Saturday, August 20, 2005

$52.00!!!!

That's what it cost to fill up my UAV tonight at Costco and I wasn't even on fumes!

What was this I heard about how we were in Iraq to get cheap gas? Or is the story now that we're there to get Dubya's oil pals rich? They keep changing the story, so it's hard to keep up. :-
Saw the new Astaire/Rogers DVD box set that I was thinking of getting for my Mom, but after dropping more than I'd pay for a video game into the tank - to be gone in a week! - I didn't feel like spending another $35.

Look for the politicians, especially the fascist Dems, to make a big squawk about it, but until the environmental terrorists that refuse to let us drill in our Arctic wastelands and build new refining capacity, we're gonna be stuck buying from Islamofascist-funding thugocracies like Saudi Arabia and having to go to war to keep the hippie's Volvos fueled.

Thanks, you enviro-fascist-libs!!!

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

No, we're in Iraq to establish democracy. As long as by democracy, you mean "islamic law".

Good job, fellas. Take a bow, the whole lot of you on the Right. You've done a fine and noble thing.

And by "done a fine and noble thing", I mean "delivered the greatest fuck-up in this nation's history that we will be paying for for the rest of our lives".

P.S. Killing insurgents and clapping louder wouldn't have changed this outcome, so you're going to have to find some creative way to blame this monumental fuckjob on liberals, George Soros and Cindy Sheehan.

Dirk Belligerent said...

Now, now...I know that you're not-so-secretly giddy inside at the prospect that America will crumble, but note today's posts that take Dubya to the woodshed and don't forget that I've been down on the blind cheerleaders (read: Hannity) who refuse to seriously smack the Stupids upside their heads.

Anonymous said...

I don't want America to crumble, you asshole. I want you empire-dreaming, right-wing jerkoffs to be held accountable for the damage you have wreaked.

I want to see some sort of shame from the likes of you for supporting this bullshit. I want you fuckhats to admit you were wrong. Some sort of acknowledgement that as bad as life under Sadaam Hussein was, you and the administration you supported have managed to make those people's lives worse.

But you will never do that, because to acknowledge that is an admission that Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, the UN Inspection teams, anti-war liberals and, god help you, the French were right.

You do not have the spine for that sort of reflection.

Dirk Belligerent said...

It's never pretty when they go off their meds, but seeing as we're dedicated to helping people see the Truth, we help those who won't put down the Kool-Aid.

The irony of this comment is that while he demands some sort of mea culpa from someone who's been extremely critical of the namby-pamby prosecution of the war, he also hopes that no one will remember what HIS SIDE SAID ABOUT IRAQ AND WMDs!!!

If a Dem was in office and exactly everything that had happened was going on - the War, the possible sharia constitution, the dead soldiers, Cindy Sheehan, the high gas prices, the bad intel - this guy would be as patriotic as Ted Nugent at an NRA meeting and would brook absolutely ZERO DISSENT over the noble mission that President Gore had set upon.

But, since it's not one of his fascist fellow travelling Dems, he's all full of piss and lies and screams the slurs and demands the accounting that he NEVER would demand of one of his own. It's called hypocricy and it's like manna to the liberal.

No mention of the UN Oil-For-Food scam; not a peep about the oil bribes paid to France, Russia and Germany to oppose us; nary a discouraging word about all the UN Resolutions broken. Nope, in Liberal La-La-Land, the past is gone and only the revisionist history will be allowed which says that Saddam's rape rooms, mass graves and genocide were far better than what goes on now.

Besides, since when have liberals cared abotu RESULTS?!?! It's all about the GOOD INTENTIONS - you all know what road is paved with those, don't you? - like the Great Society. Who cares if that's destroyed the cities and the black urban family. Po' Negroes is good voters for race hustling racists with a donkey next to their checkbox.

If they didn't set out to reintroduce slavery - don't be so sure that wasn't the plan - they certainly got it to work to their benefit and since they hold the whiphand and the keys to the government cheese, it's all good.

