Patterico's Pontifications


The Grand Ol’ Gang and the True Blues

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 5:55 am

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

This weekend we wrapped up Holiday Christmas shopping and as I was leaving the mall, I went past one of those paintings shops.  You know, the kind.  The kind that takes stills from movies, you know, really classy ones like Scarface, and turns them into paintings.  That kind of store.  And I was struck by this painting, called The Grand Ol’ Gang:

You know, I am a Rockwell fan, but even that is a bit corny for my blood.  And in case you are wondering, the corniness is bi-partisan.  I present to you, True Blues:

And is that Bill O’Reilly on the right, leaning over?  (Joke.)  But wow that is so bad…  I suspect that they were responsible for the Bill Clinton portrait at the Yale Law School (trust me, if you have seen it, you will get the joke).

I suppose the creator of this stuff deserves a link, just for providing that entertainment value.  But to everyone in my family reading this right now, don’t get me any of these for Christmas.

Incidentally, if you can name all of the presidents in both pics, you will get a valuable prize: respect.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

77 Responses to “The Grand Ol’ Gang and the True Blues”

  1. Clockwise, Eisenhower, TR, Nixon, Ford, Lincoln, Bush Sr. Reagan and W. Second pic, Clinton, Wilson,
    LBJ, Truman, Jackson, FDR, Carter and JFK.

    shaking it up a bit;

    narciso (6075d0)

  2. That’s easy. Nixon, Eisenhower, Reagan, both Bushes, Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, Ford.

    JFK, Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Andrew Jackson, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Woodrow Wilson.

    I think the omissions are more hilarious.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  3. SPQR

    Well, i will note the site is copyrighted 2007, so it was before the current president.

    but i would be curious about which omissions you consider hilarious.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  4. A.W., no I was referring to older presidents.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  5. I wonder just at how “bipartisan” the site is, or if the fact that two of the most racist Presidents in history are in the Democrat picture is just ignorance …

    SPQR (26be8b)

  6. Well they left out Coolidge, not a dynamic figure, and Hoover, for obvious reason. In the second, they
    left of Jefferson, the founder of their party.

    narciso (6075d0)

  7. hey there aren’t any womens

    happyfeet (fd4f3b)

  8. narc

    Well, some historians argue that the jeffersonian republicans (as jefferson’s party was originally called) were not really the same as the Democrats which claimed the jefferson mantle.

    They also left off Andrew Johnson who was probably our most racist president ever–although Andrew Jackson gives him a run for his money on that count.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  9. That’s the one I was thinking of, narciso, Jefferson. Quoting some of his works with relation to today’s Democrat platform is amusing.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  10. Well they want to flush him down the memory hole, for a whole host of reasons, he was an opponent of government overreach, fought the first civilization
    clash with the Pirates, despite some of his particular beliefs. Jackson gave us the Trail of Tears, I guess he’d be treated as Ariel Sharon for that, and Roger Taney, his commerce secretary, soon
    to rise to Peter principle notoriety as Chief Justice. but he opposed the Bank of the United States, so all and all a mixed bag.

    narciso (6075d0)

  11. Not only can I name the presidents, but I own both pictures.

    Rhymes With Right (3ac4d1)

  12. Rhymes, an admission I’d have kept to myself personally … 😉

    SPQR (26be8b)

  13. Where are my two favorite modern presidents (Harding and Coolidge)?

    And…what about the new guy?

    Where’d he go?

    Dave Surls (3d7aa8)

  14. “Barack Obama, don’t know who that is, better check the cables”

    narciso (6075d0)

  15. My eyes aren’t what they used to be, so I had a hard time telling who was who, but I knew Obama wasn’t there, because there wasn’t any halo over anybody’s head.

    Dave Surls (3d7aa8)

  16. I got them all immediately, but LBJ stumped me for a second because the characterization is so bad (I thought it was supposed to be FDR and I was wondering why he was standing before I spotted the cigar holder at right).

    Really, the Dems compare pretty badly to the Republicans in terms of stature and accomplishments. The Dems big star is a guy who was only president for less than 3 years and whose main accomplishment was he managed to avert a nuclear war after almost bringing one on with his incompetence. And Jackson was pretty tough, but he was no Lincoln.

