Hell, I was a conservative and I wouldn’t back Clown-Shoes in 2000 because of his obvious hard-on for Iraq II. He lied? To us? NO! You don’t say! Hell, I think he encouraged Columbia to invite Adhominenjihad (4LOG, don’t ask me to try and spell it correctly, I’m too fat, decadent and lazy) to speak just to make us war-horny again.

“Adhominenjihad?”

Awesome.

Seriously though, you’d think more “Downing Street memo” stuff like this would’ve leaked through by now. Are these guys that careful at their meetings they don’t stay stupid stuff like this? Not by judging this Bush quote.

C’mon U.S. press. Once you were great (think WoodStein). You need to work a bit harder… where are these dishes that hurt the prez? You wouldn’t be whoring for access again now would you? Didn’t your mommy tell you that was amoral? Probably.

Can’t wait to see the Cons ‘rebuttal’ to this one.

I want articles of impeachment. What’s wrong with this country?

More,

One has to wonder why this House of Representatives has NOT issued Articles of Impeachment. That learned scholar, Gerald R. Ford once said, “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” That definition certainly fit neatly for Clinton.

Here’s some sites:
impeachbush.tv/impeach /articles.html
counterpunch.o rg/boyle01172003.html

What I find interesting is no one mentions ‘bribery,’ although a case can be made that receiving large amounts of money from organizations that benefit from the actions of the Prez could qualify as bribery. That may be why the House is staying away from impeachment. If THAT issue arose, there’d be a LOT more ‘deer in the headlights.’

All the more reason to proceed. Let’s stop dancing around campaign financing and put the ‘common people’ back into democracy. Let’s take a page from baseball and create ‘parity.’

DD-
I was merely quoting RealityBlows – the first post on this thread.

At any rate, I fail to see your point. I don’t understand what you are getting at when you mention the rule of law. There is no law that requires the President to be consistent – the voters decide how important consistency is. Why is it so mysterious that Bush was considering the invasion and discussing it with Aznar a month before the invasion? Sounds prudent to me. When he talked about the decision being Hussein’s, I think that he meant precisely that. His position was that the US was enforcing the UN mandates concerning wmd-inspections. Sounds to my like enforcing the rule of law.

I am not disputing the claim that the administration had been planning to invade Iraq since it took office (nor am I supporting it). I am pointing out that this story does little to make the case that the administration’s real motivation to invade Iraq was not consistent with its stated policy. Furthermore, I think that warfare is a legitimate tool of statecraft. Sad, but true. If you accept this premise – and I understand that to some this is unacceptable – than planning to invade Iraq before 9/11 isn’t really such a big deal.

Again, this Nazi-stuff is really tedious. Can’t we find some other historical example to use? I’ll bet the Julio-Claudian dynasty had some really mean dudes who we can compare to Bush and Cheney.

I would like to state for the record that I am not amoral. I have just as highly-developed sense of morality as anyone else. I just don’t think that anything that I hold sacred has been violated. In any case, I can assure you that, if I felt the US were moving towards a totalitarian system, I would be at the forefront of the movement to put an end to it. I would gladly contribute my money, muscle, and my big mouth to such a movement. I just don’t share your point of view.

Ole,

Touché. I am chagrined. And I apologize.

As for my Hitler reference, that’s my fallback whenever I feel someone is dummying down, which I didn’t expect from you but thought that’s what I was seeing. I live in a part of the country that is in lockstep with events and I’ve had family and friends advise me to, ‘get over it.’ That’s a hot button to me and respond accordingly.

Now, as to my rule of law reference, I stand by it although in reality Bushney probably broke no law when they lied to this country and Congress in an effort to gain support for the war. What they violated was the faith, hope and trust that a people place in the highest office of the land. I doubt I need enumerate the result.

I’m not the one to be judging morality, but I find it difficult to accept the use of war as an instrument of state as anything other than amoral.

And I’d be careful trotting out the presence of WMDs as support for going to war. Mr. Blix repeatedly said Iraq was in compliance.

In my simple world, and I would like to think in the world of most people, war is the final option. For Bushney, it is the opposite.

Again, my apologies for being so shallow as to not understand your post.

DD-
No worries, I realized that my point might be missed as soon as I posted. It was a stupid attempt at humor anyway.

