Log in

No account? Create an account
Spookhouse Dissimilations
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends]

Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in Delphine Silverstar's LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]
Friday, May 3rd, 2013
10:44 pm
Change.Org Facepalm: "Teaching kids gay adults aren't normal"
"This is it.

On May 22 - 24, the Boy Scouts of America's National Council will vote on a resolution that will allow gay youth to participate in the organization, but will maintain its ban on gay parents like me. I'm urging the Boy Scouts to consider a resolution that would end the ban on both gay youth and parents and allow me to continue Scouting with my son, Cruz.

My name is Jennifer Tyrrell. I am a devoted partner, mother, friend and community leader in Bridgeport, Ohio. I’m also a former Tiger Cub den leader with the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). In April 2012, I was removed from this volunteer position, and my membership was revoked after nearly a year of service -– just because I happen to be gay. Since then, I've been working with organizations like GLAAD and fellow Scouts to help end the Boy Scouts' anti-gay policy.

No parent should ever have to look their children in the eyes and tell them their family isn't good enough. But the Boy Scouts' current proposal forces gay parents and adult leaders to do just that.

The Record’s Alfred Doblin put it best when he said “Imagine a youth organization announcing it will allow blacks as members, but will not hire any black leaders. Imagine a youth organization announcing it will allow Jews to become members, but will not hire any Jewish leaders. Now substitute blacks and Jews for gays. You have the Boy Scouts of America.”

The Boy Scouts can do better than that. Our children deserve better than that.

Please join me and my family in urging the Boy Scouts to consider another resolution this May, and vote to end the ban on both gay youth and parents. It's time to end discrimination in Scouting.

NOTE: I encourage everyone to join this campaign, but If you're a past or current member of the Boy Scouts of America, please say so in the "Why is this important to you?" section. Thanks!"

If I was the leadership of the BSA, I would receive this petition and invite Scouts for Equality to a meeting so they could watch me demonstrate proper campfire building techniques using their petition as tinder. Somehow, the "gay rights" people are still laboring under the delusion that they have a right to demand things of the Boy Scouts of America without being laughed out of the room. Let me correct the error in their little pea brains: those of us who are current or former members of the BSA, or who are associated in some way with the organization, could not possibly care LESS about your blubbering on this issue or any other. Previous to the recent vintage of trying to shoehorn gays into an organization that does not welcome them, the cause of the hour was forcing the BSA to accept girls as Boy Scouts.

I'll just let you sit with that a minute and contemplate just how stupid such an idea is. Then you have my permission to contemplate how hard the BSA leadership must have laughed when they caught wind of it.

The Boy Scouts of America exists is a civic-minded organization with the sole purpose of channeling the natural exuberance and characteristics of boys into noble, worthwhile, and virtuous pursuits that will hopefully lead to them growing into worthy and responsible men. It does not exist to do this for girls, which is a tragic shame because growing girls have a very serious need to be thoroughly cleansed of the mindlessness and poison that feminism has injected into the environment, such that they are encouraged on their own path to becoming the noble and beautiful creatures they are meant to be... but that's a topic for another day. The BSA also does not exist to be one more arm of the strange, motley, and malicious malcontents that are busily engaged in a society-wide project to wreck all that makes America the good place that it is. It's certain that the malcontents desire to conquer such a fantastic institution, but they must be strenuously resisted, and perhaps even pushed back against. The petition above and the story along with it is mere blatherskite, but I needed a good foil to go off in this direction.
Thursday, April 11th, 2013
10:01 pm
Replying to CC: "Consumer protection lawsuit filed against florist who refused services for a gay.."