    Also, Carter should be sulking in a corner.

    docweasel (5510fc)

  17. Oh, and Wilson looks like Keith Olberman.

    docweasel (5510fc)

  18. Somebody could photoshop obama in there any number of ways. Maybe just a hand reaching into FDR’s pocket.

    Vermont Neighbor (6ed8b2)

  19. The next painting could feature the great tin pots of all time. Obama would fit.

    Vermont Neighbor (6ed8b2)

  20. And does Andrew Jackson ever have a bad hair day? I think not.

    Vermont Neighbor (6ed8b2)

  21. Comment by narciso — 12/20/2010 @ 6:27 am

    He also managed to pay off the national debt in January 1835 (granted, it was back over $35K by the end of the year, but still, that’s pretty impressive).

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  22. The Grand Old Gang (though corny) looks possible, considering the people involved. The other picture is a problem, though. I’m pretty sure that Andy Jackson would be shooting one or more of the scoundrels at that table.

    Wilson and Clinton, for choice.

    C. S. P. Schofield (e4bd33)

  23. Doc

    > Also, Carter should be sulking in a corner.

    So should nixon, for that matter.


    > I’m pretty sure that Andy Jackson would be shooting one or more of the scoundrels at that table.

    And if Obama showed up… it would get ugly, fast.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  24. True, Jackson was a man of honor, and he would have found Clinton and Carter, wanting and weak.

    narciso (6075d0)

  25. O’Reilly? Nah, That’s ol’ Landslide Lyndon hisself…

    KREEGAH, Lord of the Mugwumps (8096f2)

  26. Ah, Landslide Lyndon, he stole the ’48 Senate seat,
    (who does that sound like?) and the attorney that represented him, he tried to put in as Chief Justice, hilarity ensued.

    narciso (6075d0)

  27. Andrew Jackson left a $250,000 surplus.

    Nixon’s badness was overrated imo. More ethical than Kennedy, at least in terms of family and commitment.

    Vermont Neighbor (d9926c)

  28. Hmm, Grover Cleveland is remarkably conspicuous in his absence. Then again, he’s one of the only Democrats I’d ever claim as a truly great president, so there ya go.

    Hoosier Daddy (cb034a)

  29. Jackson’ opinion on the unconstitutionality of the United States Bank ought to give one a clue as to what he’d think of Obamacare.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  30. Right Grover was left out, even though he was a hard money Democrat who ran two terms

    narciso (6075d0)

  31. SPQR

    no politician born prior to 1900 believed anything like obambicare was constitutional.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  32. A.W., January 30, 1882.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  33. For extra credit, name the Klan member pictured.

    Kevin M (298030)

  34. Kevin M., Woodrow Wilson is probably who you mean.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  35. Nixon’s badness was overrated imo. More ethical than Kennedy, at least in terms of family and commitment.

    Yes, but as our first black president taught us, family and commitment is clearly overrated. Just ask the feminists.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  36. I think either of these could make for a hilarious white elephant gift, if you could find a high enough resolution to print and frame, and give to someone who is pretty partisan (but opposite their picture).

    Bonus points if you photoshop them into the picture with a paintbrush filter.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  37. And Nixon was not a good president. On policy or ethics, he was a midget.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  38. Jackson was responsible for the genocide against Native Americans. End of story.

    Wilson was probably the most racist of all the presidents, showing Birth of A Nation in the White House prior to its release and claiming “that’s how it was.”

    Kennedy had no morals although he was touted as a “devout” Catholic. Same with Clinton.

    Teddy Roosevelt became a “Progressive” in the mold of Woodrow Wilson.

    retire05 (fed3ae)

  39. Dustin, on _domestic_ policy Nixon only aspired to being a midget, but on foreign policy he was a giant. And ethics, schmethics, what’s your point?

    Kevin M (298030)

  40. Wilson did resegregate the DC public schools, put the likes of Breckenridge Long into his first office, start fDR on his way to high office, suppressed speech with the Sedition and Espionage Acts, that’s a pretty bad combo isn’t it.

    narciso (6075d0)

  41. Jackson was also responsible for wresting control of government from the Virginia aristocracy. He turned a Republic into a Democracy. Without Jackson, Lincoln would have been impossible.

    You can blame Jackson for the Cherokee, but the position of the Indians was untenable in any event.