Anyway, regarding Blix. He never stated that Iraq was in compliance; he stated that they were moving toward compliance – in other words that they were not in compliance. I don’t think there is anything subtle about this distinction, nevertheless it is often a distinction that opposition to the war fails to make. For many of the conditions of Resolution 1441, Iraq was not in compliance (or “partially compliant” i.e. not compliant). These are the facts. I will add my opinion that the steps towards compliance that Iraq took leading up to the war were little more than a weak attempt at keeping up appearences – too little, too late. The US was only putting some weight behind the rule of international law – or at least that’s what we have been told. In the end no WMD – but the rule of law prevailed. Concerning war as a tool of the state, I do not find anything appealing about this condition of our existence. I think that warfare probably represents a failure to find a more creative (and probably effective) solution to problems between people and states, but sometimes we must live with a practicable solution in lieu of a good solution. A moral dilemna to be sure, but at least not an amoral one.

I believe israel is not in compliance with several UN resolutions, when do we invade? shouldn’t we invade to uphold the law? what makes them more special? the mere fact that we GIVE them $3Billion of our hard earned dollars so that they can carry out their oppressive agenda on the palestinian people?
I find it amusing to no end the double standard that the cons will exhibit when analysing events. When it is not in their favor they will ignore the most haneous acts such as torturing civilians SUSPECTED of knowing SOMETHING or perhaps defyiance of an espionage law, extrajudicial killings. But when a perceived transgression is thrust upon them, usage of a particular word for example, they even clammor for congressional intervention. This from a party running on a platform of LESS GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT in the inanities of life. Their double standards, homogeneity, intolerance, hypocresy and outright dishonesty and dishonour should expose them for what they are… agents of evil in our society. Selfish, greedy bastards that in their lust for power they ignore what is best for the whole, the nation, the world, and ultimately our common future. Worse still are the little eichmans that support them blindly without sense of consequence for their actions. Efficient little machines they are, towing the party rethoric without any idea why they do it or what the driving force behind the policy actually is. Gladly they vilify those who don’t espouse their dogma, using the lowest, filthiest of tactics, then they cry and complain like girly men when those tactics are used on them. why? because their condition as agents of evil prevents them from seeing the log in their eye or recognizing the hand they hold on their path to perdition.

Jed -

I was not the one touting the rule of law as a reason for going to war or not going to war. I was responding to DD who stated:

“And as for ‘defense’ of Bushney because YOU knew he had a ‘strong commitment’ to the ‘possibility of war,’ that’s scarcely germane. We happen to operate under the rule of law, unless you’ve forgotten.”

My position was that, if the rule of law is the key to the whole opposition to the war then, I think the war is probably justified – we were implementing international law. Regardless, I think that we were justified for other reasons that I have stated in previous posts.

regarding Israel…

Can you tell me which UN Resolution that Israel is not in compliance with currently? Aren’t most of those resolutions made by the UN concerning Israel statements of opinion? That’s my understanding, I admit that I do not have a complete command of the history of the UN’s stance on Israel. I do, however, believe that Israel has been justified in defying the UN in order to defend itself from its neighbors. In legalese this is called force majeure. In other words, Israel is not bound by law in extreme circumstances where the law would bar them from protecting their interests – I think defending themselves from repeated foreign invasions qualifies. How is that comparable to Iraq? Does a brutal dictator’s attempts to confound the international community’s intention to ensure itself that a regime that has employed chemical weapons against its own people no longer has such capabilities really comparable to Israel defending its sovereignty – sovereingty which was validated by UN Resolution 273. Last, I don’t think (I might be wrong)the Security Council has ever passed a resolution, binding Israel to do anything. The UN resolutions concerning Israel were all made in the General Assembly. So, in that sense, there really is no comparison, none of these resolutions had the implication of enforcement attached.

uh, jed, i for one would like to see you refute Olay’s claim instead of gurgling up psuedo-philosophical platitudes

in all seriousness, what UN resolutions is Israel in violation of?

but oppressive actions against the palestinian people? Barak bent over backward for Arafat with Clinton at Camp David, and Arafat turned him down. Israel has moved out of the West Bank and Gaza…the Palestinians problems are mostly of their own doing…its the Palestinians blowing up discoteques and busses, its the Palestinians who cant seem to elect a non-terrorist entity, who’ve squandered their money that could be spent funding schools and better housing, but instead use it on weapons, its the Palestinians who are in control over their own destinies, not Israel

the time for blaming Israel for the Palestinians problems is over…ask the Jordanians about the Palestinians–they were a problem there until Jordan kicked em out…hmm, wherever the Palestinians go, trouble follows…