Where's some good ol' liberal reflection, not deflection?

Conservatives have been criticizing the war on principled grounds because they want it to end well for ALL. Liberals want as much death and misery possible for their next campaign. They have no ideas to offer, so they intend to use the dead as props and demand to be returned to power on that basis alone.

With the mendacity of the Stupid Party at play, it just may work. God help America.

Anonymous said...

this guy would be as patriotic as Ted Nugent at an NRA meeting and would brook absolutely ZERO DISSENT over the noble mission that President Gore had set upon.

Typical strawman argument. You know nothing about me, but you make the assumption that because I'm against what you're for, I'm for what you're against.

I think you're as stupid and poisonous as the hard left basket cases. Not everyone who was and is against the war is a Birkenstock-wearing hippie. Some of us think that our immense military power ought to have been managed a little more judiciously, and overthrowing tin-pot dictators isn't what we had in mind.

We should have put our effort into chasing down OBL and mounting his head on a pike outside 1600 Penn. We should have obliterated Afghanistan AND Pakistan to achieve that goal. I would have supported that.

Conservatives criticising the war? Bullshit. It's only been in the last few months they've said anything, and mainly because it's finally become apparent to them what a giant fuck up George's Big Adventure has been. Still, where are the calls for withdrawal from your side? The generals on the ground say it's unwinnable. What the fuck are we still doing there?

Dirk Belligerent said...

Ooooh, "strawman", which means, "Oh sh*t!!! He's nailed our hypocrisy!!! Better start blowing smoke!!! Sorry, Bub. Doesn't work here when I've soooooooooooo got y'all's numbers.

Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and everyone else said that Saddam was bad and had WMDs. The MSM ran stories that stated flatly that OBL/al Qaeda and Saddam were in cahoots and would transfer WMDs given the chance, yet somehow this is all lost down the liberal Memory Hole and the drumbeat of the Big Lie is BUSH LIED!!! Not even "Bush should've known that George Tenet was an incompetent boob! or "We all thought Saddam was up to something. C'mon, he could've stayed in power by letting his lackeys from the UN chase the snipe and we'd all be happy now. Nope, it's BUSH LIED!!!

Please...

Even your Feckless Crapweasel/Phony War Hero - so where are those records, anyway? - said that once we were there, we'd have to stay until things are settled which was either:

1. Exactly what Dubya is doing, which would've meant he was wrong, too.

B. Lying and was gonna bug out and cancel elections and leave the Iraqis hanging.

(Why do I know it was "B"? Admit it, you knew that he was lying.)

As for non-fascist liberals bailing because it's gotten to bad to stomach, I have no idea, but they know that no one wins going wobbly.

OK, you want some dissent - try this:

1. Dubya should've let the military f*cking PAVE any CITY - not block or neighborhood - CITY(!!!) that harbored hostiles. The purpose of the military is to kill people and break stuff and since the enemy have shown numerous times that they aren't interested in civilized warfare - oooof, that's an oxymoron if there ever was one - and have no problems killing as many innocents as happen to be handy, so WTF are we playing Marquis of Queensbury Rules and getting bogged down?!?

B. I knew in 2003 that Dubya was unworthy of office because he was a fiscal maniac and his terminal inarticulateness was going to make explaining the war impossible. I can't remember the last time I heard him mush-mouth anything that made sense. If he were to choke on a pretzel and fall into a coma leaving Cheney in charge, I'd be happy because it'd mean complete sentences as policy statements, like, "Knuckle up, bitches! Time to say hello to Allah!"

Sorry, pal, but I don't believe you when you say you would've supported catching OBL at all costs and pounding Pakistan (which I'm down for) because it would've meant Dubya landsliding to re-election and that was not gonna happen if the fascist Dems had their way. Nononononononononono!!!! Soldiers needed to die and the economy had to be bad so they could run against failure instead of bleating, But...but...things could be so much better with us."