Yeah, they've changed their name. And yes, it's been a long time since I've done one of these but this sort of crap has popped up enough that I want to jump in on it. To be as blunt as possible, this selfish, puerile crap is why some of those of us that oppose gay marriage do so not only for reasons of religion, not only for reasons of history, not only for reasons of logic, but also for reasons of profound distrust. What perfectly reasonable people see when they find a headline like this are entitled bullies demanding that someone bow to their wishes. Let's be clear here, people: the flowers this florist is selling, the cake that bakers sell, the photographer services that a wedding photographer sells, are their PRIVATE PROPERTY. Florist owns their flowers, bakers own their cakes, photographers own their equipment, and all of them own their labor. A proprietor may exchange their property for something of value to them (usually in the form of a currency) but every time they do so, they are entering into a voluntary arrangement in which they agree to give someone else something that they own in exchange for something that the other party owns. Implicit in this arrangement is that both parties own the thing they're trading and both parties are entering into the arrangement of their own free will. When someone comes into their shop, is politely refused, then goes bawling to a court or a government agency, they are announcing that in their view, they can appropriate someone's private property and labor in the name of equality. The proprietor is being told that they must enter into an exchange that they do not desire to make, and that they must trade something they own that they don't want to give. This is, in essence, theft by decree and in a civilized society, you can drag someone before a court and have them imprisoned for this because in a civilized society, all forms of theft are recognized as a crime and a fundamental violation of a basic human right.

Of all the basic human rights, the right to property is just barely less vital than the right to life. This is because labor represents the investment of a limited resources that is impossible to recover (time) and belongs exclusively to each individual, according to that individual's free desires. Property is what is acquired by the expenditure of labor, which again represents the investment of a person's time. Thus, when you steal someone's property, you are stealing their past because property ultimately represents time that has already been expended, which is time that is past. Only life is more valuable a resource than time, and only because the continuation of life represents a day-by-day, hour-by-hour, minute-by-minute, second-by-second extension of a person's personal reservoir of time available. What all this means is that when a gay couple asks a government agency or a court to compel someone to exchange their property in an arrangement that is not desired by the owner, they're violating a right infinitely more critical and valuable than their alleged right to equality. Compared to the right to property, their right to equality is an afterthought of practically no importance at all, and there is no circumstance in which this supposed right can EVER override the right to property.

It is because certain gays feel that their right to equality is so important that they can stomp all over another person's right to property, we do not trust them at all. They are infants playing with nuclear weapons, incapable of comprehending the gravity of what they're doing, or even worse, entirely indifferent to this gravity. They already wield a power that they are using in an unjust and wicked manner, and they now come to us and demand that we empower them further by legitimizing their presumption to call themselves married. I won't attempt to explain the chutzpah of this presumption here but suffice it to say, marriage is too vital and sacrosanct a civil institution to squander on such arrogant unworthies as they. So long as we hear these cases where an affronted couple flees to the welcoming embrace of an activist judge or a self-righteous bureaucrat, to demand that another person's absolute and irreducible right to their own property be violated to soothe that couple's ruffled feathers, we stand in the gap and refuse to take a single step backwards. For in that direction lays the dread and horrible specter of the tyrant, and we will permit no tyrant to dominate and break us so long as we have the power to resist.
Saturday, December 15th, 2012
2:07 am
On the latest shooting...
Evil exists. It is real, and it means to harm us, whether by the black despair that threatened to oppress each of us at various times or by the wicked devices of evil men. The work of this young man in Conneticuit was as evil as the work of any man can be; some men have achieved a more monstrous scale but when you set your hand against the innocent and heedlessly slay the most innocent and defenseless, there is no greater depth of evil possible.

But to believe in evil is to believe in good as well, and to believe in the ultimate agent of evil is to believe in the ultimate agent of good. Though I doubt it can comfort those families who had their precious loved ones, their precious children torn from them by the works of this evil young man, I know that those innocent little children are beyond pain, beyond suffering, forever removed from the power of evil to harm them, encompassed by the infinate and unimaginable love of their Maker and waiting for the time, not far distant from the perspective of their precious spirits, that they will welcome their loved ones home as well. I also know that God is near at hand for the living bereaved, who now know pain that can only be comprehended by that Son of God who accepted unto Himself all the sins, all the sorrows, all the suffering and agonies of all the children of men who had come and would ever come to live; and I know that He weeps with them and for them, and that at this time of their darkest hour, He is there to carry them, for such is the nature of God and such is the nature of His Son.

Good is always stronger, and greater, and victorious; even when it appears otherwise, good is always the stronger. The night is darkest just before the dawn, but the dawn always, always comes. I hope that the thoughts of whoever reads this are with these families and for those of you who also believe, I hope your prayers are with them too.

Current Mood: sad
Thursday, October 18th, 2012
12:28 am
"Confronting White Privilege"

Yanno what the best white privilege is? Not having to hear educators and activists drone on about white privilege. The second best white privilege is not hearing "privilege" used as an excuse for the troubles white people bring on themselves.