I should have added that Israel is not totally blameless, but sooner or later the Palestinians have to carry their own water

Can we, possibly, FIRE Israel? Is it possible to give them their unconditional release? Or, just cut them? OK, maybe not. That only applies to athletes.
But, in response to the whole list of threads regarding Israel: If Israel feels threatened, why do they need our okay to go ahead and preemptively strike Iran or Syria or whoever? Why is it our business? Somebody needs to explain how our support of Israel ISN’T a threat to national security. The Prez constantly talks about ‘national security’. I know he’s talking about oil, but in reality, isn’t Israel’s attitude and actions making the United States less safe?

In retrospect:
Every single thing that’s being handed to us by our own Bush-league administration, and everything that’s being said by the ‘radicals’ in the middle east is fully and completely our own fault. It’s our own doing. If other nations were in the United States telling us what to do with our resources, and how NOT to run our country, wouldn’t we be a bit upset and want them out?

This President has been hellbent on war. He teamed up with people that were also hellbent on war. Except those other people have been hellbent on dominating the whole middle east for the last 30 years. These are facts. So, what now?????????

remove them from office, by force if necessary before they take us to global war. the world has to be shown that regardless of their presidents insanity, the american people still have common sense and common will as well as a sense of well being for all nations. Let’s eradicate the negativity ASAP or get used to all the bad energy floating around because it’s going to become alot more prevalent.

Jed –
Get a life. You are full of hot air and bereft of constructive or insightful dialogue. At least some of the more ornery libs are at least entertaining or have something that resembles an argument. You resort to nonsense statements like “eradicate the negativity” or this little gem: “It is a sad state of affairs and a telling piece of a peoples character when…
rethorical words illicit a call for violent action. Yet, when violent action is visited upon the less fortunate or less wealthy, violent actions are met with empty rethoric.” What? Maaybe I did not respond to everything DD put out there, but was I really dissembling? I think DD laid out a lot of food for thought. I simply chose a topic that I had a well-formed impression about. You might try that at some point.

God-D*mnit, OFF WITH THEIR HEADS already, if YOU or I had f*cked up this miserably, we’d be UNDER the JAIL.

RealityBlows -

I think that a lot of what you are saying about Israel is correct – and it also applies to the States. When a country feels threatened, it should be able to act in its own interests, which can include a military response.

I think, though, that the US and Israel are allies and are working towards common ends, so there is some attempt to work together with respect to Iran. I also think that the US support of Israel is justified and should continue. Israel is a functioning democracy in the Middle East. Israel has a strong, modern economy. Israel limits its military actions to defense against aggresion from its neighbors and other entities.

Yes, support of Israel does lead to violence against the US, but it doesn’t necessitate it. We pay a price for doing the right thing, but I don’t think we should stop doing the right thing. Perhaps if the forces that oppose Israel could find something more constructive than detonating themselves in public to use in their struggle for dignity or whatever it is they’re so pissed off about, maybe then they would get somewhere.

Concerning the threat from Iran, I think the concern is not limited to the threat to Israel. A nuclear-armed Iran could threaten petroleum production/shipping in the region; Europe; the US Naval presence in the Med./Indian Ocean/Gulf. It is not just about Israel.

Clintons anti-terror programs? you mean the ones that kept up the “wall” between the FBI and the CIA so they couldnt share info? you mean the anti-terror programs that involved bombing an aspirin factory in Somalia? you mean saying no when Somalia offers you Bin Laden on a platter?

you dont have to unilaterally invade countries to have a crap record on terrorism…Clinton, good as he was on economic issues, was terrible abroad, and his doing nothing for 8 years, through the first world trade center bombing, through the bombing of the embassies in Kenya, through the attack on the USS Cole, to Al-Qaeda declaring war on the US in 96 undeniably helped set up 9-11…but you can add presidents Carter, Reagan, and Bush 1 to that list as well…terror has been the weak spot of American presidents since the 70s

as for the Nazi stuff, jesus give it up already. no matter how hard you wish or spew hyperbole, Bush and company only come off as incompetent, not Hitler re-incarnate…and they’re gonna be gone int less than two years! You still can vote! You can still say just about whatever you damn well please! you can read whatever you want, you can go just about anywhere you want…bush hasnt rounded you up into a concentration camp, bush has not forced you to become a member of only one party…

your point on foreign troops on foreign soil is debatable, and is probably correct, but there is absolutely no correlation between bush and the Nazis, and it, quite frankly, undercuts your argument from the start

oh, and how is wanting to respect the sovereignty of your nation against illegal immigrants, key word being ILLEGAL, the same as rounding up the jews and gassing them for being “inferior” and disrupting the master race. do tell, please