Your side isn't about making the world a better place - it's about power at all costs. Besides, Dubya meant well, like LBJ when he destroyed black America. You never did answer why liberal good intentions are better than conservative good intentions other than....whooops.....answered my own question: Hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

Ooooh, "strawman", which means, "Oh sh*t!!! He's nailed our hypocrisy!!!

No, you blockhead, it means "you're arguing against a position I don't hold".

Listen, I'm not into this hoping to get answers from you-- and you're not replying to give them. I am calling you out on being wrong, and the best you can do is say "well everybody else was wrong too!".

I've got news for you, junior. Bush is held to a higher standard BECAUSE HE SET THE GODDAMNED THING OFF. I don't give a fuck what Kerry or Kennedy or the MSM or your mom thought about WMDs. None of them were in a position to start a war based on what they believed. Bush had a responsibility to check and then doublecheck and then check again to make sure the intelligence was sound before going ahead.

The drumbeat is "Bush Lied" because it seems inconceivable that someone could be SO completely wrong. It's not like he claimed there were 50 tons of chem weapons and they only found 20. They claimed CHEMICAL DESTRUCTION IS IMMINENT -- WE MUST ATTACK NOW! One would assume that if they said this, they probably knew where SOMETHING was. They found NOTHING. Not even a water pistol full of sarin. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero.

HOW THE FUCK DO YOU GET IT SO WRONG?

Sorry, pal, but I don't believe you when you say you would've supported catching OBL at all costs

Of course you don't. That's because in order to believe that, you'd have to admit that your understanding of "what liberals believe" is a cartoonish, right-wing fantasy with no basis in reality.

"Liberals eat babies! And bathe in virgin Christian blood! And want to rule with an iron fist and make everybody drive Priuses and stuff!"

You're a clown.

Dirk Belligerent said...

Now we're getting somewhere. Unfortunately for you, it's closer to revealing the hypocritical delusions you labor under. Come, learn where you've gone insane....

Bush had a responsibility to check and then doublecheck and then check again to make sure the intelligence was sound before going ahead.

And how is he supposed to do that when he asks his CIA chief if the intel is good and he's told, "It's a slam dunk."?!? How exactly does he reply, "That's not good enough!!!! We must do nothing until the guy who's kicked out the UN inspectors, used chemical weapons in the past and is running a terrorist training camp inside his borders announces that he's got the stuff, 'come and get me coppers!'"?!?!?

Well, what's the newly revised history say about that? I can't find the laundry list of particulars about what was known BEFORE the War - not retroactively edited by the Left to erase history in favor of fraudulent finger-pointing, like...

They claimed CHEMICAL DESTRUCTION IS IMMINENT -- WE MUST ATTACK NOW!

If you can cite where Team Dubya said this, I'll purchase you a fine adult beverage of your choosing ($5.00 limit), but my V-note is safe because THEY NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING!!! This dishonest respinning of what was actually said before the war has been the most maddening aspect of the Left's jihad because it uses Big Lie tactics to promulgate something that never happened into the public subconscience. When honest people call the liars on their lies, the Left screams "LIAR!!!" with a ferocity that tempts the creation of an Irony Vortex.

You see this game played when dishonest polls are cited that say, "Despite the Adminstration's statements that there was no connection between Iraq and OBL about 9/11, 37% of pollees believe there was a connection." This implies that Team Dubya said there was, but they never did, yet they get tagged for saying they did by the Big Liars from which you take marching orders and programming. You can't disprove a negative, but you can certainly be bludgeoned with it.

News flash: Iraq was a terrorist state. Saddam harbored terrorists and allowed them sanctuary. Saddam and Al Qaeda had dealing and wanted to share WMDs. These are all FACTS as reported by the MSM, not VWRC sites, so you've got a big problem because NO ONE EVER SAID THAT SADDAM HANDED OBL A CHECK WITH "For double-secret 9/11 mission" ON THE MEMO LINE!!!!

Not that facts bother the Left's Jihad. Gotta win at all costs. Gotta regain power and impose fascism upon the Red States, right?

