« would you like some fries with those rolls, kid? | Main | Thursday's Bookmark Clearance Sale »

crawling on his belly

Kerry's been awfully quiet lately, for a guy who's running for president. Sure, he's off skiing, but you gotta figure he would read the paper in the morning and think "Holy shit, they killed Yassin!" and maybe call his blog guy and have him post something like "Senator Kerry condemns this action." Or he would see that there's a hell of a lot going on in Pakistan, so he would call his blog guy and have him write something like "Hahahaha, we are losing the war on terra!" Ok, if not those things, then you would think he'd at least have something to say about the 9/11 hearings, like "I applaud Dick Clarke and everyone else who has given their time to get to the bottom of the truth behind that tragic day." But, no. Instead, Kerry the snake crawls out from under his rock for this very important story - Bush makes WMD jokes. His people issued a five paragraph statement on Bush's stupid joke. Granted, the joke was kind of inappropriate, though I do know what Bush was going for. But that's not what this is about. I just think the fact that he had nothing to say about pretty important events yet Kerry find the time to open his yap when he sees a chance to say a few bad things about Bush (and throw in a plug for his veteran standing) says a lot about this candidate.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference crawling on his belly:

» Anonymous Link-Ups from suburban blight
Random, thrilling, and dangerous. Too sexy! Click at your own risk. Ooh. I want one, too. More than a PETA-alternative, it's a caring worldview like you've never seen before! Get ready America - feel the love - it's BEATOFF! Bwahahaha!... [Read More]

» Kerry's House of Ketchup #5 from The American Mind
March Madness not only hit the basketball court but also Sen. Kerry's tomato-filled campaign. He took a break from [Read More]


If Kerry had made that joke, the right side of blogosphere would have exploded in outrage. Quite frankly, I appreciate GWs black humour....always have. But a political opportunity is exactly that, and Kerry will take as much advantage as he can, which is exactly what GW does.

With so many wingers playing cynical smear politics with the 9.11 hearings -- It was Clinton's fault! Clarke is a big stupidhead! -- it was actually kind of refreshing not to see that sort of thing from Kerry as well.

And why would you think Kerry would be happy at the notion that we're losing the war on terrorism? If he wanted us to lose, he'd be supporting Bush.

And, finally, take careful note that Kerry spent one week on vacation, far less time than Bush's August 2001 Ranch-a-palooza.

To be outraged, the assumption is that WMDs never existed and therefore, will never be found. Not sure the Bush Adminstration is at that point yet. Therefore, the black humor aspect is a little more gray.

I don't think that was the point of the post, Jane. Kerry has time to attack a joke, but says nothing of substance when it comes to actual events that affect policy.

Mark, thank you. My point exactly. Though it's not like Jane to miss the point of a post, so I assume she's venting.

CC: Bush's vacation is irrelevant here. This has to do with the fact that Kerry is in the middle of a presidential campaign. He should try to be, you know, presidential.

It's a shame Bush wasn't trying to be, you know, presidential in August 2001. I know he was pretty busy with his month-long thinkin' and figurin' session on stem cell research, and we're all very, very grateful for the great work he did there. But during that same time, he was ignoring, shall we say, more timely issues.

Taking a week off after sewing up your party's nomination is hardly some sort of irresponsible ditch move. I just thought it was funny that your criticism of him -- picking on the trivial Bush joke issue -- is pretty trivial its own self. Besides, when Kerry went to Idaho he was trailing Bush, and a week later -- in which the only thing Kerry said was that a certain Secret Service agent was a clumsy SOB -- he's back out front. Perhaps he should take a couple of vacations each month between now and November.

I think I'll make a KerryVoterBot. It will save a lot of time for Kerry defenders. Like, if they just hit CTRL-K, a comment will automatically appear that says "I know you are, but what am I?"

What function key do you hit to generate cheap-shot crap like this?

>call his blog guy and have him write something like "Hahahaha, we are losing the war on terra!"

You know, "Concerned Citizen" has to be the lamest internet fakename since "M4sT3r h4X0r!"

I think every comment or lack of comment mentioned is necessitated by Kerry's position - trying to straddle the pacifist left and the rest of the country.

He can't support the foriegn policy portion of the war on terror (the most important part of the war on terror!) because then he'd lose the Deany Babies. And besides he IS a Deany Baby at heart, and he may not be willing or able to waffle off of his actual beliefs - who'd buy that waffle?