This entire enterprise is a predetermined war to take out Israel’s enemies. Merk(nothing) is retarded. Blood for oil of WRONG is Israeli. It’s funny how most Americans don’t believe anything this gov’t tells them yet the neocons expect them to on the issue of Iran.
The idea that Israelis haven’t hijacked our foreign policy is a conspiracy theory idea best left to those who debate who shot Kennedy.

Why are Americans dying for Israel???

WHY: “Why are Americans dying for Israel???”

You’ll have to ask the oil industry that one. Seems like it would be a good excuse, though.

Coach-
How are oil and Israel connected? No oil or oil-industry in Israel.

Blood:
You don’t think the religion/oil complex sees Israel’s struggles as a good excuse to pillage the middle east?
What about Africa’s struggles? What about struggles around the world? Why doesn’t anybody talk about those?
Israel’s struggles are a convenient excuse to be in the middle east. If Israel was on the southern tip of Africa, would we be down there fighting for them?

Ole, Ole. Ole, Ole, Ole.

C’mon, you’re not REALLY going to stand on that position, are you? You, the pragmatist who thinks war is a legitimate tool of state? You’re now going to stand there in mock confusion as to why this, or any other Western country, might carve out a non-Muslim sector in the oil-rich Middle East? Pulease.

Unless, of course, I’ve overestimated your acumen and the whole dynamics of geopolitics is ‘foreign’ to you. Which would, I believe, make all your argument vis a vis Iran, terrorists and, whoops, even war as a tool of state, somewhat hollow. Or am I missing something?

DD/Coach

Clearly the US-Israeili alliance is of enormous strategic value with respect to US foreign policy in the Middle East (which is definitely concerned with petroleum), but I think that the history is much more complicated. There exists an enormous (legacy?)ideologic component to this policy.

Certainly it is convenient to have a strong ally that is at odds with the Arab and Muslim world(s), but in the 1940s, it might have been more pragmatic to back oil-rich states opposed to Israel. Look at the way US-Saudi relations change between 1940-1951 – starting with reduced control of ARAMCO.

After 1951 the US has seen a steady decrease (with notable exceptions) with the Kingdom. The US might have sought to build its alliance with Saudi Arabia versus supporting Israel.

US support of fledgling Israel was by no means unilateral, nor was the US supporting Israel because the Soviet Union wasn’t. The US might have chosen to support Saudi Arabia, which up to the 1948 war with the Arab League, had been a very close ally of the US. THere might have never been an OPEC, if the US had backed Arabs. The US might have sought to establish and control its own cartel.

The history to this is much more complicated than greedy guys wearing Stetson hats, smoking cigars, carving up the global supply of oil. There sentiment in this thing that has nothing to do with the market. I think if the Arab-Israeli conflict (and the US involvement in it) had merely been about wealth, some solution would have been found long ago.

Maybe someone out there understands the history better than me and can explain how the US was actually trying to consolidate its control over petroleum at each juncture in the course of its foreign policy towards Israel and the rest of the Middle East, but I suspect that the issue is much, much more complicated and much more rooted in ideology than economics.

Ole,

I doubt any of us are qualified to speak authoritatively about Israel, this country’s role in it’s creation and/or motives involved then and now. But since when does that stop any of us herein? This is soapbox country and qualifications be damned.

I have serious doubts HST was thinking about future oil availability when he sanctioned this country’s UN vote for Israel. Nor was he thinking about a ‘Islamic Wedge.’ He MAY have been thinking of the newly printed Monroe Doctrine that sought to stem ‘The Red Tide.’ And after wikiing Israel, I was somewhat surprised that the Jewish immigration there far predates WWII, figuratively speaking.