That's because in order to believe that, you'd have to admit that your understanding of "what liberals believe" is a cartoonish, right-wing fantasy with no basis in reality.

All I know is what Cindy Sheehan, Randi Rhodes, Al Franken, Paul Krugman, Kos and all the rest of the moonbat left have to say. If I've got the idea that the Left are insane zombies who've lost all semblance of souls ot humanity, I got it from the horses' mouths.

Anonymous said...

If you can cite where Team Dubya said this, I'll purchase you a fine adult beverage of your choosing ($5.00 limit), but my V-note is safe because THEY NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING!!!

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
- George W. Bush, 10/07/2002

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."
- Dick Cheney, 08/26/2002

You can Paypal me the money, asshat.

Dirk Belligerent said...

Um...where are the lies? No lies, no payoff. So sorry, but moonbat rewriting of history doesn't count. Monday Morning Quarterbacks always have the answers, but what did you have before other than appeasement and surrender?

It's so funny that after a decade of Clinton's failure to take our attackers seriously, y'all turn on Dubya and hammer him for taking the SAME INTEL THAT CLINTON, GORE, KERRY, KENNEDY and all the rest of the Dems thought was a slam dunk in 1998 at face value.

Admit it: If Dubya hadn't attacked Iraq and America got hit, y'all would've said he was a loser just like his Daddy, who didn't finish the job in '91.* Of course, since it's gone sideways with the encouragment of your traitorous pals who urge death so you can gleefully claim failure as a reason for regaining power, you get to hit him AND get the bonus of making America shy about standing up to your fascist pals like North Korea.

BTW, how did Kim Jong Il get nuclear tech in the first place? What's that? Clinton sold it to him in another failed appeasement deal? No way!!! Only Dubya screws things up!!! LIAR!!!!

Heh.

Get back to me when you have some facts and answers, not revisions and spin, Bub. (Which means I'll never hear from you again, will I? Wah.)


* Nevermind there was no UN permission to run for Baghdad in Gulf War I. Do we do only what the UN allows us to or not? Y'all claim that this is an illegal war cuz the UN didn't sign-off, yet your hero, the Traitor Clinton, had no problem bombing civilians in Kosovo and leaving our troops there til this day! Oh, that's right....illegal wars are OK when the Fascists are in power, not the Stupids. My bad.

No matter how you slice it, you guys will blame everyone but yourselves and your traitor Clinton. Pssst, here's a hint - those good economic times? He had NOTHING to do with them! Unfortunately, the Stupid Party has lost all ability to control their spending when they've got the keys to the vault. Asstacklers!!!

Anonymous said...

Listen, I have no more interest in going around and around with you again. Every time I make a point, you move the goal post and sputter "b-b-b-but CLINTON! and the MSM! And KERRY!"

The point, in case you forgot, is best summed up by James Wolcott:

"[...]neocons got the war they wanted, it was waged according to their blueprints, and it's their fuck-up, their moral responsibility, their historical bloodstain, their arrogant, ignorant, blundering, inexcusable mess."

Iraq is a complete and utter failure, and try as you might, the blame cannot be left on the steps of Cindy Sheehan, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Michael Moore, George Soros, Dick Durbin, or the liberal enemy du jour.

We spent 200 billion dollars and thousands of lives to allow Iraqis the god-given right to choose an Islamic theocracy for themselves. Killing millions of terrorists or nuking Fallujah wouldn't have changed that outcome.

It is completely irrelevant what Kerry or Gore would have done, because that's just empty speculation. We only have the actual reality of the situation: THE POLICY YOU SUPPORTED AND DEFENDED WAS WRONGHEADED AND IS AN ABYSMAL FAILURE.

Own it, it's yours.

Sleep well.

Dirk Belligerent said...