So he HAS to ignore every development in the world - those developements are proving Bush right.

As for the WMD joke, that must have been calculated on Bush's part. The bullshit WMD outrage is Kerry's only weapon to distract the country from the meaning of our foriegn policy and from it's successes. If any portion of the undecided voters agree with Bush's joke - that the WMD thing is overblown, then Kerry is sunk - at least on foriegn policy.

Was Iraq good for the Iraqis? Check. Kerry is on the wrong side for any moral outrage there. Was it good for our security? Well it led to Libya coming clean - and there's a whole network of nuke builders coming to light. It defunded terrorist organizations somewhat and put serious pressure on the remaining funders. So check - Kerry is on the wrong side again. Outrage over a WMD 'issue' is all he's got. And since that 'issue' was chosen for the sake of the UN not because it was our only concern, it's all hot air anyway.

Without the WMD outrage Kerry has no way to unite the pacifists and the more hawkish left. Without WMD as an issue Kerry would actually have to take an uniquivical stand.

I didn't get to see the pictures from the President's show but I heard it(Thank you XM Radio) and thought the WMD jokes were great! I had mental images of Dubya lookin under couch cushions and such.

I didn't think they were black, grey, white, or mauve...I thought they were self depricating which is something Bush excels at.

Tell that to the tens of thousand innocent civilians that are dead now.

Forgetting al lthe domestic stuf you guys don't care about, such as Bush getting rid of clean air and trying to cut funding for clean water...

Bush is right about nothing over seas. He is proving Al qieda right to a lot of people that America only wants to invade oil producing countries.

The president is suppose to tel ljokes at this event.

but the fact that he blantantly lied about the reasons to go to war and hasn't apologized...


makes his "jokes" rather callous.

Biological weapons
In a speech on Oct. 7, 2002, Bush said Iraq possessed a "massive stockpile of biological weapons." The NIE had concluded—wrongly, it now seems—that Iraq had an extensive bioweapons development program. But its conclusions had not mentioned the existence of any gigantic stockpile. And weeks ago, Tenet noted "We said we had no specific information on the types or quantities of [biological] weapons, agent, or stockpiles at Baghdad’s disposal."

Chemical weapons
In his high-profile presentation to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell said that it was the administration’s "conservative estimate" that Iraq possessed 100 to 500 tons of chemical weapons. His remark made it seem that Iraq might have much more of this deadly stuff. Yet the NIE had reported that the intelligence community "had little specific information on Iraq’s CW stockpile." Still, its analysts assumed Hussein "probably" had stocked 100 tons and "possibly" had stored as much as 500 tons of chemical weapons. In other words, they were not sure. Moreover, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the intelligence service of the Pentagon, had at this time produced a report that said, "there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing or stockpiling chemical weapons."

Nuclear weapons
Bush and his aides consistently maintained that Hussein had revived his nuclear weapons program. In December 2002, Bush even said, We don’t know whether or not [Hussein] has a nuclear weapon"—a comment suggesting he might have one. Yet Tenet noted last month that before the war, "We said Saddam Hussein did not have a nuclear weapon." Indeed, the NIE said that Iraq could have nuclear weapons by the end of the decade but only "if left unchecked." (At the time of the war, inspections and sanctions were keeping Hussein quite checked.) And the NIE reported that State Department intelligence analysts believed there was no "persuasive evidence that Baghdad had launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program."

Unmanned aerial vehicles
In that October 2002 speech, Bush raised a frightening prospect. "We’ve also discovered through intelligence," he said, "that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States." But the NIE said that the intelligence suggested that Iraq had an UAV "development program"—that is, not a "growing fleet." And this conclusion—like others—was a matter of internal debate. The NIE noted that U.S. Air Force intelligence analysts—the analysts with the most experience in the UAV field—had concluded that Iraq’s UAV were not being developed to deliver WMDs but to conduct reconnaissance missions.

Oh well, no one's perfect.

At least he's protecting us at home... oh wait... he has under funded home securities and for a "war president" it doesn't make sense for Rumsfeld to come out and say we are going to be attacked and we don't know when or where.
Good protection.

But this comes from a guy who denies saying things that he had actually said. Like he doesn't know everything he says gets recorded.

