the vote of confidence Q.

    4. Bob
      If we are to be Israel's handmaiden won't we have to be done with the Obama Administration first?


      "Godspeed" is agonizingly slow.

    5. No, dougman.

      Obama Has Been Great for Israel
      Anyone who tells you otherwise is distorting reality.

      BY COLIN H. KAHL | AUGUST 16, 2012

      No president in history has done more for Israel's security than Obama.

      The case for Obama's Israel policy begins with record-high levels of Foreign Military Financing (FMF). The Obama administration has increased security assistance to Israel every single year since the president took office, providing nearly $10 billion in aid -- covering roughly a fifth of Israel's defense budget -- over the past three years. To put this in perspective, this is about 20 percent higher than the remaining six dozen recipients of U.S. FMF combined. Historic aid levels have been complemented by other steps to ensure Israel's unrivaled military advantage in the region, including high-level consultation with Israeli officials on U.S. arms sales to the region, operational cooperation to improve Israel's conventional military and counterterrorism capabilities, and providing Israel with advanced technology, such as the fifth-generation stealth Joint Strike Fighter, to which no other state in the Middle East has access.

      Under Obama's direction, the United States has also deepened defense cooperation aimed at helping Israel address its most pressing security concerns, including rocket and missile threats emanating from the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. When then-Senator Obama traveled to Israel in 2008, it wasn't for a political fundraiser. Instead, he visited Israeli victims of Palestinian rocket fire in the southern town of Sderot, declaring "I came to Sderot with a commitment to Israel's security." These were not just words. As president, Obama has championed efforts to provide Israel with $275 million over and above its annual FMF to help finance Iron Dome, an anti-rocket system that has already saved Israeli lives by intercepting approximately 90 percent of projectiles launched against protected areas in the country's south in the past year.

      This assistance is part of a comprehensive package that underwrites Israel's multitiered rocket and missile defense. The package includes U.S. aid for the development of the David's Sling long-range rocket defense system and the Arrow ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems. It also involves maintaining an advanced U.S. X-band long-range radar system in Israel's Negev desert, positioning U.S. Aegis BMD ships in the eastern Mediterranean, and conducting the largest joint military exercises in history to improve U.S.-Israel missile defense cooperation.

    6. So, outwardly, Obama acts hostile to Israel for the Muslim audience.
      But behind the scenes he's giving more aid than was budgeted.

      Obama the Neo-con?

    7. DougmanTue Jul 30, 04:23:00 PM EDT
      So, outwardly, Obama acts hostile to Israel for the Muslim audience.
      But behind the scenes he's giving more aid than was budgeted.

      Obama the Neo-con?

      Nonsense, increased aid is not support, it's blackmail

    8. Blackmail?

      The action, treated as a criminal offense, of demanding money from a person in return for not revealing compromising or injurious...
      Demand money from (a person) in return for not revealing compromising or injurious information: "trying to blackmail him for $400,000".

      Please explain what money is being demanded from Israel, by the US?
      That is the root meaning of blackmail, quot.
      The Israeli have never given the US a dime, nor has the US demanded a dime from Israel.

      You have the roles reversed.
      If anyone is being blackmailed, it is the US. Mr Obama is being blackmailed by AIPAC to supply aid to Israel. Which he is doing. AIPAC is using political blackmail against US politicos of weak moral stature.

      Better get back to your ESL classes.

  13. July 30, 2013
    Abbas reverts to form
    Rick Moran

    Not that he actually strayed from his unalterable position that no Israeli would live in a Palestinian state. It's just that once again, an American negotiator has been taken in by this clown and is led to believe that Abbas is serious about peace.

    He never is. He never was.

    Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas laid out his vision on Monday for the final status of Israeli-Palestinian relations ahead of peace talks due to resume in Washington for the first time in nearly three years.

    Abbas said that no Israeli settlers or border forces could remain in a future Palestinian state and that Palestinians deem illegal all Jewish settlement building within the land occupied in the 1967 Six Days War.

    For the record, those borders have never been envisioned in any previous agreement, for a Palestinian state.