“There exists an enormous (legacy?)ideologic component to this policy.” There’s the sum and substance of any ‘argument’ underway. The how and why is irrelevant at this juncture. For reasons whatever, the government U.S., and probably much of the populace, has adopted Israel. If pressed, I would guess the Left did so for ideological reasons whilst the Right did it for pragmatic reasons. History would seem to confirm that contention.

Blood:
I respect your knowledge of historical events in the middle east for the past century. And, I don’t think I’m willing to refute any of them at this point. However, the fundamental question has been this: Why is it in America’s ‘best interests’ to continue to support a country that we KNOW will be continually threatened by its neighbors? I understand the need to help a ‘friend in need’. But, if it’s ‘history’ we’re protecting, then we need to rethink our stance.
If we’re supporting them, as an opportunity to inflict damage to the ‘islamofascists’ (whatever that means), do we honestly think that ’suicide bombing’ will take over civilized nations? Blowing yourself up would have to be REALLY attractive to millions of people in order to take over civilization.
So, again. While I support Israel’s fight, I wonder if it’s a never-ending fight. In which case, is it worth it?

DD/Coach -

I wasn’t suggesting that anyone present qualifications to discuss Israel. My point was that US foreign policy is more complicated than oil. To be sure, oil is huge. To be sure, the US is very concerned with the Middle East because there’s a lot of oil there. I was just trying to make a strong case for the idea that you can’t attribute every foreigh policy decision that the US makes in the Middle East to the purpose of enriching Texan OilDons, or just keeping the price at the pump low.

I agree that at this point, US support for Israel is damaging to its credibility with the Arab world. I would also venture a guess that SOME of the support for Israel over the Arabs at the end of WWII was motivated by a brand of racial prejudice; there was probably also a lot of guilt with respect to having failed to prevent the halocaust. Maybe if you could go back and be a fly on the wall at every closed-door meeting in the Halls of power where Israel was the topic of discussion, it would break down to Democrats wanting to do justice the Jews justice and the Republicans just being pragmatic (whatever that means). I think that’s a little far-fetched, but I’m willing to play along if it is an alternative to the all-encompassing ‘Blood for Oil’ theory of 20th Century US foreign policy.

Regardless of the circumstances under which the State of Israel was born, I think it’s a bad policy for the US to withdraw its support for Israel because of the threat of terrorism. The US must not allow itself to be moved by those kind of tactics, doing so would be tantamount to an open invitation to an ever-expanding list of homocidal maniacs (with or without legitimate grievances) to wreak havoc on our existence. Secondly, and more importantly, the US should do everything it can to support a moderate state in the region. It is both pragmatic and ideologically satisfying to support Israel in my opinion. I suppose it is hard to call Israel moderate when you see footage of families carrying the corpses of their children killed in Israeli airstrikes in Gaza; but when you look at Hamas and Hizbullah and the tactics they are using and the rhetoric out of their leaders, it seems very obvious to me who should receive US support.

Our country is at a critical juncture in its history, and unless we can get to a place where the left and the right can begin to understand a little better what the opposite side is saying, then we are cooked. We might as well pack it in. It’s not as simple as 50% of the country is right and the other 50% is wrong. Unfortunately when one side reduces the other side’s view to some comic-book version of reality, the dialogue goes no where.

Well here’s some more:

alternet.org/waroniraq/ 63632/?page=1

It’s fairly comprehensive, but more importantly it cites sources of information and evidence.

Since I can never properly link articles without them being removed, let me try another approach.

If you want a comprehensive, factually supported analysis of pre war strategies of NPAC, try the following google search:

alternet war on terror

The first link is what you want. It is pretty informative even if the title is a little gimmicky.

thank you, some nice reading. I particularly like this line…
“We risk far less by embracing the truth and acting on it. Our nation cherishes honesty: the fraudulence must end. But Bush and Cheney have shown themselves incapable of honesty, and we also cherish justice. They must be impeached.”