I just hope someday, unlike Bush, you al lwill be able to apologize and sdmit you were wrong for going with party politics over the safty and prosperity of our Nation.

Good luck

Oh and Kerry is just doing what Bush does... tries to take advantage of pointing out all the things wrong with the other person.

Kerry isn't much better than Bush but he's still better tha nBush.

And at least he will get his information from more than just one source.

The Kerry group hasn't figured out which direction to go with their campaign yet. And you have to strike while the iron is hot, Americans are fat and lazy and can't remember last week yet alone a year ago, so you have to point out the things Bush is doing now while people can understand it or check it out.

There is just so much Kerry could go after Bush about, but it's tough right now with the 9-11 committee going on because it makes it look like Kerry doesn't care about finding out the facts and is trying to turn the 9-11 committee into a partisan witch hunt.

But you are all ok with all the dirty mud that the Bush campaign, all the lies and spins they are saying about Kerry?

But Kerry points out something that Bush actually does, not like Bush pointing out that Kerry didn't vote for the wear budget, which no one should have because it was a bad bill, but Bush doesn't point that out, or point out that the weapons Kerry voted against in the 80's or 90's were things that Cheney was trying ot get people to vote against... no, it's ok with you for Bush to spin the facts and say Kerry voted against them because he hates America.

The blind voting for those who cause the blindness.

Either that or you are being hypocrites. Simply because your political party is more important than truth and integrity and the U.S. of A.

Go Republicans! No matter how many awful things thay do or mistakes they make!!!

Yes? No? I think so anyway.

You had me at "He is proving Al qieda right to a lot of people" you beautiful dreamer you.

Actually you lost me there. Troll.

Michele, when you gonna listen to me? Presidential elections are troll mating season. If you don't want them jizzing all over your blog you gotta be firm.

Delete and ban first and ask questions when hell freezes over.

It's because the democrats are all running on the "We hate Bush" platform. That's it.

And one more thing... I am sooo sick of the It's the Oiiiilllll, thing. We've been trying to get the oil fields up and running to make it possible for the Iraqi's to take care of their own country! That's the whole point. Helping them create a country that they can be proud of and that eventually we won't have to bankroll.

Yes? No? I think so anyway.

I'm trying to figure out a reason why I should care what you think, PF.

Joshua: if she did that, we'd miss out on hilarious smackdowns like Andrea's.

lessee....Israel knocks out the spiritual monster behind Hamas.

In response, Kerry says "Bush's jokes are in bad taste"!

well that's serious.

Uncle Tommy at the funeral of a dead US Soldier, looking under the fold-up chairs~

"Where's President Bush? I can't find him anywhere!"


I have to admit, that was pretty clever, BTSI.

I'm surprised Kerry has time to notice what GWB is doing: doesn't he have Secret Service agents to abuse?

PF Romero is yet another person with a memory that rivals the attention span of the common housefly, conveniently forgetting the hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq before we even set foot in the country. Halabja is just an inconsequential blip. As are the Marsh Arabs. As were the marshes, themselves. What mass graves?

I figured Iraq was a wet dream for environmentalists and anti-fascists- look at all the protest material available just pre-March 2003! But i was sooo wrong.. man was i wrong to think that, so naive to think they might have thought something was... y'know... a little bit off fucking kilter over there. And downright retarded of me to think they might be able to figure out who to blame for it- the man in charge of the place, for PETE'S SAKE.

Guys like P.F. Romero, cool name by the way, just don't get it. There's so many connections and reasons to be in Iraq, heck, even your poster boy Richard Clarke understands this.


PF -

you are very ignorant about the way intelligence is gathered and presented. you are very ignorant to think that this was all "knowingly" done to deceive anyone. I'm beginning to think you have everything you post ready to copy and paste from some text file on your computer so you may appear as someone who has "thought this through." it's sad.

there is no proof nor motive for that to have occurred. you may not believe that but it is no matter. you are a single person. and although others embrace your "theories", the much larger percentage see where the errors in judgment, fact and presentation were made.

but that does not in anyway minimize what has been accomplished. the issue of WMDs seems to have you sooooo tied up in knots you can't see the forest for the trees.



And you're worried about what we needed to tell the UN to get them to consider backing up 12 years of resolutions condemning Saddam all while they took his bribe money and looked the other way!?!?!?