Current Mood: amused
Saturday, July 21st, 2012
9:59 pm
My (Brief) Feelings about The Dark Knight Rises
This movie is a secret blend of 11 kinds of awesome:
1. Christopher Nolan
2. Christian Bale
3. Tom Hardy
4. Anne Hathaway
5. Gary Oldman
6. Michael Caine
7. Morgan Freeman
8. Joseph Gordan-Levitt
9. All the other actors
10. Hans Zimmer
'Nuff said (for now).

Current Mood: Gleeful
Friday, July 20th, 2012
4:03 pm
Some are evil

And as with all others, there are those who forget that the evil of this did not come from the muzzle of a gun. This evil, like all evil, came from the soul. It is yet another stark reminder that while most people are good, some are evil.

Current Mood: sad
Saturday, July 14th, 2012
1:20 am
Engineering apocalypse
Yanno, there's a damn good reason I love Confused Matthew's reviews of movies: he's a pretty sharp guy and says some pretty thoughtful things so I can actually comment on parts of his movie reviews that are not actually about the movies he reviews. Now onto Part Three of his T2 review, he commented that the creators of things like the nuclear fission bomb had nothing to do with its use. The only problem with this is that the scientists of the Manhatten Project knew that they were creating a military device that the military would use. As commentator Bill Whittle pointed out some years ago, the military used atomic weapons in the only way that they could have: aiming them at military targets in relatively untouched cities after warning the civilians of those cities that they were planning to obliterate them. It was simply not possible to demonstrate the atomic bombs because it would have required that the people they were trying to intimidate (the Japanese) be told exactly where and when they could see this amazing wonder-weapon be demonstrated.

Beyond specific examples, however, Matthew is right to point out that the makers of things that are later used for evil ends have no control and usually have no knowledge of the way that their creations will be used; being generally good men, they cannot conceive of their scientific advancements being used to harm people. Which, in the context of the movie review, means that the creator of SkyNet bore no responsibility whatsoever for what SkyNet did. Which is a really big thought to fit your head around because it essentially means that no one bore any responsibility for the near-annihilation of the human race.

Current Mood: contemplative
Thursday, July 12th, 2012
1:08 am
One for the million?
I was recently watching a video review of the movie "Terminator 2" and the reviewer, who uses the name Confused Matthew, was using the scene where Sarah Connors nearly murders a Dr. Miles Dyson (whose name, in my opinion, says volumes about the importance of this man: a British name combined with the surname "Dyson" is always highly auspicious for your scientific future) to ask the question of whether it's justified to kill one man in cold blood to save millions. He then states that he doesn't know whether it is, and that there's no one in the world wise enough to answer the question. He also states that whatever the future consequences, murdering one man in cold blood in front of his family is wrong.

Now, I don't regard myself as fabulously wise but for me, the answer is very easy, even if the execution would not be: of course it's justified. If it's just to wield atomic weapons against two cities to save millions, it's just to kill one man to achieve the same end.

Current Mood: contemplative
Wednesday, July 11th, 2012
9:29 pm
Example of "tolerance"

"I have given much thought to Richard Stoecker’s letter (“Vote for Mormon against beliefs,” June 15). I am also a Christian and differ with the Mormon religion.

But I think any Christian should spend much time in prayer before refusing to vote for a family man with high morals, business experience, who is against abortion, and shares Christian conviction concerning homosexuality just because he is a Mormon.

Any Christian who does not vote or writes in a name is casting a vote for Romney’s opponent, Barack Hussein Obama — a man who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for years, did not hold a public ceremony to mark the National Day of Prayer, and is a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage.

I hope all Christians give their vote prayerful consideration because voting is a sacred privilege and a serious responsibility."

And for this opinion, Jane Pitt has received death threats. I just LOVE liberal tolerance, don't you?