    The forceful statements appeared to challenge mediator US Secretary of State John Kerry's hopes that the terms of the talks, scheduled to begin Monday night over dinner, be kept secret.
    "In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli - civilian or soldier - on our lands," Abbas said in a briefing to mostly Egyptian journalists.

    "An international, multinational presence like in Sinai, Lebanon and Syria - we are with that," he said, referring to United Nations peacekeeping operations in those places.

    He was in Cairo to meet with Egypt's interim president Adli Mansour nearly a month after the country's armed forces ousted his elected predecessor, Mohamed Morsi. He also discussed with senior Egyptian intelligence figures relations between the two governments and the easing of movement of goods and people between Egypt and the Gaza Strip.

    Israel has previously said it wants to maintain a military presence in the West Bank at the border with Jordan to prevent any influx of weapons that could be used against it.

    So, as usual, the "new" negotiations with the Palestinians have gotten off to a fantastic start - if you like train wrecks. The world will keep pushing Israel to make concessions and reach a deal regardless of what it might to do their security. In this case, the 1967 pre-war borders were indefensible - and still would be.

    Did anyone tell Secretary Kerry that?

    Read more:

    Now I am outta here.

    1. .

      More nonsense from Rick Moron.


    2. It's from The Jerusalem Post, moron, not Rick Moran. He is just quoting The Jerusalem Post.

      You cant' tell the difference, reallly?


    3. .

      Not that he actually strayed from his unalterable position that no Israeli would live in a Palestinian state. It's just that once again, an American negotiator has been taken in by this clown and is led to believe that Abbas is serious about peace.



    4. You're fixated on the subject, move it along now.

      No one give an f what you think. All anyone is worried about are the things you do.

    5. .

      Move it along now?

      Getting a little uppity aren't we old man?


  14. My exit has been delayed, wife having taken the car to Wal-Mart, but look at this:

    >>>>>NEW YORK (AP) -- Art Bell, radio's master of the paranormal and outward edges of science, will return to the microphone on Sept. 16 with a new nighttime show on Sirius XM Radio.

    Bell was one of radio's top syndicated voices in the 1990s before walking away from his nightly show in 2002 due to family issues. He worked occasionally after that but hasn't been on the air since Halloween 2010.

    "I missed it terribly," said Bell, 68, whose weeknight show will air live from 10 p.m. to 1 a.m. ET. Sirius is building a studio at Bell's rural Nevada home where he will work.

    A Sirius representative contacted Bell through social media a few months ago, leading to the formation of his show, "Art Bell's Dark Matter." He'll talk about things like UFOs, ghosts, near-death experiences and weird aspects of science. He'll do interviews and take calls from viewers.

    Scott Greenstein, Sirius XM president and chief content officer, said the show will be "uncensored, unrestricted, uncluttered and utterly unique."

    "There's probably more interest in the genre now than when I did it," Bell said. "When I did it, I was damned near alone."

    Bell was on some 500 radio stations nationwide and "quit when he was at the top of his game," said Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers, a magazine that covers the radio industry.

    Harrison said Bell's subject matter has roots in old-time radio, and he predicted it will become popular once again in the coming years.

    "He'll be looked at as one of the veteran, old masters," Harrison said. "He's the real deal when it comes to marching to the beat of a different drummer."

    There's also a potential rivalry with George Noory, who replaced Bell on the syndicated show. Bell isn't a fan, saying he considers Noory "not edgy enough." Noory's program is on later at night, so the two will not compete directly live.

    No contract terms were divulged.

    Bell said he's intrigued to learn the differences between satellite and terrestrial radio.

    "It seems to me they are the next step in technology," he said. "I've always been a technological junkie. The mix of what they're giving me, the freedom that they're giving me, is priceless."<<<<<

    WOW! YAY!

    Now we all REALLY have something to look forward too.

  15. "Note that as annual Brent crude oil prices doubled from $25 in 2002 to $55 in 2005, Saudi net oil exports increased from 7.1 mbpd in 2002 to 9.1 mbpd in 2005 (million barrels per day, total petroleum liquids + other liquids, EIA). The Saudi Oil Minister, in early 2004, explicitly stated that the large increase in Saudi net oil exports was an attempt to bring oil prices in line with the then stated goal of maintaining a $22 to $28 oil price band. In any case, at the 2002 to 2005 rate of increase in Saudi net oil exports, their net oil exports would have been over 16 mbpd in 2012, as annual Brent crude oil prices more than doubled again, from $55 in 2005 to $112 in 2012, with one year over year decline in oil prices, in 2009.