What kind of moral basis or line of reasoning do you follow to arrive at the conclusion that this administration somehow knew something the rest of the world did not? What makes you think our government knew Saddam did not have the weapons he reported he had? What makes you think even Saddam knew he was impotent? The evidence was clearly pointing to the opposite conclusion and the world agreed. They agreed for over 12 effing years but sat on their hands skimming the Oil-for-food program. No wonder France, Germany and Russia were upset we were going to return to Iraq.

It was going to mess up their little sweetheart deals all over Iraq. How do their actions respect the UN Charter? How do their actions honor the spirit of global cooperation? They don’t. These bastards are just as guilty in reality of the same things they accuse us. But you seem to think that is alright and we’re the ones to blame for doing what history will judge to be right.

We occupied Japan and Germany after the last world war for decades. They are two of the strongest counties on the planet now and still practice complete autonomy from the US.

I think what might upset you most is that someone you don't like did a good thing and will be remembered through history as having done so.

I feel sorry for you PF, your value for the human life seems to be less than that of your animosity against people who act in good faith to make things just a little bit better around the world. You might be worried about the President telling you the truth, but I would wager you can not find me one who has proven to be completely truthful. And when it involves the end product of freeing 25 million people from a dictator and stabilizing world trouble spots and ending UN appeasement with action - I'll sign up for that time and time again.

Have a better day.

I'm not a troll just because I disagree with you and point out some facts to you.

Killing tens of thousands of people to liberate them is retarded. Especially since we are supposed to be the good guys. And justifying it because saddam killed more people in more time than it took us doesn't make what we did any better especially to the Iraqi families.
Saddam gassed his own people and we still did business with him, he was beaten for all his crap with the first gulf war and with Operation:Desert fox which kept him totally contained and de-balled. And what is the difference between him locking up people for being against his government and what a lot of conservative republicans want to do with anyone over here that speaks out against the Bush White house? Or Ann Coulter labeling librals as traitors?
If killing innocent people are wrong such as in the twin towers than why is it right for us to do the same thing in Iraq?
The terrorists claim we are evil and a threat to the world and they are making the world a better place by getting rid of us, we claim saddam is evil and a threat to the us and the world and the world is a better place without him.
So what is the difference? Because god is on OUR side? Because the Bush White House lies aren't as big as saddam's? Because we have a bigger army? Because we all have televisions to watch reality shows and they don't? We have modern technology and they don't so that makes our way right and theirs wrong?
Of course we have a slightly better record for doing what's right and trying to follow more rational beliefs. But all those get buried when we lie about another country and frame a guilty man and invade that country just like they would do to whom ever they would want to invade.
We lose our credibility when we act like the monsters we are trying to hunt down.
The Nazis burned Jews to make it a better and safer world. Bush invades like Nazis and uses the same phrasings to justify his actions without having exausted ALL other higher roads to peace. THAT is why terrorism against us will grow. THAT is why people are starting ot listen to all the propaganda crap the terrorists have been saying for decades. YOU don't need to believe the war was for oil or other reasons, you are not hte ones who want to bomb the invading great Satan. Duh! But when a bunch of under-educated people around the world who have been hearing the terrorists' garbage and then start seeing America act just like the terrorists have been saying... they aren't going to have the same news sources we do... they only know what they see. Not that anyone here cares about what the world thinks... until they attack us again and then all you want is the same kind of blood the terrorists want.

Saddam didn't need to be removed... he SHOULD have been removed through better ways... but he didn't NEED to be removed. There is a difference. He had no real power, and there are plenty of other places that kill and torture just as many of their people that we reward or turn our backs on. Don't forget afghanistan, we weren't done there, could we have taken care of al-qeida first since they are the ones that are organizing much of the terror around the world? saddam was getting ripped off by his own people. he had no real weapons and was no longer a threat to anyone except his own people and since when have the average American really cared about anyone else around the world?
If 9-11 hadn't occured NONE of you would support the war ESPECIALLY if it was Al Gore trying to invade Iraq. Americans didn't even know how to pronouce Iraq before the war. They always pronounced it eye-rock... which made the rest of the world giggle.

So I'm sorry, but I'm not the troll here.