Current Mood: angry
9:27 pm
Replying to CC: "Young conservatives shifting the paradigm on marriage equality"

Honestly, I'd be amazed to find more than one or two token "young conservatives" in this little group. This is not a conservative position to taken and comes from a very not-conservative frame of mind... which makes it very doubtful that the individuals participating are actually conservatives. More likely, they're composed of the young and stupid who take the dodge of declaring that they're a special subset of conservative, which somehow makes them entirely conservative. This is a false and incorrect idea; conservative isn't a list of policies, it's a perspective on the world and a frame of mind. This frame of mind holds that the proven methods and practices of the past have withstood the test of time and should be conserved against novel sleight-of-hand rhetoric designed to provide an impetus for change. With a history and legacy of more than two thousand years, traditional marriage is one of those things that an actual conservative wishes to see conserved. I see no reason to believe that the conservatives being touted here are truly all that conservative.

Current Mood: amused
Friday, June 29th, 2012
12:20 pm
Through an ideological lens
You know, there's a very funny thing about ideology and words. Specifically, what you believe in can cause you to see words that are not there, not see words that are there, and so totally distort what you read in your own mind that you are rendered incapable of seeing what is really on the page (or in this case, on the computer screen). Why am I bringing this up? Well, it's a really funny story. Some time ago, I was discussing the effect of neurological development on the cognitive ability of teens to coolly assess the consequences of their actions and make rational decisions in the heat of the moment. One of the participants was a high school student who suffered from the problem I referred to above: he saw and read what he wanted to see and read. Out of compassion and a futile hope that being confronted with evidence would enlighten his thinking, I tracked down a scholarly paper in which the cognitive limitations of the developing brain were discussed. Unfortunately, the young man was incapable of understanding and to this day, believes that my point was that it was pointless to teach teenagers how to use condoms because this one study done on young violent offenders showed that teens are all incapable of rational thought in situations like sex. I feel for this young man; his unwillingness to study the evidence and his stubborn adherence what he had already decided I meant rendered him unable to become educated. Time has yet to mature him or heal his incapacity because he has taken to announcing his misunderstanding as fact to random strangers. Which amuses me, by the way, but is still unfortunate.

Another factor in this entry came about because I'm naturally inquisitive and poked around in a forum where comments were made about me but not to me; it's usually somewhat risky to shoot your mouth off to someone who can club you down with fact so I'm somewhat used to people hiding inside threads so they don't have to face truths inconvenient to their opinion. One comment, that my entry above about LGBT pride events and how I imagine that ordinary LGBT people would feel embarrassed to be associated with the clownish antics that are part of these events, tickled my fancy because it was a sterling example of someone reading something and seeing only what they desperately wanted to see. You see, the measured language and thoughtful commentary was recast by this individual as puerile foot-stomping. Which, again, is highly amusing but is very unfortunate and teaches a useful lesson about the stunted capacity of random internet people to understand what they read and respond in a mature fashion.

Despite this, I bravely soldier on. It is my eventual hope that the random trolls I come across, am screamed at by, and get good chuckles out of will awaken to the wide world that their limitations have previously denied them. It is my further hope that being whacked with truth in a regular way will speed this awakening and improve the lot of my fellow man.

Current Mood: cheerful
Thursday, June 28th, 2012
8:33 am
Supreme Court upholds Obamacare individual mandate as a tax

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why the selection process for Supreme Court justices is so apocalyptic: one side is out to select intelligent people who care about the Constitution and the other side is out to find enough ideological wingnuts to cram its unconstitutional vision down the throats of the country. This is also an object lesson about choosing moderate or relatively unknown justices (John Roberts): they will spend most of the time looking like they respect the Constitution and ruling in ways that are consistent with that respect but when it matters most, when the issue is extremely political and the going is tough, they can and will bury a knife in your back. Goddamn Bush... when he tried to feed us Harriet Meirs, we should have known that his administration's judgement about justices was horrible; we only got an excellent jurist like Alito because Bush was trying to kiss up to the conservatives who might have otherwise turned their back on him.

Current Mood: aggravated
Tuesday, June 26th, 2012
9:37 pm
Replying to CC: "A look back at Justice Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, nine years later"

There's not much in the way of direct commentary on this bitter whining about the educated opinion of a man with more Constitutional understanding in a little finger than the entirety of the Courage Campaign combined. The commentary expressed in this entry clearly shows that the author has no idea what Scalia is talking about.

Current Mood: annoyed
11:54 am
"Sexist" earring ban...

Does someone out there speak Stupid? Because I need this to be translated from Stupid to English because as is, it makes no sense at all.