    However, in contrast to the 2002 to 2005 Saudi response to the price doubling, the Saudis have shown seven straight years of annual net exports below the 2005 rate of 9.1 mbpd, with Saudi net oil exports ranging between 7.6 and 8.7 mbpd for 2006 to 2012 inclusive.

    If the Saudis have virtually infinite oil reserves, and their public pronouncements continually suggest that they have the “capacity” to produce well in excess of 12 mbpd almost indefinitely, why are they allowing high oil prices to encourage alternative sources of oil production, e.g., the very expensive and very high decline rate shale plays in the US?

    While it’s certainly at least possible that the Saudis abandoned their traditional swing producer role, and decided to encourage, starting in 2006, higher oil prices, and thus more competition, by cutting their net oil exports, it’s also at least possible, as Matt Simmons suggested in 2005, that Saudi oil fields are finite after all.

    I realize that this is a controversial assertion--that Saudi Arabian oil fields are not infinite--but . . . . . "

    Why is Saudi Arabia not a "threat" to Fracking?

    1. .’s also at least possible...

      Hard to argue with that.


    2. Unless it is impossible.

      Quirk camps out with Miss Inane.

    3. .

      The 'English major' once again proves his inability to recognize sarcasm.

      Isn't there some book you are supposed to be reading?


  16. HonestReporting's Israel Daily News Stream: Everything You Need to Know About Media Coverage of Israel and the MidEast

    Today's Top Stories

    • Abbas: Palestinian state will be judenrein.


    I simply cannot understand how those of you here who have been bashing Israel daily as an 'apartheid state' can get up in the morning without a feeling of shame when you read that the blessed Palestinians insist ON A JEW FREE STATE!!!!!?????? And, always have. Where have you been?

    What do you see when you look in the mirror?

  17. Re: Netanyahu
    Prime Minister 1996-1999
    Prime Minister 2009-2013
    Prime Minister 2013-to date

    More powerful than a locomotive,
    Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound,
    It's a bird.
    It's a plane.
    It's super-Jew, BiBi Netanyahu.


    1. A leader of a secular state, why would that make him a super-Jew?

      What does Bibi's religion have to do with his leadership positions in the secular state of Israel?

      Why even bring Bibi's religion into the conversation?
      Is it important to you allen, to focus on the religion of politicians?

      Are you a bigot?

    2. Ah, the super anti-semite loves to question the Jew about Jewish issues.

      Getting funnier by the day.

      We all KNOW the Rat's obsessiveness with all things Jewish/Israeli.

      The real question?

      Why his fear of Jews and Israel?

    3. Not even our super shrink Trish could figure it, WiO.

      She was finally reduced to saying only:

      "There's something really wrong with you, Rat."

    4. Fear?

      That is ludicrous.

      The question is simple, why do you fellas bring up Bibi's religion?
      No else does.

      I don't, Deuce doesn't, Q doesn't.

      boobie and quot, now this new and improved "allen" all make issue of people's religion.
      Be it Judaic, Islamic, Hindu. They are all about religion, all the time.


    5. desert ratTue Jul 30, 06:43:00 PM EDT

      That is ludicrous.

      The question is simple, why do you fellas bring up Bibi's religion?
      No else does.

      Do you actually read what you type? You are the most obsessed Jew hater on this blog. That you "specifically" did not mention Bibi's religion? Give me a break. That's all you do.... the context of your comments are Jew this, Israel that, Zionist this, AIPAC that...

      In the real world? Not a single human being would put up with your total horse shit..

  18. I'm still working on finding that "handmaiden" verse.
    Not getting much time on the computer at work.

  19. "handmaiden"
    occurs 1 time in 1 verse in the KJV
    Page 1 / 1 (Luk 1:48 - Luk 1:48)

    And, its not the passage I'm thinking of.
    I think it was probably in the Mormon's bible that I saw it.