    Kevin M (298030)

  42. Check out LBJ looking over Wilson’s shoulder at his cards, whispering in his ear “I got a knife to your back boy. Now smile like a pissin’ billy goat and do exactly as I tell ya.”

    Jayk (e7a9ea)

  43. Wilson also resegregated federal employment, forcing a lot of Negroes out of federal jobs and closing off prospects for the remainder. He was from the South…

    Kevin M (298030)

  44. Jackson was responsible for the genocide against Native Americans. End of story.

    Yeah, well, he wasn’t the only one during the 19th century. And let’s not kid ourselves–the Native American tribes weren’t exactly kumbaya with each other before we got here, either. In fact, they were quite eager to exploit alliances with whites against their enemies all the way up until they were the ones getting conquered instead.

    The biggest difference is that today, we don’t celebrate that conquest the way Americans did 100 years ago (and incidentally, TR wrote a whole history which did that very thing). Regardless of the lamentations over genocide, I don’t see any of the SWPLs that typically rail about the injustice of it all in a big hurry to run back to the lands of their forefathers and give the Native Americans their land back.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  45. Well I considered his action with the schools, among other things, because it poisoned the well
    at the beginning, making a solely constitutional challenge to Plessy that much more difficult

    narciso (6075d0)

  46. Have you noticed you still link to that smear merchant at the Football site?

    kansas (7b4374)

  47. Ruminations on Presidents…

    The only bad thing about Nixon was is that once he became president he was too damned liberal.

    Nixon put an end to the draft and got us out of a war the liberal dolts bungled us into that we never should have been in the first place, and that makes him a better president than any Dem that ever crawled out from under a rock.

    Best president of the 20th century was Warren Harding (undid more Democrat idiocy than any other president…and that’s the greatest feat any prez can accomplish).

    Worst president of the 20th century, and worst in U.S. history: F.D.R. and no one else is even close, which is saying something, considering that we’ve had scum like Woodrow Wilson and Andrew Jackson running the country.

    Worst Republican president: Theodore Roosevelt. Not only was he a crappy president (though still better than any Democrat, except maybe Grover Cleveland, who I almost like enough to forget my natural and undying hatred for all things related to the Slaveowner Party), but, thanks to his colossal ego, he split the Republican Party and ensured the election of Woodrow Wilson, which is one of the most unforgivable acts in U.S. history.

    I think Jack Kennedy had the potential to be every bit as bad as F.D.R., but unfortunately some commie ratbag blew his brains out before he had reached his full potential. He was young, immature, had the morals of a rattler, and the brains of a tree stump, and if he hadn’t got shot, I’m pretty sure he would have bungled us into an all-out nuclear war with the Russkis, or something equally as disastrous. As it is, he only had time to bungle us into a senseless war in Vietnam, and launch a sneak attack against the Cuban commies, so he didn’t waste as many American lives as some of his more illustrious Dem comrades.

    Most amazing U.S. president of the 20th century: Jimmy Carter. Despite the fact that he’s probably the stupidest piece of dog crap that ever rolled down the pike, Peanut Boy has the amazing accomplishment of being the first Democrat President of the 20th century NOT to get us involved in a European/Asian War that was none of our business and that cost the lives of tens of thousands of American kids who were given the choice of: fight in liberal Democrat war or go to prison. That’s giving LBJ some of the credit for bungling us into Vietnam, of course. That one was really a group effort. Hard to believe that an ignoramous like Carter DIDN’T get us into a war to help France or some insane crap like that, but it’s true.

    Worst black president of the 20th century: Bill Clinton, obviously. Gotta admire a guy who would rather unleash an all-out bombing campaign against some guys who never did us any harm (the Serbs), than unleash one against guys who were blowing up U.S. embassies (Al Qaida). That shows the kind of judgement that one expects out of liberals, but despite his uncanny ability to do the wrong thing at all times, and despite possessing a set of ethics even lower than Jack Kennedy’s, he was unable to do things that eventually led to the needless deaths of tens of thousands of Americans. In fact (and the following words will likely make your brain hurt) he probably did less damage than any other Dem president, and would therefore have to rate as the best Democrat president of the 20th century.

    At least that’s how I see it.

    Dave Surls (3d7aa8)

  48. “on foreign policy he was a giant. And ethics, schmethics, what’s your point?