Like a typical liberal, you're stuck in the past and rooted to the fantasies of how you perceive reality to be, so you've clearly missed later posts here - haven't you added the RSS feed yet? - and will probably miss what I'm preparing for later, but beyond Wolcott's ad hominem nonsense (already smacked down here) there are a few, well, a lot, problems with your latest spewage.

First, your tired Big Lie attempt:

Every time I make a point, you move the goal post and sputter "b-b-b-but CLINTON! and the MSM! And KERRY!"

The point you refuse to acknowledge is that to say that "BUSH LIED!!!" requires you to pretend that Clinton et al didn't say the EXACT SAME THINGS ABOUT IRAQ AND WMDs!!!! It's real simple, Bub: If Bush was lying, then Clinton/Gore/Kerry/Kennedy were lying, too.

This is what's always tripped up the Left - their inability to tarnish their fraudulent heroes and it results in cognitive dissonance of mind-bending levels. To recap: If Bush is lying, so was Clinton; if Clinton wasn't lying, neither is Bush.

Choke on the Truth, bitch! No playing it both ways on Dirkworld!!!

Iraq is a complete and utter failure,

Nope. It's a mess and could be better, but "utter failure" is just the label the Left applies to anything they don't have control over. If Gore was Prez, the situation would be a "triumph for American values." Your hypocrisy combined with Orwellian double-speak/think is amazing, but shame has never been a liberal's strong suit.

the blame cannot be left on the steps of Cindy Sheehan, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Michael Moore, George Soros, Dick Durbin, or the liberal enemy du jour.

BZZZZT!!!! Strawman Big Lie Infraction!!! The rogue's gallery you listed aren't the cause of Team Dubya's pussy war-fighting skills, but they've been instrumental to providing propaganda and sedition support to our enemies. The fact that Dubya refuses to call out the enemies within only allows them, and you, to lie with impunity.

We spent 200 billion dollars and thousands of lives to allow Iraqis the god-given right to choose an Islamic theocracy for themselves.

You lie as if I've supported this outcome. I haven't and you know it. Cue the Thompson Twins...

It is completely irrelevant what Kerry or Gore would have done, because that's just empty speculation.

Gee, some many on the Left pretend that Gore would've prevented 9/11 - what changed?

We only have the actual reality of the situation: THE POLICY YOU SUPPORTED AND DEFENDED WAS WRONGHEADED AND IS AN ABYSMAL FAILURE.

I didn't support this half-assed pussy fight and as disproved before, you refuse to conceed that your boys have to be liars too to make your attacks stick. The only failure is that all the dead soldiers your side encouraged our enemies to kill didn't regain power for your team. Boohoo.

News moves on. I suggest you do the same and try to find something current to lie about. And I'll be here to school you up but good.

Anonymous said...

The point you refuse to acknowledge is that to say that "BUSH LIED!!!"

The point you refuse to acknowledge is that this is more of your standard debate tactic. When cornered, argue against something entirely different and hope no one notices.

Scroll up through the replies and let me know when you first encounter the discussion about Bush lying. I'll give you a free clue-- you are the one who brought it up. I simply said that the Iraq war was a failure. You are the one who decided to argue that I was saying Bush lied. Foolishly, I acnowledged your idiocy, allowing you to switch to "If Bush lied then so did Clinton!".

Nope. It's a mess and could be better, but "utter failure" is just the label the Left applies to anything they don't have control over.

You really are clueless, aren't you? It's an utter failure not because we can't kill terrorists fast enough, but because we gave them a choice and they didn't choose democracy. We marched in and said "li'l Iraq, now that we freed you from your oppressor, you can grow up to be anything you want to be!" and Iraq said "we'd like to be an Islamic theocracy. Thanks!"

I don't fucking care if you're not happy about it either. It's not like this was an unexpected outcome. it's one of the reasons Bush 41 didn't want to take Baghdad in 1991. Lots of very smart people said "don't invade Iraq, this is what will happen if you do", and you and your ideological soulmates said "fuck you, we're right and you're wrong and you hate America and freedom and apple pie".