    I'm sure no one is sitting on the edge of their seat waiting for it either :)

    1. King James Bible

      And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

      Luke 1:38

      I was working like a slave to get the scoop.

    2. 2 Nephi 24:2
      2 And the people shall take them and bring them to their place; yea, from far unto the ends of the earth; and they shall return to their lands of promise. And the house of Israel shall possess them, and the land of the Lord shall be for servants and handmaids; and they shall take them captives unto whom they were captives; and they shall rule over their oppressors.

      Not worded the way I remember it. I'll keep on a-lookin'

    3. That's the old general overthrow of the former conditions so justice is finally served, the good guys now being atop, where they should have always been, obviously.

      But the Lord works in strange ways, and often takes His own sweet time, but finally:

      "The Judgements of the Lord are righteous altogether."


      Ain't they, deuce?


      'tis an old old theme.

    4. Just think of Quirk, after milking the sheeple for decades, finally ending up in prison where he has always belonged, finally getting his just deserves.

      That kind of thing.

  20. After months of much tension and little dialogue, Japan and China are edging gingerly toward repairing diplomatic relations, seeking ways to contain the fallout from a territorial row, even without any clear sign of how to resolve it.

    Tokyo's highest-ranking career diplomat traveled to Beijing on Monday for two days of talks to "exchange opinions on a broad range of issues" with Chinese officials, Japan's chief government spokesman said. It was the first time for the foreign ministry's top official to meet with Chinese counterparts since October and the first such exchange since new, hard-line leaders have taken power...

  21. On this day in 1971, astronauts David R. Scott and James B. Irwin, part of the Apollo 15 mission, safely landed on the moon. Apollo 15 was the fourth mission to land on the moon.

  22. Photo Essay of the destruction of Homs, Syria --

    Cross roads city is crossed out.


  23. The Pentagon said Tuesday it is offering no “zero option” for the number of troops that would remain in Afghanistan after the U.S. combat mission ends in December 2014. It said in a report to Congress that “substantial” long-term military support will be needed to ensure that Afghans can hold off the Taliban insurgency.

    The White House has not ruled out leaving no troops behind after 2014, although officials say the most likely option is a residual training force of roughly 9,000.

  24. The following is an essay from the US Army's Command & General Staff College in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. The essay does an excellent job of explaining not only the basics of terrorism, but also details the US policy towards this phenomenon.

    U.S. Army, Field Manual 100-20, Stability and Support Opperations, (Final Draft), "Chapter 8: Combatting Terrorism."

    Compromise is rejected, and terrorist groups lean toward maximalist positions. Having placed themselves beyond the pale, forever unacceptable to ordinary society, they cannot accept compromise. They consider negotiation dishonorable, if not treasonous. This may explain why terrorist groups are prone to fracturing and why the splinters are frequently more violent than their parent group.

    The Jewish experience in Palestine is a classic example of splintering. In 1931, Haganah B broke from Haganah; in 1936, Irgun Svai Leumi split from Haganah B; and in 1940, Lochamei Herut Israel, or the Stern Gang, broke from Irgun. Each successive group was more rigid and violence-prone than its parent.

    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    2. …just to let you know I still care.

    3. It was a fair question, Deuce, asking rat where his experience in Central America fitted into his continuum of terrorist behavior.

      Perfectly legitimate and polite question.

  25. .

    Manning convicted, but found innocent of aiding the enemy charge.|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p


  26. .

    US Foreign Policy and Egypt

    Will U.S. officials never learn?

    The answer apparently is no. Just look at Egypt, where American policy combines equal parts hypocrisy and futility. Washington officials are never content to just shut up and stay home.

    The U.S. remains wealthy and powerful, but still cannot micro-manage the globe. Every new administration, irrespective of party, ignores this reality. The outcome is always the same: values sacrificed, money wasted, credibility lost, reputation damaged. If President Obama wants to leave a positive foreign policy legacy, he should do and say less abroad.

    Read more:


    1. Nitwit, we don't even have a policy in Egypt. We're just flopping around now like a hopeless pitiful giant. The only hope for Egypt is the Egyptian military.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. .