Current Mood: amused
11:52 am
"Pride" Days
Anyone who's ever read my LJ entries touching on LGBT issues probably knows where this is going but I always think it needs to be said anyway. There is absolutely no purpose whatsoever behind LGBT pride days, parades, events, carnivals, any whatever else is involved. I hold that it must be embarrassing in the extreme to be an ordinary, run-of-the-mill, LGBT person who makes no special issue of their sexuality but is even peripherally associated with these extremely clownish puerile displays. Speaking as someone who's not LGBT, I tend to take pride in my talents, the good people I know, the wonderful family I have, and other wonderful slices of life that can't be quantified; to be proud of my sexuality would never occur to me because it's just a component of my identity, not something I've acquired or worked for or in any way earned. There's nothing about it to take pride in and inasmuch as I see the theme of "my sexuality is part of my identity" repeated by LGBT people discussing the matter, I don't understand why they regard their sexuality as a matter of pride either; like me, it's just a component of their identity that is unearned and required no work to achieve.

Current Mood: Curious
Friday, June 1st, 2012
11:30 pm
Replying to CC: "NJ Senate Democrats reject gay Supreme Court nominee"

"But as both District Court Judge James Ware and the Ninth Circuit have ruled in the Prop 8 case in California, a gay or lesbian judge should be under no obligation to recuse him or herself from marriage equality cases; in fact, making such an argument undermines the American tradition of judicial impartiality. Once a judge puts on his or her robes, personal identities like sexual orientation, race, religion or creed should be immaterial to the judicial questions at hand. While it may seem that Democrats pounced on Harris’s words simply because they want a win at the Supreme Court when marriage equality comes up for a vote, Harris’s statement was in fact damaging to his own qualifications to sit on that court."

Only in the twisted mind of the activist is impartiality damaged if a judge is so sensitive to the mere appearance of bias that he's willing to recuse himself when it's not even necessary. Judge James Ware and the Ninth Circuit are wrong, and absurdly so, but a judge who explicitly supports a political cause and recuses himself from any case in which that political cause is an issue is doing a great service to the notion of judicial impartiality. It says much about the CC (and the activists in general) that they're incapable of recognizing this.

Current Mood: annoyed
Tuesday, May 22nd, 2012
10:58 pm
Replying to CC: "How the lawsuit challenging constitutionality of the filibuster could affect LGBT"

Read it yourself; there's no specific thing that I'm going after. I've just got one question: is there no limit to immoral, bald-faced, liberal hypocrisy? When the Republicans want to cut the filibuster down to size so judicial nominees could get their Constitutionally-mandated up-or-down simple majority vote, liberals screamed and cursed and smeared. Now that Republicans are standing in the way of the liberal agenda, the "nuclear option" is magically transformed into the virtuous hopes of all decent people everywhere. Hypocrisy is common in politics but only liberals are this shameless.

Current Mood: annoyed
Sunday, May 20th, 2012
11:03 pm
Relpying to CC: "NAACP passes resolution in support of marriage equality"

For the longest time, it has been my private impression that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People doesn't care about colored people and cares so little about their advancement that they might as well actively oppose it. This pretty much just reinforces that impression. As near as we can tell, a significant majority of colored people are devoutly Christian and as part of this, strongly opposed to gay marriage. For the NAACP to pass this kind of resolution effectively tells a majority of those that they purportedly represent to pound sand and no organization that really cares about the advancement of colored people would not be so arrogant that they use their status as the presumed voice of those they represent to oppose the wishes of their constituents.

There's also an aspect of this that makes me slightly angry. The NAACP was formed prior to the events of the civil rights marches of the 1960s. This organization existed as a voice for colored people through a very difficult time in which they watched those they represented imprisoned, attacked by dogs, drenched with fire hoses, and abused in unconscionable ways for the simple crime of assembling to petition for the redress of grievances. They watched colored people attacked and abused in their struggle to achieve full equality, watched their churches firebombed, their homes attacked, the buses of the Freedom Riders attacked, and all in response to nonviolent means of protest and most significantly, protest marches. Colored people, blacks, endured real hardship in their struggle and won the day with blood, sweat, tears, and appealing to the goodness in men in the finest of democratic traditions.