It is a sad fact that those running a few octaves lower than those who have understanding will not recognize that their leaders are deceiving them. They expect the actual torture, disapearance and oppression en mass of some of it’s citizens before recognizing that their official institutions are expousing a totalitarian fascist culture.
I am reminded of the movie ‘what dreams may come’. When Robbin williams had to go to the depths of hell to find the sould of his wife. He found her in a house just like theirs in life but totally a shambles, ovegrown by weeds and filled with insects and dissarray. The wife was totally oblivious to the incongruence of her surroundings. The human race seems to be afflicted by a similar form of blindness. They don’t realize when their home is being infected by insects, engulfed by overgrowth, made unlivable by decay.
Even those with a little intelligence and the ability to form some cogent points resort to generalizations, though they later show a clear understanding of the nuances inherent in all events. Sometimes I wonder what drives these men to try and mislead their brothers and sisters, what causes them to try and feed the confusion and contention being heaved upon us… then I remember my studies of ancient and new religions and realize that in all of them humanity has a nemesis, intent on destroying it’s homworld through deception and obfuscation. That this nemesis is way more advanced but spiritually void… and I realixe why they do it and what it means that it is so prevalent.

Are we at 2/3’s of humans infected yet?

I tried posting a similar article a week or two ago. It got removed for whatever reason. Here’s to hoping it stays up for a few more hours. I thought it was nice and the added links to back up the arguments was refreshing.

I really hope that we learn from this. What Nixon did for mass political distrust never resulted in significant change in our political system. We got a few bones they tossed at our feet, sure. Nothing that really hurt the people in charge though. Mostly superfluous stuff. I wonder if this time we will dig deeper and hit the roots of the mess.

You are all acting as if the U.S. was one entity acting in its own interest with some sort of plan throughout its existence. It’s not. It’s a democracy.

We aren’t supporting Israel because of military strategy. We are supporting them because there is a large population of Jewish voters in this country and there is not a large population of Arab voters. Truman literally said this when he paved the way for Israel’s creation at the expense of Arabs living in biblical lands.

13 -

I think that’s part of what I was saying. The US doesn’t act as an entity, there are all sorts of motivations and consdierations that come to bear in any given policy. In the case of supporting Israel in 1948: the-Jewish vote, cold-war strategy, genuine sentiment, etc. My whole point in engaging in this argument is that something as all-encmpassing as ‘blood for oil’ is extremely far-fetched and simplistic to explain the foreign policy of the United States.

Jed –

I am struggling to see this infested, infected and unlivable world that you are describing. I see a world of boundless possibilities, fractal interconnectedness and a deep spiritual belief operating on many levels. I am sorry if my optimism and strength of conviction in what I believe is right for our civilization has contributed to your despair. I feel like my belief system is the sign of a living soul, something more than the mere sum of its parts. I do wonder about people who are constantly paranoid and apt to interpret every decision or statment made by their perceived enemies as an ill-omen.

Bushney hasn’t got the Huevos to do anything so bold in country. Their expertise is creating chaos and anarchy in distant parts of the globe.

“Crybaby-crap,” eh? That sounds SO Dick Cheney. So macho. Anyone who doesn’t like the Right’s Imperialism is relegated to a crybaby. What’s the German word for crybaby? I’m sure that’s what Goering considered the Jews who ‘whined’ about the new world order the Nazis were installing.

So, Ole, what do you and Bushney call this new world order. The Fourth Reich? Or have we progressed beyond that. The Ultimate Reich? I believe Last Rites might be more appropos.

DD-

I was only joking. I thought the sheer lunacy of the scenario would be enough of a clue. I appreciate the liberal pathos – and would never seriously label it crybaby-crap.

The 4th Reich just doesn’t sound very impressive, sort of French in a way. Three is a magic number, but four is just to even and square. The Ultimate Reich is more like it, but no one would ever go with that, it’s just too devisive. I think something like Altria might work, it has a nice ring to it…enigmatic, yet suggestive of an elevated purpose.

Ole,

That’s a gotcha. Unless of course, you use that ploy as a defense. Time will tell. I am guilty of saying things I mean to be farcial only to have them taken at face value. As such, I suffer if and when I am guilty of same.

Can’t find Altria. You got me on that one too, although it DOES sound good.

Altria is the new Philip Morris moniker. It’s part of their Lung Cancer for the 21st Century Campaign. I think they paid some really smart people to come up with that one; the accompanying logo is also brilliantly meaningless, yet sublimnally-inspiring. I sometimes thing it is quite possibly the ultimate Rorshach test.

Amazing that someone can actually sound somewhat intelligent while spouting off stupidity and showing their lack of social, philosophical, moral and even factual education.

Congrats, in all my years I don’t think I’ve encountered such a creature. I guess they are evolving as well.

I DID find PM but didn’t consider that to be your reference. Hadn’t heard of it before, so it didn’t register. I DO see where you’re coming from.