    Comment by Kevin M”


    I agree that he was an improvement on foreign policy, and he would be one today. I’m not saying much.

    On domestic policy, he was among the worst. Worse than Carter. I’m not exaggerating. We still suffer from Carter’s foreign policy, and Nixon’s domestic. Ethics aside, there’s a reason Americans were not fat when JFK was president, and steadily got fatter since. The government intruded very far into the most basic aspects of agriculture.

    Also, he didn’t do us any favors on entitlement spending.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  49. About Nixon, Those eight years he spent in New York, probably didn’t help his mindset. putting his law partner, campaign manager as Atty Gen, wasn’t one of his swifter moves. He did have a solution to Vietnam,that the Democrats didn’t allow him to implement,that was Vietnamization, akin to the surge
    being tried today.

    JFk did have the same advisors as his successor, so likely they would have blundered into a crisis, in part because he was so risk averse,
    had he listened to McCone earlier in ’62, there
    wouldn’t have been need for a confrontation in October, there might well have been a confrontation in Western Europe. and his dalliances with Exner, Rometsch, et al would likely have come up in the future. Harry Turtledove did an alt history netazine on the subject

    narciso (6075d0)

  50. I’ve been wondering why Lincoln and Jackson have their backs to the viewer . . . because the artist could locate no historical record of what these two men looked like when smiling/laughing? Perhaps that also explains why Wilson looks subdued as well.

    Susan (75c4b9)

  51. Susan

    interesting historical fact. do you know why very few people in the earliest photos would not smile?

    Because the way cameras worked. it took a full minute to take a photograph, which meant you had to remain perfectly still. so most photos were sitting down, or leaning on something and they maintained very neutral expression, because they had to stay that way for a whole minute and a half or else it would look bad in the photo.

    So that is why lincoln never smiles in the photos.

    i suspect today the reason why the artists didn’t try to paint them in the same way as the other presidents is because people would feel it was disrespectful. Even though I suspect that Lincoln, at least, probably is better represented smiling, at least.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  52. “Gotta admire a guy who would rather unleash an all-out bombing campaign against some guys who never did us any harm (the Serbs)”

    – Dave Surls

    The Serbs were systematically slaughtering ethnic Bosniaks. That may not affect “us” in any direct way, but it’s an affront to human decency and should be squashed. Of all the things to attack Clinton for, bombing those genocidal scumbags isn’t one of them.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  53. Leviticus, I think you are confusing different phases of the Balkan conflict. Clinton’s bombing of the Serbs was over the exaggerated claims of atrocities against Kosovars, rather than Bosnians.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  54. But did anybody, ever, look more presidential than Woodrow Wilson?

    The Dana looking for your opinions (bd7e62)

  55. Best president of the 20th century was Warren Harding

    Hardly. Does the phrase “Teapot Dome” ring any bells?

    But if Nixon can be included, I don’t see why Harding and Hoover would be left out. And not having Coolidge in there is inexplicable.

    Jefferson-as-president is almost the exact opposite of Jefferson-the-libertarian-icon. He was responsible for one of the most brazenly unconstitutional acts in history (or at least, one of the most brazen uses of authority to do something not even hinted at in the Constitution), the Louisiana Purchase. However beneficial it was to the country, it was an action totally beyond the parameters set by the Constitution–made the treaty and then waited to tell Congress when it was returned into regular session. “Guys, I bought this big piece of real estate and now you need to come up with the cash.”. Plus of course the Embargo, which interfered in the economy in ways not seen again until FDR or later.

    In judging Jackson’s treatment of the Cherokees, it is important to remember that by that time the Cherokees were actually in settled agricultural communities well on their way to assimilating into the white mainstream. Many of them were more “civilized” then their white neighbors. They were no longer a military threat to the South, but white land speculators wanted their lands, and thanks to Jackson they got it.

    But I do think that Jackson would have taken his whip to at least three of the occupants of that table.

    I think by the way that Cleveland and others were left out because the groups are supposed to be post 1900 Presidents, with the first Republican and first Democratic president presiding over the table.