      Please go away. I posted the article above for those here who could understand it and critique it intelligently not some buffoon from The Acme School of Reading and Things Like That There. You have already shown on numerous occasions you lack the ability to read, understand, analyze, or comment on anything written above a third grade level. And frankly, this particular article contains no pictures, cartoons, or pop-ups.

      Since the article does contain words of more than two syllables, I suggest you try getting someone to read it to you if you have any interest at all. However, I must warn you that the article itself is relatively long, and given you have the attention span of a gnat, you may doze off before it's finished.


    4. Assignment: Quirk

      Describe in 500 of your very own words, or less, the American 'Policy' in Egypt.

      Say, ain't you the dummy fellow that was claiming the Vandals originated in East Germany?

      You don know shit.

    5. .

      Pay attention, moron.

      I have described the US policy on Egypt and provided my opinion of it on numerous occasions here, usually in debates with the rat. As I recall, the rat and I had a discussion on this subject within the past few days. Try to keep up.

      As for the Vandals, only a fool would buy that flimsy argument you put up the other day, a one word toponym gleaned from Swedish 'prehistory' somebody thought sounded similar to Vandals, no proof, mere speculation. Oh yeah, and your dear old granny told you so.

      Before the Vikings showed up in the 9th or 10th Century, nobody knew anything about the
      Swedes except that they indulged in human sacrifice and buried their victims out in the bogs. The only other proof that might support your theory, even though it too is mere speculation, is that it would be reasonable to assume that 'if' the Vandals happened to be there at a time undetermined, they would want to leave as soon as possible.

      A similar story to that you relate regarding the Vandals is the same type of story every hick country in Europe lacking history prior to the dark ages comes up with trying to link themselves to the glory of ancient Rome and Greece. Pitiful in its own way.

      What we do have 'proof' of was that the Vandals stormed out of East Germany by the beginning of the 5th Century, that they sacked Rome half way through the 5th Century, that they pillaged and raped their way through Spain and captured much of North Africa around the Mediterranean.

      But of course this is all irrelevant. As I recall, you were bummed out because of the disapprobation tied to the name Vandals that you believe is being transferred onto the Swedes.


      Pardon me for laughing.

      First, the censure applied to the word vandals comes mainly from the pillage and rape employed by the Vandals in their sack of Rome in 455 A.D. That anyone would have any reason to connect the Swedes to those vandals appears quite silly to me. Face it, the only thing the Swedes are known for these days are their meatballs.

      The only disapprobation I can think that should be visited upon them is their inordinate fear of wolves and their seeming inability to read and comprehend English.


  27. The scientists found that mammals shifted from solitary living to monogamy 61 times over their evolution. They then searched for any factors that these mammals had in common.


    In many species of mammals, males will sometimes kill the young offspring of other males. Scientists have proposed that they do so because nursing females do not ovulate.

    By killing a female’s offspring, a male then gains the chance to have offspring of his own with her.

    1. "The scientists found that mammals shifted from solitary living to monogamy 61 times over their evolution."

      When will they ever learn?

  28. very hard to get a solution for this problem..As american have to change them not to be handmaiden..anyone got the solution for this?

    buy youtube views

    1. You are asking the impossible here. Quirk, for instance, has admitted he doesn't have any solutions to anything at all.

      The others may not admit it, but they are all in same category, 'No Solutions'.

      You will have search elsewhere.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Just because Quirk has specifically admitted he has no solutions at all to anything at all doesn't keep him from spouting off about every subject under the sun.

      Here, it is the spouting off that is graded, and nothing else.

      Class: Spouting Off 501

      Student: Quirk


    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    5. .

      Once again, Mr. Green Jeans proves that he lacks the ability to read a simple post, comprehend its meaning, and regurgitate it back in its original form.

      This proves that he is a liar.

      Either he is lying in his current statement. Or, he is lying in his statement that he is an English major. Based on his past performance on this blog, I would probably bet on the latter.

      (Of course, there is the possibility that he started taking English Lit, Composition, et al and merely flunked out.)

      I don't ever recall seeing the likes. This happens every day on this blog with the Wizard of ID.