This is the failure. This is your shame. It's got nothing to do with Clinton or the MSM or liberals or anybody other than the Bush administration and those who supported invading Iraq. The days of reckoning are at hand, and the entire country can plainly see what you've wrought: our troops in Iraq are attempting to stabilize a government that we didn't want to happen in the first place.

If this wasn't so goddamned serious, it would be funny. What is your best case scenario? I'll give you 25 million highly trained soldiers in Iraq that can crush the insurgency overnight. That will allow you to complete the mission, so our troops can come home and celebrate their victory in removing a brutal dictator and replacing him with a democratically-elected islamist theocracy.

And of course, after our amazing military success in crushing the insurgency in Iraq, there's still plenty of terrorists in Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, etc. etc. to contend with.

So how, exactly, do you define "success" in Iraq?

And I haven't missed later posts. I have no interest in responding to every one of your idiot babblings. I'm here in this specific thread nailing your foot to the floor and showing anyone reading this what an intellectual weasel you are. Your best bet is to post a bunch of new posts and push this off the front page before you embarass yourself further.

Dirk Belligerent said...

Gonna make this quick, cuz I've got better things to do and I need to get a post up that'll moot most of this:

I simply said that the Iraq war was a failure.

It's not, but maintaining the perception that it is is the tactic at play. Wait for the post about it.

It's an utter failure not because we can't kill terrorists fast enough, but because we gave them a choice and they didn't choose democracy. We marched in and said "li'l Iraq, now that we freed you from your oppressor, you can grow up to be anything you want to be!" and Iraq said "we'd like to be an Islamic theocracy. Thanks!"

You contradicted yourself, Bub, but what's new? If they decide to choose a Islamic theocracy, then that will be their DEMOCRATIC CHOICE. While that would be a tragedy, it will be their will. No, we shouldn't cheer a decision to move to the 7th Century, but it will have been THEIR CHOICE and that proves that we weren't their to impose OUR will. Though we should've. Oh, well...damned if you do...

it's one of the reasons Bush 41 didn't want to take Baghdad in 1991. Lots of very smart people said "don't invade Iraq, this is what will happen if you do",

Revisionist history, though Bush 41's biggest failing was to encourage the Iraqis to revolt against Saddam and then let them get slaughtered. ("Three Kings" tackles this.) Because Daddy f*cked up on walking the talk, he stuck Dubya with having to walk it for both of them and that doesn't allow us to back out, ergo, "Iraq Nam" and great joy for the Left.

This is your shame...the entire country can plainly see what you've wrought

Um, I didn't do this. Sorry, but you need to renew your tinfoil shielding. If you haven't noticed that I've been critical of the half-assed prosecution of the war, then you've been ignoring more reality.

That will allow you to complete the mission, so our troops can come home and celebrate their victory in removing a brutal dictator and replacing him with a democratically-elected islamist theocracy.

Hey, it's democratically chosen theocracy. ;) I thought we were spreading "Pax Americana imperialism for the Zionist cabal." That's what Mother Sheehan said. Is she wrong?

So how, exactly, do you define "success" in Iraq?

I don't know anymore because Team Dubya has totally screwed the pooch, but I'll be discussing that in a main post. Stay tuned.

I'm here in this specific thread nailing your foot to the floor and showing anyone reading this what an intellectual weasel you are. Your best bet is to post a bunch of new posts and push this off the front page before you embarass yourself further.

Don't flatter yourself. First, you've been so thoroughly bitch-slapped, it's the near-coma state babbling that you're nailing anything. You're a masochist who's lucky to find someone willing to smack you around without asking for a credit card. If you thought you were scoring any debate points, you wouldn't be coming back over and over in the comments of a minor-league post about how much a tank of gas cost. The only ones reading this are US, pal, so if you were looking for some public humiliation to go with your discipline session, then you're SOL.

