Ok, has anybody out there in INFDL land noticed how terribly pathetic the anti-war discourse gets sometimes? For example, "mother of slain marine embraced by iraqi woman at Bush's state of the union address. Was this staged by Bush for political reasons? ". This would be funny were it not completely malicious and below absolute contempt. These assholes who spend all their time thinking this garbage up, scrutinizing and belittling the one and only great moment that will ever come from these women's losses, could also be questioned just as easily (and just as lazily) about the sincerity of personal moments of their own. Like if they were thinking of somebody else while consumating their marraige on their wedding night, for example. If anybody were questioned by someone about something as personal as that, with absolutely nothing to prove it, anybody would feel justified to lay a scoundrel like that out cold. And so it is with dipshits that have done the same thing with these two women who shared a truly great and greatly personal moment together.
Noah recently introduced Paul Krugman to INFDL, a man among the most petty of them all. While unfortunately seeing his asshair face on "Prickball with Chris Matthews" while I was channel surfing, I stopped on it. I'm always curious as to what kind of catastrophe he will see in his Bush-economy crystal ball. I heard the panel discussing whether one of the most popular super bowl televison ads, the Anheiser-Busch commerical showing returning soldiers getting a standing O at an airport, was appropriate or not because it "might have been exploitative". Watch it and judge for yourself whether it "exploits." Well there's no question where Krugman stood, as what I believe he was really trying to say was, beneath his stand on "principle" that it was exploitative and meant nothing more than to sell beer, that anything that could be remotely construed as promoting a positive image involving US troops and hence "promoting Bush's policies" must be attacked. And it surely was. Here's Krugman doing the same damn thing in October 2003, with a sense of worry that the economy was picking up. "Oh shit, call the NY Times emergency hotline, Bush's economy might be showing positive numbers which might mislead the american worker that he could be prospering!" I question whether or not, when psychoanalyzing people like these mentioned in this post, if, for them, it's truly that nothing is ever what it seems and that there's ALWAYS something hidden, or if what it is is a purposeful conscientious smear job done for their own selfish reasons. I wonder, because how else would one explain the fact that MOST of the world believes there was CIA or Israeli complicity in the 9/11 attacks?