And then the NAACP sits there and says that a minority group that is wildly feted when they do annual marches through the streets making completely asses of themselves has a cause comparable to that of the colored people. What a fine thing to throw in the faces of people who BLED for their rights, had churches and homes and bushes FIREBOMBED for their rights, had vicious dogs ATTACK THEM for their rights, had mobs DRAG THEM TO A TREE AND HANG THEM for daring to want their rights. It is true that gays have suffered greatly through history but they have always had the vote, always been free from the threat of slavery, and always regarded as full citizens with full civil rights. There is no comparison. None. And by throwing in with the chucklehead "gay rights" groups and pretending that their struggle for marriage is even REMOTELY comparable to the black struggle for the most basic civil right that exists in a republic, the NAACP is spitting in the faces of the veterans of a real civil rights movement.

Current Mood: angry
Friday, May 11th, 2012
11:02 pm
Replying to CC Double Header: CC Amendment One Ruminations
A double-header! I've been waiting like a hungry tiger for this to wander into my clutches and now, I feast. First, the actual response from the "Courage" Campaign to getting a boot firmly applied to their butts:

"Composition of the electorate drove the outcome"
Yes, but not the way they were hoping. See, the winner in any election is the most motivated and the most organized. By obsessing over the fact that young people are supposedly their friend in the gay marriage arena, they've totally missed that the electorate they're pinning their hopes on is the least reliable. With maturity comes reliability but also with maturity comes conservatism in a great many instances. Life experiences harden people and make them less willing to buy into warm fuzzy nebulous things like "gay marriage is equivalent to giving black people the vote". This is why I remain confident that time will always be on the side of the old fuddy-duddys absent a real and legitimate instance of rights being denied people.

“We didn’t lose, we just ran out of time”
Cutting a lead from 27 to 21 isn't a big deal when you're drowning everyone you meet in bleeding-heart pathos with the object of convincing them to stop thinking and just do what you say is right. Pure emotion campaigning is so powerful that if they failed only for lack of time, the numbers would have been vastly closer.

"Why did Amendment 1 pass by such a large margin?"
Easy: their polling indicating that the nation is all good with gay marriage suffers the "Wilder Effect" in spades: those being polled give the pollster the answer they think is socially acceptable instead of the truth (and I was surprised to see that the CC admits to the Wilder Effect (also called the Bradley Effect) being in play). Polls are great but whenever people are given a chance to express their opinion with a ballot, their true opinions come out. And the true opinion of the American people is that marriage is just fine the way it is, thank you very much.

"Was Amendment 1 worth fighting against, and what did we accomplish?"
For them, it was. I'm actually pleased they fought it because it proves their utter impotence when it comes to winning the allegiance of the governed. What did they accomplish? They proved that propagandistic firepower isn't enough to overcome the consent of the governed standard--and that their only hope is to take a drill to the kneecaps of the democracy.

And now for the second:

This is especially rich and delicious. They've become so convinced that their cause is equivalent to Ghandi's crusade to free India and Martin Luther King Jr's efforts to kill official racial discrimination that they've started adopted the tactics that figured prominently into those icons' work. On one hand, I'm glad that they're not going around abusing and hating like they did after Proposition 8. On the other hand, they're being completely infantile. What is this supposed to accomplish other than making ordinary people annoyed that they're still making trouble after the election and making insightful people appalled at their arrogance? The childish self-regard these folks have for their own alleged moral superiority still floors me despite having spent years watching it in operation. There's a damn good reason that ordinary respectable LGBT people stay far away from these witless fools.

Current Mood: annoyed
2:27 am
Desperate times call for "I believe in gay marriage"
You know, I really don't get these gay "rights" activists. They say they're all about rights, being treated equally, getting respect, and being treated with dignity yet they don't seem to mind at all being use as stage props for a desperate politician's reelection campaign. Because, really, that's all they are to Barack Obama: useful idiots and witless pawns to be used and for his political advantage and then chucked in the rubbish bin. Obama didn't float this crap about gay marriage to benefit LGBT people; he floated it so he could splice together bullshit like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwJJm-we-vs The entire purpose is to invent ways to smear his opponent because he literally has nothing else: no achievements, no accomplishments, no bragging rights, nothing. As cursory investigation has revealed, he doesn't even have the Osama bin Ladin kill because, as it turns out, the oh-so-bold Obama only went ahead after he was assured hat if it went south, someone else would take the blame.

Current Mood: bemused
[ << Previous 20 ]
About LiveJournal.com