Blogging has been sporadic lately, because I went to visit my dad last weekend, the kids were mostly off school this week, and we are leaving tomorrow for a week in Florida.
However, I did squeeze in an interview with an EbertFest filmmaker who is originally from Urbana. It's over at Smile Politey: The triumphant return of Nina Paley.
So. Anyway. We usually have to steal wireless from the other condos while we are in Florida, so blogging will continue to be sketchy for the next week. In this case, sketchy means "likely non-existent."
Thursday, March 19, 2009
So. Anyway.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
So no articles about Obama's deepening our entrenchment into the Afghanistan. No comments on how outrageous it is? Gee, I am all ready to agree with everyone here on what a fiasco this is going to be.
Yes, Bob, because McCain wouldn't have done the same thing? I don't like the war in Afghanistan, think it's been horribly mismanaged, particularly on a political front with the Afghan govt. being both corrupt and incompetent. Still, if someone is going to govern, and Obama seems intent on doing that, he might have to do some things,even, and especially, things a lot of us disagree with. If he had failed to turn the Afghan War in another direction, you'd have complained about his lack of agressiveness, yes?
It's been this way for 200 plus years Bob. It doesn't matter who is the President, they have to go along with the program, play ball if you like. The only major difference since the 1980's is that Bush SR., and his cronies have been the only ones kissing the cheeks of the Saudi's and inviting them personally to their retreats (Ranch's etc.). Our downfall has always been fossil fuels, unfortunately the propaganda machine has done an extremely good job of camouflaging this era of corruption by using religion, guns, abortion and name calling tactics to fool the sheep that are easily tricked. bbbaaaaahhh
Another difference of course is that G.W. Bush's grades and failures in life are no coincidence. He was used as a tool too. He was a fortunate son with the Bush name that people like yourself fell for because of the propaganda aforementioned.
Now Obama or whoever that has to follow this 'Clown in Chief', has to attempt to deal with it. It's what made people like myself angry at the time they were selling these foolish war's like a used car.
No, I will never agree with escalating either one of these engagements; Iraq or Afghanistan, whether it be Obama or Palin or Colbert. The blame goes way back to those responsible for the greed of fossil fuels, weapons trade and the drug trades. Simple greed and the power that corrupts in the name of the Lord. 'Stealin' in the name of the Lord'.
I think we just gave Bob what he wanted. Get ready for him to escalate the engagement.
No, I think we are in agreement here. Obama is being an idiot for escalating the Afghan war.
Bob--It already was a fiasco. Fiascos are easy to get make, but hard to get out of. A little etymology suggests that it comes from an Italian word meaning to fashion a bottle. I do not know how those two things relate.
Cheers--
dw
Perhaps the bottle reference applies to a decision made from a drunken fool, in the case of 'W', it does apply.
Isn't it funny how it was a good idea when Bob's guy was doing it and now the other guy is an idiot?. Very typical of course, proves once again that it's easy to lead the sheeple.
Question everything, think autonomously and above all; believe there is hope for those who can spell their name the same backwards
fingtree,
I am sure it is much easier for you to believe that I am a non thinking person instead of recognizing that the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq are inherently different, or that other factors might have changed.
It must be great to be able to look down on so many people.
I didn't say Obama was an idiot. I can disagree with people and their choices without thinking them to be idiots.
Cheers,
dw
Kill 'em all! Let me and the boss sort 'em out.
Thannk you for sharing this
Post a Comment