Otto, you should care what I think because it's different than your narrow view. Unless you want to be like Saddam and Bush and only get your information from one source and only belieeve that source and never think anything else but that one view.
Then you can sit around and have something in common with the nazis and the soviets and the racists of the world. Never growing, never being able to understand anything that's different and being easily decieved.

You are supporting a person (Bush) who has been shown to do nothing but lie. Yet you support him over and over again. He has been shown to support things that are hurtful to America, yet you refuse to look at the facts and keep supporting him. THAT is exactly what a troll does.

I am open to your arguements. But most of what I've gotten here are insults... jsut like trolls do...
Bush was and is against the 9-11 commision.
Bush is against clean air, and pro sludge dumping.
He tried to cut the busget for clean water from $1.35 billion to $850 million.

Rumsfeld has lied about what has been said over and over again... he finally got busted for it on Face the Nation. But that wasn't the first time he's done that.

at http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=159

"The President misled voters and reporters in a March 20 speech when he claimed that Kerry “voted over 350 times for higher taxes on the American people” during his 20-year Senate career. Bush spoke of “yes” votes for “tax increases.”
But in fact, Kerry has not voted 350 times for tax increases, something Bush campaign officials have falsely accused Kerry of on several occasions. On close examination, the Bush campaign’s list of Kerry’s votes for “higher taxes” is padded. It includes votes Kerry cast to leave taxes unchanged (when Republicans proposed cuts), and even votes in favor of alternative Democratic tax cuts that Bush aides characterized as “watered down.”"

(Plenty more about both republican and democrats at http://www.factcheck.org/)

How am I a troll when I bring up facts and try not to be biased about them? I don't follow all the whacko left wing unrealistic tring to conform people kind of things. I believe in finding middle ground and compromise between Americans.

And I don't post them in places here that are about other subjects. I try to follow the rules by making points and backing them up, I don't just make unprovable remarks.

Your votes for Bush effects me and the nation and the world. You should at least know the facts and the theories before you just go "He's republican and that's good enough for me" Hail Bushler!!!!

But then again, no one has countered me with any facts that Bush has done anything good yet or against anything I've posted other than "I believe you are wrong because I've been told you are wrong." So who's the troll?

Sorry I piss you all off by stating truths as best I can and being willing to listen and think about your views without resorting to just plain pure insults. Even when I disagree I still keep considering what has been said.

Again sorry for not just insulting you and making it easy. Dicks! hehehe

I'm not a troll just because I disagree with you and point out some facts to you.

No, your other "qualities" make you a troll. Agitprop passed off as fact, behaving like an asshole, waving the bloody shirt, claiming it was all illegitimate because you don't see why Saddam had to go down, using the usual "why not go after THIS creep" strawman etc.

But thanks for using the usual troll "oh I disagree with you so you think I'm a troll" attempt at a defense... and the counteraccusation that if people object to what YOU say means they are trolls. Gosh, never saw that before.

BTW: How many French died in the invasion that started in Normandy in June of 1944? Should we give France back to Germany. After all, it is "retarded" to kill thousands to liberate them.

You might want to go check your facts again. For one thing, using "tens of thousands" when the highest estimate of civilian casualties was barely over ten thousand (and probably included people killed by Fedayeen or Fedayeen in civilian garb shooting at our soldiers) is incredibly dishonest. It's like spending $100 on something and claiming you blew "hundreds of dollars" on that thing. But then, you need "tens of thousands" of corpses to prop up your diatribe, right? Same with your "invading like Nazis" claim, which only shows your ignorance is at an astounding low level.

Your "devastating" critique of the strategic situation is certainly not helping you here. Nor is your presumption that intelligence estimates being incorrect are due to the President of the USA "lying" or somehow his fault because he didn't wave a magic wand and make our intel shortcomings that have existed since the mid-70s or so vanish like magic. (Hint: satellite and aerial reconnaisance are useful, but not omniscient. Same with radio intercepts.)

Also, being called ignorant isn't an insult. It's a statement that you really don't know all you think you know. You clinging to ignorance in the fashion you've been makes you and idiot... and yes, that is an insult.

You don't have the "facts" on your side.

Otto, you should care what I think because it's different than your narrow view.

You, 'tard, have no idea what my "view" is except what I've written here, which isn't much.