What you and your lying liar pals don't realize is that I've been bashing Dubya for a long, long time, but because I'm not using the fake talking points of the Left, you don't get it and never will. I've always marveled at how, with all the REAL things Dubya is EXTREMELY vulnerable about - taxes, spending, immigration, complete sentences - y'all have gone for the fake AWOL story and trying to spin a Big Lie about "misled us to war" instead of saying, "Come on, Tenet f*cked you, didn't he? Why did you give him a medal?!?" Mistakes aren't lying, but lying has turned out to be the Left's fatal mistake and the only thing that keeps the Stupid's in the game. Lucky them. Unlucky us.

That's it for this thread. Bring your tinfoil to a more relevant topic and wait for the huge bashing that's coming for Dubya. You may like it, except it'll be based in fact and we all see how badly you react to those. Ta!

Anonymous said...

This topic was chosen because I found your blindness hilarious:

we're gonna be stuck buying from Islamofascist-funding thugocracies like Saudi Arabia and having to go to war to keep the hippie's Volvos fueled.

Yeah, it's the hippie's volvos that are the problem. Not the fact that you're a lazy middle-class white guy living in a major city driving an air-conditioned armored vehicle back and forth to the mall.

Dirk Belligerent said...

Wow. So many wrong things in such a short sentence.

Yeah, it's the hippie's volvos that are the problem.

You failed to notice the irony of the sentence, but liberals have never been much on nuance - it's just a word they used to excuse fecklessness.

Not the fact that you're a lazy

Lazy?!? How so?

middle-class white guy

You say that like it's a bad thing.

living in a major city

And where are you? The Unabomber's old neighborhood?

driving an air-conditioned

Check a calendar, Bub - it's the 21st Century and we're no longer obligated to suffer 100+ degree temperatures that threaten one's health. Sounds like your brain got cooked.

armored vehicle

Huh?!?!? Yeah, I own a decommissioned Brinks truck. Ya got me!

back and forth to the mall.

I don't go to the mall much, so I have no idea what you're on about.

Well, you went 0-for-7 on that run. Too bad. Sucks to be you and it sucks that you're so insane that people who need to lug people and cargo in a region with seasons - including SNOW (lots of it!) - are contemptable for equiping themselves to make it to work.

You know....WORK? It's that thing the PRODUCERS go to so that the Moocher Class can have their politicians steal and redistribute the wealth in order to secure re-election.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of failing to notice irony-- the term "armored vehicle" wasn't meant literally, you dink. You call the fucking thing an Urban Assault Vehicle. It's a giant gas-guzzling hog that alerts everyone around you that you're as obnoxious on the road as you likely are off it.

people who need to lug people and cargo in a region with seasons - including SNOW (lots of it!) - are contemptable for equiping themselves to make it to work.

You work in a record store, and I repeat: you live in a major city. What, they don't plow the streets in Detroit? Please spare us the insinuation that you live on some remote mountaintop, impassable between November and April, but for the grace of your trusty steed.

And btw, I live in the Northeast. I am quite familiar with navigating through heavy snow.

Dirk Belligerent said...

It's a Ford Explorer - the #1 selling light truck for about a hundred years - not an H2 Hummer and while I wish it got better than 16 mpg, it does have to labor under the weight of my enormous penis. (The fact that you are so irony-deficient that you have a cow over the term "UAV" also reveals how you probably believe the word "fixed" means "fake".) Are you saying that soccer moms are obnoxious?

You work in a record store,

Sez who?

and I repeat: you live in a major city. What, they don't plow the streets in Detroit?

1. This is the first time I've heard Detroit referred to as a major city from a liberal elitist.

B. If you knew anything about tha D, you'd know damn well how shabby the snow-plowing is.

3. Until they dig out the roads - the main ones, much less the sidestreets - if you don't have 4WD, you're late for work and Socialist Utopias don't pay for themselves, ya know? There have been times when the X-ways are crawling, but thanks to the miracle of 4WD, I've been able to hit the unplowed back streets and actually get somewhere.

Thanks for playa, playa hata. No Rice-o-Roni for you. Buh-bye.