    But I have to admit that I figured out who Eisenhower was only after I realized Ford was the sitting (sort of) bald headed guy, and not the standing one.

    kishnevi (437df2)

  56. are supposed to be post 1900 Presidents,

    Or maybe not. I forgot about McKinley.

    kishnevi (437df2)

  57. shaking it up a bit;

    Hmm, do I detect a bit of commentary on Palin, who is for some reason allowing at least two thirds of the table to see her cards?

    kishnevi (437df2)

  58. I think the story is a little more complicated, as for
    the latter point, she’s kind of an open book, yet
    people search in vain, for ulterior motives

    narciso (6075d0)

  59. Narciso–that’s just the Seminole Wars, of which the Trail of Tears not actually a part. The fuller story (which is of course complicated in its own right)is outlined here.

    As to Palin, to me the picture is trying to denigrate her: what sort of fool shows her cards before the end of the hand? Or is she throwing in her hand prematurely. (I can’t quite make out the cards–is that a flush she’s holding?)

    kishnevi (49c4be)

  60. We castigate Israel for being a settler state, we ignore our own roots, not only in Florida, but in
    the West, with Mexico

    narciso (6075d0)

  61. “The Serbs were systematically slaughtering ethnic Bosniaks.”


    Dave Surls (f9cacf)

  62. Yeah, I’ve heard of the Teapot Dome scandal, but I usually call it the Tempest in a Teapot Dome Scandal.

    Politicians trade money for political favors every single day of the week. They always have and they always will.

    What the hell do you think welfare is?

    The liberals steal my money, give it to whoever, then whoever votes for the Democrats. Same thing as a scandal like Teapot Dome, only on a massive scale.

    A couple of guys in the Harding administration were trading favors for money. Gee, how unusual.

    Corporate entities buy pols all the time, it never stops. They give the pols money, the pols pay off by doing favors for the guys who give them money.

    This is the payoff FNMA gets:

    “The FNMA receives no direct federal government aid. However, the corporation and the securities it issues are widely believed to be implicitly backed by the U.S. government.[citation needed] In 1996, the Congressional Budget Office wrote “there have been no federal appropriations for cash payments or guarantee subsidies. But in the place of federal funds the government provides considerable unpriced benefits to the enterprises… Government-sponsored enterprises are costly to the government and taxpayers… the benefit is currently worth $6.5 billion annually.”.[45] Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are allowed to hold less capital than normal financial institutions: e.g., it is allowed to sell mortgage-backed securities with only half as much capital backing them up as would be required of other financial institutions. Specifically, regulations exist through the FDIC Bank Holding Company Act that govern the solvency of financial institutions. The regulations require normal financial institutions to maintain a capital/asset ratio greater than or equal to 3%.[46] The GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are exempt from this capital/asset ratio requirement and can, and often do, maintain a capital/asset ratio less than 3%…”

    Fannie Mae bribes the pols, and the pols pay off.

    Teapot Dome was nothing. Business as usual.

    Dave Surls (f9cacf)

  63. Not only are these paintings horrendously kitsch, they make no sense on a historical level. Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower at the same table as Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes? Wilson the segregator and Truman the de-segregator standing almost side by side? As to Lincoln and Jackson, no wonder they’re turning their backs to the audience, since they’d probably have disavowed most of their so-called “heirs”.

    Triumph, in constructive mode (0692b1)

  64. ““The Serbs were systematically slaughtering ethnic Bosniaks.”


    Comment by Dave Surls — 12/20/2010 @ 7:14 pm”

    Ah, poor Arkan, Karadzic and Milosevic, benevolent fellows unjustly defamed by that liberal media…

    Triumph, in constructive mode (0692b1)

  65. Triumph been thinkin’ hard, and now his head do hurt.

    Icy Texan (2a60b2)

  66. “Ah, poor Arkan, Karadzic and Milosevic, benevolent fellows unjustly defamed by that liberal media…”

    Nah, they’re pretty much scumbags. It’s baloney because the bombing campaign didn’t have anything to do with Bosnia or Bosnians. It had to do with Kosovo and ethnic Albanians.

    And, there was any systematic mass slaughter.

    Dave Surls (71990c)

  67. Wasn’t any systematic mass slaughter, I mean.

    Dave Surls (71990c)

  68. “…they make no sense on a historical level. Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower at the same table as Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes?”

    Hint: It’s because they’re all Republicans.