Just because an argument is "different" does not give it any kind of authority nor any kind of correctness. In your case, I've heard it before. Countless times. The same old refrains, the same old tired strawmen. None of it is original, all of it has been knocked down before. I'm not going to waste my time debating you because you don't give a shit what I or anyone else says. I used to care what people like you thought. No longer.

PF, you're merely the latest in a long line of leftist posters who make the same points, whine and complain when no one takes you seriously, and depart when the going gets rough.

Unless you want to be like Saddam and Bush and only get your information from one source and only belieeve that source and never think anything else but that one view.

Ah, the old "you get your news from one source" argument. Yeah, that's original.

As for Bush, let's see... he gets his "news" from the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and Jeebus only knows what other sources. The President, by the nature of his job, is far more informed on any subject than any of us sitting in front of our computers typing away at each other.

Regarding being like Bush, yeah, I'd like that. He's rich, successful, and is currently the most powerful man on Earth. And he's the subject of the hatred of so many people like you, always a positive thing. It means he's doing something right.

Then you can sit around and have something in common with the nazis and the soviets and the racists of the world.

So, let me get this straight... if I don't care what you think, I'm going to end up like the nazis? Your logic is, shall we say, questionable.

And by questionable, I mean nonexistent.

Never growing, never being able to understand anything that's different and being easily decieved.

Blah blah blah.

OK, dimwit, here's a little background information for you: I USED TO BE A LEFTIST. I changed from that because I listened to other sources of information than the ones I (and apparently, you) were spoonfed. It took years, and was a painful process where I grew to slowly see the world as it was, not as I wished it to be. Don't give me this horseshit about me not changing, because you don't know ANYTHING about me.

You are supporting a person (Bush) who has been shown to do nothing but lie.

"Nothing but lie?" Wow... so Bush has never told the truth about anything? Ever?

Yet you support him over and over again.

Because he's doing a decent job on the war. Not awesome, but decent, and because the alternatives will not. Is that too difficult for you to understand? We're not a Bush-cult, we support him becase we agree with him on this issue.

Read that last sentence again. It's important.

He has been shown to support things that are hurtful to America,


Has it EVER occurred to you, PF, that not everyone agrees with what YOUR opinion of what is good for America?

yet you refuse to look at the facts and keep supporting him. THAT is exactly what a troll does.

No, a troll is someone who drops into a place where he's not wanted and stirs up shit.

That's you. A troll is not merely someone who backs a different political candidate than you.

I am open to your arguements.

I doubt that very, very much. You've already posted exactly what you think of the people here. You think we're brainwashed Bush cheerleaders. Why would anyone be "open" to the arguments of people like that?

Spare me the "I just want to debate" lie, PF. You're here to convert, and if that fails you're here to tell us how much we all suck for daring to have beliefs different from yours, for daring to support a candidate that YOU don't like.

But most of what I've gotten here are insults... jsut like trolls do...

Quit yer whinin', punk. You haven't said anything that tells me you're different from the other TROLLS we've had. I'm tired of dealing with people like you and your tired old arguments... "Bush lied!!! He wants to destroy the environment!!! What about Afghanistan?!?!?"

Do you think we haven't heard ALL of this from more intelligent (and more interesting) posters? Hasn't this whole mess been argued to death? YOU AREN'T SAYING ANYTHING NEW.

PF, I'm bored by you, so I'm going to snip the rest of your paranoid rant. I want to leave with one line you posted, though, that sums you up:

The Nazis burned Jews to make it a better and safer world.

You are a profoundly ignorant person, and you don't understand history AT ALL.

Now, keep posting and be torn to sheds, or leave and be forgotten. Either way doesn't matter much to me.

"Kind of inappropriate".

Boy, I bet you had to grit your teeth just to type that much, it being so painful for you to even think that Saint George the Ragheadslayer did something wrong (gasp!)

T, you can be real dense sometimes.

Why is it that Bush keeps getting the most ridiculous religious/royal titles from those who hate him so much? "King George", "Saint George", etc.

Thanks, Thayli. You sometimes stumble into reason, but you always strive to overcome it with things like your last posting.

...and you wonder why some people don't flock to your cause. Well, your winning personality certainly isn't helping.

Otto: Wow, you're a hell of a lot better at this than I.

St. George, the asshole slayer?

I like that.

Actually everyone should be in awe of St. George for he is truly great.