    Dave Surls (71990c)

  69. @ Dave Surls:

    Hint: It’s because they’re all Republicans.

    I know that, thanks. But Dwight and Theodore were not exactly the same brand of Republican as Richard and the Georgies.

    Triumph, in constructive mode (0692b1)

  70. Triumph, Leviticus was confusing two different bombing campaigns, of two different targets. The NATO campaign against Bosnian Serbs, was of lower intensity and less controversy given that it was targeted against Bosnian Serb militias who did have a history of atrocities. The second campaign was against Serbia/Yugoslavia itself, was in “retaliation” for their much exaggerated atrocities against Kosovo and had more controversy due to its intentional and arguably illegal targeting of civilian infrastructure.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  71. SPQR –

    I wasn’t really confusing the two bombing campaigns – that is, when I said that Clinton bombed the Serbs, I was referring to the 1995 NATO bombing against the Serbian army and their paramilitaries, on the assumption that NATO doesn’t act without America’s go-ahead. There was no indication in Dave Surls’ original comment that indicated that he was referring to the bombing in the Bosnian War vs. the Kosovo War.

    Dave Surls –

    There was systematic mass slaughter of ethnic Bosniaks, at Srebrenica and Markale and elsewhere, during the Bosnian War. It’s well-documented, and you know it. NATO bombed the Serbian army in response, in Operation Deliberate Force. So the bombing campaign – the one I was talking about – absolutely did have something to do with the Bosnians, as a response to their systematic mass slaughter by the Serbs.

    And given the absolute, murderous depravity demonstrated by the Serbs at Srebrenica (from the accounts I’ve read), I would absolutely authorize the bombing of Serbian targets the minute they started talking about ethnic cleansing re: Kosovo (Operation Horseshoe). So what are you disputing, here? That the Serbs never initiated ethnic cleansing campaigns against the Bosnians? Or the Kosovars? Or that we shouldn’t have intervened in either case, because it wasn’t our problem? I disagree with you, in all three cases.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  72. Leviticus, the claims of atrocities by the Kosovars were greatly exaggerated. In fact, the parallel between the Kosovo intervention and the Iraq war is irresistable.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  73. Harding and TeaPot Dome….
    Remember that the SecInt (Falls?) went to jail over this, and nothing ever connected Harding to either TeaPot Dome, or Elk Hills.
    Also, it was Harding who put Coolidge in place to deal with the crash of 20-21 which was one of the best handled recoveries on record – completely unlike what we’re seeing in DC currently.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  74. My bad. I should have made it more clear which op I was talking about. I figured “all-out” would have been enough of a tip-off.

    I stand by my comments about bombing people who never harmed us, while virtually ignoring people who were blowing up U.S. embassies (and attacking our warships, and openly declaring that they were going to kill U.S. citizens at every opportunity). That brilliant strategy eventually cost the lives of almost 3000 Americans on 9/11/01, or at least it was partially responsible.

    I couldn’t care less what the Serbs do in the Balkans. It was none of our business. They weren’t our enemies, and only a complete moron fights people who aren’t his enemies, especially when other people are busy blowing up embassies that belong to you.

    Clinton was a bumbling incompetent…and also, strange as it may seem, probably the best Democrat president of the 20th century.

    And, I stand by my other presidential ratings as well. I was deadly serious about what I was saying, even if I said it in an unserious way.

    Dave Surls (e3a4a0)

  75. A WH imposed operational “deck” of Angels-15 was pure insanity, and just ensured additional “collateral damage”.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  76. “I couldn’t care less what the Serbs do in the Balkans. It was none of our business. They weren’t our enemies, and only a complete moron fights people who aren’t his enemies, especially when other people are busy blowing up embassies that belong to you.”

    – Dave Surls

    Fuck that. They were our enemies. They were rapists and murderers who slit the throats of babies in front of their mothers and laughed about it. If we really stand for the things we claim to stand for – things like respect for life, human dignity and the rule of law – then the Serbs under Milosevic absolutely were our enemies, just like Saddam Hussein in Iraq absolutely was our enemy. The fact that you call the bombing of the Serbs a “mistake” is evidence of an alphabetism you’ve never tried to hide.

    Leviticus (30ac20)

  77. Why is the Penguin sitting next to Andrew Jackson?

    Californio (ff705e)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4112 secs.